Incorporation

[Robert L. Rankin]

> That's the pattern in OP (aNmaN'dhiN), though in Dakotan uN is infixed. 
> In OP both maN=...dhiN 'walk' and maN=...dhaN 'steal' extrapose the
> inclusive, resulting in a pattern like the locative one (in Dakotan). 

Same in Kansa.

> In a purely infixing pattern OP insets not just 1st and 2nd, but also
> the inclusive, cf. mu=a'se, mu'=dhase, mu=aN'se 'I/you/we cut with a
> shot'.

Some may not recognize that mu- here is an "outer" instrumental.  So I
personally don't regard this as infixing in any sense.  For me a true
infix must come between two non-grammatical parts of the stem and
locatives and instrumentals wouldn't count.  They're just prefixes in the
usual prefix order.  The ma- of 'walk' and 'steal' isn't.

> 'Walk' and 'steal' are the only two verbs of non-locative origin in OP
> that behave like locative verbs, as far as I know. 

How about 'cough'?  I seem to recall other interesting verbs from my Kansa
and Quapaw materials, but I'll have to check more thoroughly.

> Mind you, locatives don't behave consistently like Dakotan locatives in
> OP, so sometimes the wa patient inclusive follows a locative (u), and
> sometimes the aN agent inclusive does (i).  Also, a and aN of various
> first person and inclusive person pronominal origins move to before any
> wa or we, etc., if the position they move from is not too deeply buried. 
> In general, they move out of a post-locative slot, but not out of a
> post-preverbal slot, e..g., not out of a causative.

Right.  Or a positional AUX.  What I was emphasizing in my previous post
was that the inclusive (u~-, u~k, etc.) ROUTINELY fails to occupy the same
prefixal slot as 1st and 2nd sg. in numerous Siouan languages.  Thus, in
studies of incorporation, where verbal prefixes occurring before an
incorporated element are important evidence, the inclusive verb forms make
an important contribution that the other pronominals sometimes can't. 

When I did a conference paper on the inclusive (and 1st pl.) in the Siouan
family several years back, I discovered much to my chagrin that many field
workers (including sometimes yours truly) hadn't bothered to elicit these
forms, thinking they could be predicted from the 1st or 2nd person form. 
As John correctly points out, they can't be.  

Bob