Quapaw Articles (Re: Historical Explanation for *pi)

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, R. Rankin wrote:
> Don't forget that Quapaw lacks the -akha and -apa set (they have the/a
> second -(a)pa marker) entirely.  There is little doubt that the positionals are
> the original set, with -akha, -apa as add-ons.  Logically, of course, Quapaw
> could have been the one to lose the two rather than the other 4 gaining
> morphemes, but when this sort of loss occurs, it virtually always leaves traces,
> and I've found none.

I assume the parenthetical remark refers to that =ma collective plural for
animate obviatives?

This pattern with articles looks like it would be a major isogloss in
Dhegiha dialectology.