Quapaw wa-a- '1pl patient'.

[Koontz John E]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, R. Rankin wrote:
> > 'tell us'         u-a'wa  gi-dha
>
> Wouldn't this be [wa'wagidha] on the surface?

I don't know what moitivated Dorsey to record it in this fashion.  I have
to assume he heard a difference between ua' and wa, but I don't have this
form from elicitation.  He also records first person agents as ua'..., so
he is consistant.

On the other hand the Hahn ms. grammar of Ponca records first person
agents as uwa:'-.  Many verbs in u- don't take -wa- 'them' with plural
objects.  Hahn gives uwa:'thiN 'I hit them'.  Unfortunately, she doesn't
give 'I hit him', but most other 'I > him' forms on regular first persons
are also uwa:'-, e.g., uwa:'gas^a 'I travelled', so we can't assume
u-wa-a-.  She also doesn't give 'he his us'.  The form labelled 'he hit
us' is actually 'he his you', and it looks like in copying an earlier form
of the paradigm she collapsed these two lines, which would have been in
succession.

In the abstracted paradigm (no attached verb), p. 77, she does give (u)wa-
'I > him', but (u)wa:'- 'I > them' and (u)wa:'- 'he > us'.

Interestingly, she never gives u-awa- for 'he us'!  For example,
uwa:'bitaN=i 'he dipped us into', but u:'bitaN=i 'he dipped them into'.
This last is one of the verbs that doesn't take -wa- in 'them' forms, but
only lengthens the initial.  Note also aN:'gubitaN=i 'we dipped them
into'.  Here presumably *wa-aNg-o-pithaN=(p)i.

Her discussion of the causative is quite abbreviated and doesn't include
objects, so I don't know if she encountered P12 a-wa- with them.

JEK