<html><body>
<p><tt>>> For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can<br>
>> be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for<br>
>> clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's<br>
>> older brother HE shot a deer".<br>
><br>
> Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>I might have to read through a few Dorsey stories to find one, so let me</tt><br>
<tt>temporarily retract the above statement until I do. But yes, I think we</tt><br>
<tt>could probably call it a focus marker. I'm assuming this is the same as</tt><br>
<tt>the generic deictic e which can stand alone.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt><br>
>> For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old<br>
>> declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages<br>
>> I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be<br>
>> responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i.<br>
><br>
> I bewlive -e occurs after verbs, too, in Biloxi, when it is the clause is<br>
> focussed.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>If we accept that Biloxi -di arises from -e, with preceding epenthetic r,</tt><br>
<tt>-(r)e, with raising of e to i and shifting of r to d, then yes, it's very</tt><br>
<tt>common after verbs in some stories.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> I still see the plural markers as something else, even when<br>
they mark proximate singulars.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>I acknowledge that. Let me take a stab at summarizing our two models for</tt><br>
<tt>the OP bi and i particles.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Model 1. In proto-MVS, there was a pluralizing particle *pi, or perhaps</tt><br>
<tt>*api. In OP, this particle diverged into two functionally different</tt><br>
<tt>particles, bi and i, in which the latter lost the initial /p/. The i</tt><br>
<tt>particle was retained for pluralizing, while the bi particle was used</tt><br>
<tt>for reporting hearsay. This development affected only OP.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Model 2. In proto-MVS, there were three particles, *a, *e, and *pi.</tt><br>
<tt>*e was a declarative or focus marker that came at the end. *a may</tt><br>
<tt>have been the original augment, or some particle conveying a third</tt><br>
<tt>party active sense. *pi may have been a "softening" particle used</tt><br>
<tt>for hearsay, generalizing, or politeness. *a came directly after</tt><br>
<tt>the verb, and could be followed either by *e or *pi. *pi was used</tt><br>
<tt>only after *a, but *e could come alone directly after the verb. The</tt><br>
<tt>possibilities were: [Verb]-e; [Verb]-a-e; [Verb]-a-pi. The [Verb]-a-e</tt><br>
<tt>combination needed an epenthetic separation, which developed as</tt><br>
<tt>[Verb]-a(y)e, [Verb]-aiye, [Verb]-aire. In Winnebago, the latter</tt><br>
<tt>form was retained for 3rd person plural; in OP, the final -e syllable,</tt><br>
<tt>together with its epenthetic consonant, was generally dropped, leaving</tt><br>
<tt>[Verb]-ai. At the same time, the /a/ was generally lost whenever</tt><br>
<tt>the verb stem ended in a vowel. Its third party active, augmentive,</tt><br>
<tt>semantic sense was shifted onto the sound that followed it, which</tt><br>
<tt>could be either *=pi or *=i(re). These two secondary augments</tt><br>
<tt>developed differently in different branches of MVS, with *=pi</tt><br>
<tt>completely taking over in Dakotan; *=pi being used as the augment</tt><br>
<tt>in most positions of Winnebago with *=ire retained for 3rd person</tt><br>
<tt>plural; and *=i(re) used as the action or augment marker in OP,</tt><br>
<tt>with *=pi being retained for marking hearsay and hypothesis.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I'd consider either of these models possible, and on the table.</tt><br>
<tt>Model 2 has been developing gradually in my mind for some years,</tt><br>
<tt>and it owes a lot to ideas that you have suggested on this list,</tt><br>
<tt>including *a as an action/agentive marker, *e as a focus marker,</tt><br>
<tt>and the minimal-augment paradigm. It does not have the advantage</tt><br>
<tt>of having been vetted by the very broad and rather deep knowledge</tt><br>
<tt>of all the Siouan languages that you and Bob have at hand.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt><br>
>> So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and<br>
>> -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun?<br>
<br>
> Or, if it followed a verb where a declarative wasn't appropriate, then it<br>
> could be a nominalizer or clause final focus marker.<br>
<br>
> Apart from our perennial divergence on *=pi we seem to be on the same<br>
> page!<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>Yay!</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Rory</tt><br>
</body></html>