<br><tt><font size=2>Hi Dave,</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>I'll offer what I know from Omaha/Ponca. John
Koontz and Bob Rankin may have a slightly different view.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>There are at least four particles that are relevant
to evidentiality: i, bi, tHe and ama. These are all post-verbal,
and to my knowledge, except for i, are only used in the third person.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>The i and bi particles come immediately after the
verb (or in one case in Dorsey, after the noun, in a sentence that didn't
have a verb). For the most part at least, they are mutually exclusive.
Next may come tHe, and ama comes at the end of the sentence.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>The i and bi particles are a bit of a puzzle, and
I've had a lingering debate going on about them with John and Bob since
about 2001 or so. Prior to then, the wisdom seemed to be that they
were simply alternates of the same particle, in which i was just a reduced
form of bi. The two both belong to a small class of post-verbal particles
that cause ablaut; i.e., cause a preceding verb that ends in -e to change
its ending to -a when the particle is present. bi is surely cognate
with Dakotan pi and Winnebago-Chiwere wi, which both are involved in making
the action of the verb plural. In Omaha/Ponca, i is used in some
contexts to mark plurality, as for commanding more than one person, or
any plural declarative (we, you or they). It also seems to be used
in constructions describing general behavior, even to the point of a quasi-passive
sense: "they do it" => "it is done", like Dakotan
pi.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>However, i is actually used most commonly as a third
person singular declarative. In the third person singular, there
is apparently a subtle difference in meaning, depending on whether the
verb is followed by i or not. John Koontz has proposed the distinction
of "proximate" vs. "obviative" for this, with the subject
being "center stage" for the proximate (with i), and "off-stage"
for the obviative (without i). My sense is that you use i when you
focus on the action as a narrative event, and do not use i when you want
to make the listener visualize the verbal action as a condition or context,
as when a character encounters someone else doing something. In modern
Omaha, declarative i has been truncated off, and only the -e verbs ablauted
to -a remain. Our modern speakers overwhelmingly prefer the -a form
as normative for third person singular. They generally explain that
the -e form is present and the -a form is past. This explanation
makes some sense if the -e form declares condition and the -a form declares
narrative event.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>At any rate, the i particle was used declaratively
for events directly experienced, or at least not doubted by the speaker,
as you describe for Biloxi naxo. In contrast, the bi particle is
used when the speaker wants to raise the preceding material to an idea
or hypothesis to be considered, rather than declaring it to be the straight
goods on the speaker's own authority. This includes anything that
is hearsay, as well as cases where in English we might use "the supposed",
"the alleged", "the putative", or such and such a hypothesis
or idea.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>The ama particle is closely tied to bi, in the very
common form: [Sentence] bi-ama. This is the way most sentences narrating
the actions of mythological characters end. However, bi, like i,
seems also to imply narrative action rather than visualized condition.
Many sentences visualizing condition do not end in a regular verb
at all, but in a positional which tells how a scene is laid out. In
this case, no bi or i is used. For a declarative on the speaker's
own authority, the positional ends the sentence. But when visualizing
a scene from a mythological account, the positional is followed by ama.
Thus, the ama particle largely equates to your Biloxi kane, to refer
to 'hearsay', or things 'not experienced'.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>When a narrative sentence is composed of multiple
clauses, the clauses before the end may end in i or bi prior to the conjuction.
In the older speech pattern that is usual in the mythological stories
recorded by Dorsey, these clauses would normally end in bi for mythological
narrative, and only the final clause would end in bi-ama. Later,
I think already in some of the material recorded by Dorsey, the entire
biama package would sometimes be used to end prefinal clauses. In
modern Omaha, the two particles tend to be fused, and it seems to be uncommon
for them to be used separately. In fact, even the meaning of 'hearsay'
in current usage is in doubt. I have had speakers insist that biama
is simply the required declarative form in some cases (I forget- I think
it was plural, past, or both).</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>The remaining particle is tHe. This one is also
a bit of a puzzle, and seems to me to have changed its meaning. John
Koontz refers to it as EVID in his analyses: the evidential particle. Modern
speakers back him up. In this case, [Sentence] i tHe means [Sentence]
*evidently* took place; *apparently* [Sentence] happened. This is
different from the kane-naxo axis of distinction. naxo: "it's
so, straight goods, take it from me"; kane: "this is what
the story says"; tHe: "this is probably the case, given
the evidence at hand".</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Most of the time in Dorsey, however, tHe seems to
be a straight-goods declarative that something has happened. I see
it as something of a perfective marker that throws the action into the
past prior to the time of the narrative in such a way as to affect conditions
at the time of the narrative. It can be used after i, or between
bi and ama.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>For 19th century Omaha/Ponca:</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>[Sentence] i ha/he. Straight-goods declaration
of action.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
(ha and he are respectively male and</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
female emphatic/declarative particles.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
These seem to have become "old-people"</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
speech in the early 20th century and</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
dropped out of the language along with</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
the preceding i, leaving only -e verbs</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
ending in -a to mark the lost i in</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
20th century Omaha.)</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>[Sentence] i tHe. [Sentence] has happened;
straight goods.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
(In 20th century Omaha, this means</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
[Sentence] has *apparently* happened.)</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>[Sentence][positional]. Picture [Sentence],
laid out as</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
[positional],
straight goods.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>[Sentence][positional] ama. Picture [Sentence],
laid out as</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
[positional],
that's the story.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>[Sentence] bi ama. This is what he did, according
to the story.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>[Sentence] bi tHe ama. This is what someone
had done,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>
according to the story.</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Hope this helps! I'll post this to the list,
in case other Dhegihanists have any comments to add.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Best,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Rory</font></tt>
<br>