GRAMMAR QUESTION

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Jimm G GoodTracks wrote:
> I have a question, which seems never to have been resolved by IOM texts
> nor informants.

I'll answer, but hope everyone will feel free to jump in.
 
> Namely, the phrase:  "to have to".  Have you come accross it in PO texts?

Yes.  It's rendered with the future and various other particles with
modal functions.  

For example the variant future rendered 'shall surely' by Dorsey - the
future of surity, which expresses a secure prediction.  This version is
the future (tte), in its a-grade (tta) without the accompanying positional
auxiliary, and followed by the evidential marker (the), or at least I
assume it is the same evidential the that appears as the alone at the end
of sentences in the sense 'must have, seems to have, apparently'.  In
combined form is:  =tta=the.  

There's another enclitic =as^e (ashe) that occurs with the future in a
similar sense glossed 'ought' by Dorsey.  I think this expresses something
that would be a good idea.  It also occurs with the future, and takes the
forms =tt=as^e ~ =tt=ab=as^e (singular vs. plural or proximate).  Here
I've placed the enclitic boundary markers (=) to suggest that the a comes
from an a organic to the following enclitic.  Rankin has suggested this
makes the most sense in interpreting the behavior of the plural, even in
Dakotan.  It works fairly well in OP, the only problem being a few things
that sometimes act like they have a, and sometimes not, e.g., =(a)di 'in'
or =(a)tta 'to'.

Then there's e=the after the verb, rendered 'ought' by Dorsey, which seems
to imply probability.  There's a variant a=the which occurs with some
first persons, but I don't know if it's actually a first person form, or
just chance.  It may be that the =the enclitic is actually =athe.  It
doesn't seem to affect e=the, but e as a verb doesn't usually ablaut. 

I'm not sure at all that I understand all the distinctions expressed with
these various forms, some of them obviously extend beyond what would be
'must' or 'have to' in English.  
 
> While, it can frequently be rendered by "to be going to/ will~shall"
> (hnye), the latter will not always be appropriate.
> 	I have to go to town/ I will go to town,	=China je hnye
> ke.
> 	I have to (must) work (is not the same as)  I'm going to/ will
> work.
> 
> In Spanish, the phrase is rendered "tener que".  What can you say as per
> Siouian?

Possessive verbal formations like '(one) to have (it) to (do)' and the
prepositional equivalent, 'to be to (one) to (do it)' are common sources
of obligational constructions in world languages.  However, such
constructions don't seem to occur in Siouan languages.