OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd)

[Koontz John E]

I laid this aside to reply to after looking into it further and, a month
later, here I am getting to it.  And not a minute too soon, as the
non-historical, non-etymological readers are probably thinking they could
do with a change, and maybe even the historians are ready for something
non-numerical.  Well, this is about plurals, and 'hand' and even 'claw'
come into it near the end, but there are no numerals.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote:
> Rory said:
> Thus, one leg would be /khe/, "elongate", but both legs would be /the/,
> "the set". One eye would be /dhaN/, "globular", but both eyes would be
> /the/.  A single hand, however, is still /the/, I suppose because all
> the fingers composing it are regarded as a set.

I hadn't realized that legs were horizontal, which is sort of interesting
in itself.

Ardis responds:
> Ok, I am not sure about how these were elicited but the pairs of body
> parts associated with a given individual have taken the singular article
> in most of the data I have seen produced naturally.

> Ex. Zhibe kHe abita-a.
>     leg   the touch-Femal command
>    'Touch your leg(s).'

> This is ambiguous between singular and plural.

Well, I certainly agree that shifts in the inanimate articles are often
used to indicate number or, rather, configurational changes that amount to
number.  Dorsey also regularly speaks of =the as a former of collectives.
However, now that I've looked, it appears, contrary to what I might have
expected, that the texts suggest that with body parts this does not
normally occur.  I would hesitate to suggest it never occurs, and I would
also hesitate to guess what the implication would be when it did occur.

I will look at '(lower) leg', 'eye' and 'hand', since Rory suggests those
examples.  I'll list clearly singular examples, followed by ambiguously
singular or plural examples, followed by clearly plural examples.  I won't
always cite the context that makes the number clear.

'leg' Examples from Dorsey:

90:427.15
u'=i                z^i'be=khe=   dhaN
he was wounded (in) the lower leg ???

90:428.8
INs^?a'ge-wahidhe u'=i              z^i'be=khe=   dhaN
IW                they wounded (in) the lower leg ???

I think dhaN in these sentences is acting as the evidential.  Wounding
requires dhaN?  (Side issue I will leave for now!)

90:564.10

kke'ttaNga ... z^i'be=khe=s^ti naNz^a'ge=xti maNdhiNdhiN
Big Turtle     the legs, too   much bent     he was walking about (with)

90:568.10

z^i'be    sihi'=     ge= di
lower leg foot-bones the on
on the feet of the lower (hind) legs

So, 'lower leg', singular or plural, is always =khe 'the horizontal',
except when =ge 'the scattered' is used.  The examples are not
particularly numerous, however, and one might wonder if a turtle's legs
were a different case.

'eye' Examples from Dorsey:

90:24.6
Kki is^ta'=xti=dhaN     u'=bi=ama
and right (in) the eye  he wounded him     (singular)

90:248.7

ista'=dhaN  uga's?iN=bi=ama
his eye(s?) he peeked in (with)

90:314.12
is^ta'=dhaN udhi'bahiN=     s^tes^te=waN
the eye(s?) he pokes you in even if
(maybe the w in waN indicates wa-aN and implies plural?)

90:145.3
is^ta'=dhaN giippi'guguda=bi=                       egaN
her eyes    she repeatedly rubbed holes in the them having

As I understand this, she is rubbing her eyes in disbelief.  I wrote gii-
because Dorsey wrote gi+, though +-lengthening normally seems to indicate
a rhetorical device.

90:171.7  (and similarly in 171.10 anbd 171.11)
eda'be is^ta'=dhaN ze'=awadhe=tta=miNkhe
also   his eyes    I will heal them

90:264.3
is^ta'=dhaN e'dhaNbe gdhiN'=bi=ama
his eyes    visible  he sat
(Big Turtle peeping out of the water)

91:21.4
is^ta'=dhaN    aNdhaNdaNbe=xti
his (own) eyes he has actually seen me with


So 'eye' is always dhaN, singular or plural.


'hand' Examples from Dorsey

90:62.4
gaNkki naNbe'=the a'nasaNda=bi=ama
and    his hand   it closed upon

90:470.8
naNbe'=the e'=dhaNska
a hand     that size

90:97.15
naNbe'=the  aNwaNdhaN=ga
my hand(s?) take hold of me by

90:63.2 (similarly in 63.6)
naNbe'=the s^niNs^niN'de=xti gia'gha=bi=ama
his hands  very greasy       he made them

90:96.4
naNbe'=the i'wikkaNttaN=tte ha
your hands I will tie you to it by

90:235.18
naNbe'=the=s^ti
his hands  also

90:363.4-5 (similarly 364.11, etc.)
PpaNdhiN=dhiNkhe naNbe' etta'=the maa'=sa=bi=egaN
the Pawnee       his hands        they cut off

90:721.1
maNc^hu'-sabe,     naNbe etta'=i=ge j^u'ba aniN'=kki
grizzly-bear claws their hands      some   if you have

91:70.7
naNbe=the was^kaN=aNgi'kkidha=i
our hands we make them active

This last example involves paired hands, but of a group of individuals.


Hands appear to always be =the, except for one case where disassociated,
possibly never associated, paws take =ge.