Order of verb affixes

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote:
> This brings us back to my original question about IO.  If the IO word
> for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except
> that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN
> rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean
> that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in
> other (locative prefix) *o- verbs?  If not, isn't that evidence that IO
> preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still
> recognized as a unitary root?

Bear in mind that this is an udhu-form in OP, or the analogous iru-form in
IO, not a simple u-form, so the rules are somewhat different than they are
for simple locatives.  I haven't looked to see if I can find other
instances of iru- + reflexive ordering in IO, and I don't have any way to
locate a full paradigm for such forms.  However, in general IO (and Wi)
morphosyntax is pretty close to OP and other languages.  First and second
person follow locatives; inclusive precede.  I think only Dhegiha ever
places the agent inclusive aN(g) (or any other inclusives) after the
i-locative.