dhaN 'past' in OP

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

John wrote:
> I've been looking at =dhaN glossed "past" or "in the past" in the Dorsey
> texts.  I'd say that it can be glossed something like "used to," though
> this is not really in the glosses Dorsey offers.  He always says "in the
> past" or just "(past)."

We had a discussion some months ago about OP =the.  I felt that this
particle represented action accomplished, and could be used as the
"had" particle in English, as in "They had gone."  (What is that--
the pluperfect??)  John and Bob considered it to be the "evidential"
particle, and I got put in my place when the speakers agreed with
them.  Later, I think John pointed out that "action accomplished"
type constructions often evolved into evidentials.

Anyway, my feeling for the Dorsey texts is that =the does not work
well there as an evidential, but that it does work in parallel
contrast with =dhaN in both spatial and temporal dimensions.
=the refers to a precise spot as a location, or to a specific point
or accomplished action in time, while =dhaN refers to a general
area in space or to a general period in time.  If =dhaN references
a period of time in a sentence stating a reality, "past" would seem
to be implied.

OP =hnaN can be glossed as "just" or "only" when it modifies a noun,
but when it comes after a verb it seems to mean that the action is
ongoing or especially repetitive.  I think the intent is to place
the listener's focus right in the middle of it.

I'd parse John's =dhaN sentences as follows:

>"... e'=di dha'=zhi=a he," ehe' dhaN', s^aN' s^i'              e'gaN, ...
>     there dont't go  DEC  I said PAST yet   you arrived there having
>
>     Don't go there, I [used to] say, and just as soon as you got there
     ...

Or: "there don't=go EMPH" I=said during=that=period=of=time=preceding=
                            your=disobedience,
                                 yet you=went=there
                                         that=having=taken=place,
                                                        ...

     Don't go there, I had told you [over a period of time], yet you went!
                                         that=having=happened, ...



> "NaN'ppa=hi=      ge= dhaN wiN iN'dhiNgi=ga,"            a=bi=ama
> chokecherry bush the PAST one come back with one for me he said
>
> "Get me one of the chokecherry bushes about [like you used to]," he said.
>
> Preceding sentence:  walk to seek medicine for me

Could this be:
 "chokecherry=bushes the=scattered in=that=area one bring=me"
                                         he=reputedly=said

 "Bring me one of the bushes from the chokecherry patch."

By this interpretation, =dhaN would refer to an area, rather than a
period of time.


> WakkaN'dagi=  khe=dhaN wi' t?e'=adhe," a'=bi=ama
> water monster the PAST I   I killed him he said
>
> "It's I who killed the water monster [that there used to be]," he said

Or:
water=monster the=longitudinal in=the=[past]=period=of=time=that=you=
                          know=about
                    I=myself I=killed=him.

It's I who killed the water monster that existed in that [past]
                                   period of time.



> "Ppahe'=wadhahuni    ujna'=      khe= dhaN t?e'=adhe,"  a'=bi=  ama
>  Hill   he eats them you told it CONT PAST I killed him he said QUOT
>
> I have killed (the) Devouring Hill that you [used to] tell of," he said.

Or:
 Devouring=Hill you=told=about=it the=lying in=the=[past]=period=of=time=
                                         that=you=know=about
                                    I=killed=him

I killed the Devouring Hill you told about that existed in that [past]
                                   period of time.

I think this is actually the same as the one above it, but with a
subordinate clause between the noun and the =khe.



> "Ni'as^iNga=ama e'=di hi'=       hnaN=dhaN=di,
>  Person     the there he arrived only PAST LOC
>
>  w[a]a'dhahuni=hnaN=i he,?" a'=bi=ama.
>  he ate them   only   DEC   she said
>
> "[It used to be that] if a person just showed up he'd just eat them," she
> said.

Or:
"Person the=multiple there arrive REPETITIVE PAST=PERIOD LOC,

 he=ate=them REPETITIVE DEC EMPH" she=reputedly=said.

"Whenever people would go there, he would eat them."

> Unfortunately, what I really have here is a deceptively simple sentence
> that I don't understand the syntax of.

> Note also that here we have s^naN ~ hnaN ~ naN cooccurring with dhaN,
> showing that they are different.

I'm pretty sure that the hnaN=dhaN=di here is equivalent to our word
"whenever" in referring to a past condition, and if we accept that,
the rest of the syntax falls into place.  The fact that =hnaN and
=dhaN cooccur doesn't actually prove that they are different in
meaning: sometimes one might use two equivalent terms to produce a
third term with a specialized emphatic sense.  However, I agree that
they are different here.  =dhaN indicates the past period of time,
and =hnaN implies that the action is repetitive.  In fact, I would
group them separately:

     (Ni'as^iNga=ama) (e'=di (hi'=hnaN))     (dhaN=di),
     (The=people)     (there (would=arrive)) (in=that=period),
Or:  (The=people)     (there (would=arrive)) (when),



> "Mm!  S^e' c^?e'=dhe u'daN=akh=ama=dhaN.
>
>  Mm!  It [used to] be a good thing [difficult?] to kill that [kind].

This one throws me.  I'm not sure how to understand the =akh=ama here,
which I would normally read as "this is the one (subject), they say."
Suggestions?


Rory