I haven't checked this , but my experience is that postpositional phrases don't take everything that other core noun phrases do, ie they less frequently show the Topic marker ki/k'uN and I don't think iNs^ or iNs^ eya occur with postpositions. I can't envisage a phrase like mni iNs^ el. Rather the pronoun iye can occur giving examples like lena wowakhaN kiNhaN iye el aikichigluthapi 'they tested each other on these holy powers'<br>Bruce<br><br><b><i>REGINA PUSTET <pustetrm@yahoo.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New">> I wonder what the distribution of these Lakhota/Dakota particles is relative to<o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New">"obviation" or "case marking" or whatever else
Lakhota/Dakota has in<o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New">its repertoire.<o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New">To me, there is no evidence for the existence of obviation in Lakota, if we define obviation as a system for manipulating pragmatic perspective. <o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New">As for compatibility of iNs^ with case markers, I don't have too many examples for non-core relations in contrastive position, but I assume that iNs^ goes
with any type of argument, including those marked with postpositions.<o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></div> <div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style=""><font face="Courier New">Regina<o:p></o:p></font></span></div><br><br><b><i>Bryan Gordon <linguista@gmail.com></i></b> wrote: <blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;">Topics can easily be described in Prague-school terms quite simply as<br>"old information." The Japanese topic behaviour generally aligns with<br>contexts where "as for TOPIC" would be possible in English, e.g. "As<br>for yesterday, I went shopping, while as for today, I sewed a dress"<br>or "As for Sally, Harry gave her books, while as for Mary, he gave her<br>plates."<br><br>Japanese ga cannot be translated with "as for", on the
other hand:<br>"#!As for Harry, he slept, not Mary." This, from the Prague-school<br>terminology, is precisely the opposite of a topic: it is a focus, or<br>"new information." We already know that someone slept, the new<br>information is the identity of the sleeper. In the other contexts, the<br>dates and characters are not important, but rather the new information<br>is what is associated with them.<br><br>Of course, to make things even more complicated, both topic and focus<br>have similar syntactic behaviour in many languages. But it is also<br>quite common cross-linguistically to see topics fronted and foci<br>right-edged. Ojibwe is one such language, and so is Finnish. Spanish,<br>too, to a certain extent, right-displaces new and left-displaces old<br>information. In fact, that's precisely what English "as for" does, is<br>moves old information left.<br><br>The sort of focus that contrasts with topic in pragmatic terms should<br>not be confused with the entirely
different cognitive/psychological<br>use of the word focus, which is ironically enough almost never<br>associated with a pragmatic focus and almost always with a pragmatic<br>topic.<br><br>Ojibwe has particles that seem to behave similarly to the<br>Lakhota/Dakota particles mentioned earlier. I know this is the Siouan<br>list, but we've been comparing Algonquian and Siouan during the whole<br>thread, so why stop now?<br><br>One is (i)dash (I believe in Cree this is itahsh), and can be appended<br>to just about any constituent, as long as that constituent is near the<br>left edge. It serves to contrast the constituent before it with<br>something mentioned earlier. Some examples:<br><br>Gii-nagamo dash gii-niimi'iwed<br>PST-sing CTR PST-make.dance<br>While he had them dance, he sang.<br><br>Bezhig onik odanokaazon dewe'iged nagamod. Bezhig idash odanokaazon onik nisaad.<br>One arm he.worked.with drumming singing. One CTR he.worked.with arm killing.<br>He used one arm to
drum while he sang. One arm he used to kill.<br><br>Zhingiben' dash ashkwaandeng gii-niimi. Gomaapii dash gii-dooskaabi<br>a'aw zhingiben'.<br>Hell.diver CTR at.the.door PST-dance. A.while CTR PST-peek D hell.diver<br>Hell-Diver, now, was dancing at the door. After a while he peeked out.<br><br>(i)dash is also contracted onto many other function words to create<br>things like aaniish "well now", awenesh "now, who on earth", miish<br>"now, that's who/what"...<br><br>What these have in common is simply contrast, not topic or focus. In<br>the first example, in fact, dash is appended to the focus (we already<br>knew about the dancing before this sentence), while in the second<br>example there's a topic with idash, and in the third there's a focus<br>again on Hell-Diver, and then a contrastive topic on the elapsing of<br>time. Contrast is not necessarily related to topic or focus, as Rory<br>notes by exploring the two very different contrastive particles
in<br>Japanese.<br><br>The other contrastive particle I'm thinking of in Ojibwe is (i)sa,<br>which is just as common as (i)dash, and is appended to things which<br>could be said to answer contrastive questions, even if the question is<br>not overtly stated. For instance:<br><br>"Wegonesh iw ziing? 'Akawaabin' sa wii nii gigii-inin."<br>"What.CTR D sizzle? 'Watch.out' CTR I you I.told.you<br>"What's that sizzling? I told you 'Watch out'" (not something else)<br><br>Babaa-anokiitaage apane. Mii sa iw ezhi-bimaadizid.<br>Always.going.around-working.for always. FOC CTR D way-she.lives<br>She's always going around working for people. That's the way she lives<br>(and not some other way).<br><br>Sometimes (i)sa just throws extra intensity on something which may not<br>be contrastive in any significant way beyond that it is not what was<br>just being talked about.<br><br>Aw isa niningwan gaa-aawid gagwaanisagakamig gaa-gidimaaginaagozid.<br>D CTR son-in-law PST-was.so awfully
PST-looking.wretched<br>That son-in-law of mine looked awfully wretched.<br><br>Although these things can clearly be used for switch-reference-like<br>effects, much like the proximate -(b)i in Omaha-Ponca, which has<br>little if anything to do with contrast, topic or focus, I'd hesitate<br>to call them that. These contrastive particles also have no<br>distributional restrictions relative to obviation, and can occur on<br>obviatives and proximates alike. Part of the reason -(b)i is called<br>proximate in OP is that it does NOT appear on verbs that agree with<br>obviative subjects. At least, not above margin of error. I wonder what<br>the distribution of these Lakhota/Dakota particles is relative to<br>"obviation" or "case marking" or whatever else Lakhota/Dakota has in<br>its repertoire.<br></blockquote><br><div> </div><hr size="1">Got a little couch potato? <br> Check out fun <a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48248/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz">summer activities for kids.</a></blockquote><br><p>
<hr size=1>
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, <a
href="http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html">sign up for your free
account today</a>.