another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC wrote:
> I was interested in the brief discussion of relative clauses starting
> on p. 11, and especially the structure (22) which shows the Hocank
> relative clause as having an external head:  N-head [null relativizer
> Predicate-Determiner] with the part in [...] being the relative
> clause.

I noticed this, too, and it was on my list of things to ask about when the
opportunity arose.  I'm glad that Catherine asked instead of me, though,
because she did a much better job of phrasing this difficult question and
discussing the pros and cons of it than I would have.  Incidentally, I
believe Johannes has the honor of being the first in print with a
discussion of Winnebago relative clauses.

A separate but connected issue that occurs to me is to wonder to what
extent -ra marks definiteness.  It's something I've wondered about before,
but it hadn't occurred to me that it might influence the analysis of
relative clauses.

> What happens if instead of just "the meat I cooked" (23b) we have "the
> meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked yesterday" -- does "meat"
> necessarily come at the beginning, or can you have orders like [my
> mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat I-cooked determiner]
> where "meat" is a clearly internal head?  If "meat" has to be first,
> it would argue for the external-head structure.

I may have some examples that bear on this, from Lipkind's texts.  As
always, I may have put the length in wrong or done something else wrong
trying to convert Lipkind's notation to Miner's.

p. 59

ku'=niNk=(g)a, [hiaN'c^=ha=ra  ware=hu'= iNgigi'           ]=ra
o grandmother   father  my DEF work come he made me his own  DEF

tuuxu'ruk=    s^aNnaN.
I finished it DEC

Grandmother, I have finished the [work for which my father sent me here].

Strictly speaking, this is a noun clause, but I think the principle is the
same. I think the head is, if anything, ware' 'work'.

p. 58 - a similar case, though the governing verb functions as a
conjunction 'while'.

hiaN'j^=iNhi=wi'=ra  jaagu'    hamiNiNnaN'g=ire'=      ska=naNk=?uN'
father  our      DEF something he sat on    he thought DUB SIT  DO

hiperes=ji'=       naNk=s^e
to know he arrived SIT  QUOTE

Approximately:  "While our father may have thought he was sitting on
something, he had an insight (came to a conclusion? realized something?)."

Lipkind's interlinear is "our father what while sitting on he didn't know
he came to know"

I guess I'd better look further.  Maybe there are some relevant examples
in Radin's texts?

I did notice under subordinating suffixes in Lipkind (p. 41)  some cases
that I took to be relativizations on object with =re.

waniN'k t?e=ra'=        re
bird    die you made it REL?
'the bird that you killed'

naNaN'=tuz=      re
wood   I took it REL?
'the wood that I took'

Apparently not relativized on the object:

pee'c^wac^ kiri=kjanaN=      re
train      it will come back REL
'the train that is to come'