(in)direct reports in Siouan

[Daniel Altshuler]

Thank for the response John (see below, if/when time allows):

> Both 'to say' and 'to think' that take quotations seem to involve focus
> constructions - the initial e= is a focus marker for the preceding
> quotation.

Do you know if the sentence is ungrammatical if there is no focus marker?
What do you mean by "a focus marker"?

> The form of 'to say' that uses the remote demonstrative usually is used to
> indicate that the quotation follows.

Same question as above: Do you know if the sentence is ungrammatical if
there is no demonstrative? Is *both* a demonstrative and a focus marker
necessary?

I guess, I'm asking the same question as in the previous e-mail: can
speakers of Siouan speakers indirectly report (1) and (2):

(1) John said: "Randy is in Billings."
(2) John thought: "I am going to SCLC."

If not, this would be extremely interesting. If yes, I am very
curious about the grammatical means that a speaker would do so.

> In OP and probably in Dhegiha generally indirect discourse uses a
> different form of the plural/proximate marker.

Different from any other sentence type? Are these the continuative
(aspectual) auxiliaries or the verbal prefixes?

Finally, I wonder about the intonational contour of a (in)direct
report. Since the "say"/"thought" appears at the end of the clause,
is it parenthetical/evidential-like? Though I'm probably English-centric
when I ask this question (not to mention that I'm note clear on the
role of evidentials, semantically speaking, in Siouan).


Thanks!
Daniel

================
Daniel Altshuler
Department of Linguistics
Rutgers University
email: daltshul at rci.rutgers.edu
web: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~daltshul
=========================================


> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Daniel Altshuler wrote:
>> I was wondering if other Siouan languages are subject to the same
>> restrictions.
>
> Um, "No, or, er, I haven't noticed."
>
>> Has anyone done any work on this topic?
>
> If you are interested in this, you have the field mostly to yourself, and
> not because it isn't full of interesting stuff.
>
> In many ways Siouan is virgin soil.  There are languages where no one can
> tell you how relative clauses work.  Actually, outside of Dakotan and more
> recently Crow-Hidatsa, very little is known of the syntax or even the more
> complicated morphological issues.
>
>> Also, I wonder if there are verbs closely related to "said" and "think"
>> (e.g. "tell", "concieve", etc.) that function differently.
>
> Well, 'say' itself is usually quite complex morphologically, with a lot of
> suppletion and strange interactions with the demonstratives (including
> usually 'to say what' as in 'what did he say?').
>
> Both 'to say' and 'to think' that take quotations seem to involve focus
> constructions - the initial e= is a focus marker for the preceding
> quotation.
>
> The form of 'to say' that uses the remote demonstrative usually is used to
> indicate that the quotation follows.
>
> In OP and probably in Dhegiha generally indirect discourse uses a
> different form of the plura/proximate marker.
>
> OP has udha 'to tell' (cf. OP odhaka) which doesn't take direct discourse
> and similarly ez^=iN 'to suspect'.  (If I am recalling the form.)
>
>> For example, is the "said" that is only used in direct reports similar
>> (semantically) to "utter" in English? What about other attitude report
>> verbs like "realize", "believe", "remember", "see", "feel", etc.?
>
> Couldn't tell you.
>
>> Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I was going to say that!
>
>
>


================
Daniel Altshuler
Department of Linguistics
Rutgers University
email: daltshul at rci.rutgers.edu
web: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~daltshul
=========================================