wa- as indefinite-plural-human

[Bryan James Gordon]

I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn
Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence
reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here:

(Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5)
Xubái égaⁿ égithaⁿi ki wébahaⁿ-hnáⁿi he.
sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F
"Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it
of them."

It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a
subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the
subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't
know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate
clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring
3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens
that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa!

Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it?

- Bryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20091207/78fcee26/attachment.html>