10.720, Qs: Proximate/obviative, ...

[Robert L. Rankin]

If I have understood the discourse so far correctly, it might be
interesting to look at Muskogean languages.  I will not get into details
here, since Muskogean isn't Siouan obviously, but in Muskogean languages
there are two enclitics which could be described as -t 'proximate' and
-n 'obviative'.  They have often been described as "subject" and
"oblique" suffixes, but, although -t does most often mark grammatical
subjects, there are suspicious exceptions.  Additionally, the same two
morphemes are used to link clauses where they are often said to mark
"switch reference".  If we treat the two usages as distinct phenomena,
their homophony would be the most bizzare of coincidences.  If we treat
the -t's and -n's as "sames" in both their functions, then one of the
few concepts that unites them is obviation.

Pam Munro's former student, Heather Hardy, did a paper on this some
years back in which she elected to use the terms "central" (for -t) vs.
"peripheral" (for -n).  The concept is very similar though, as far as I
can tell.  In any event, those who are interested in obviation as a
referent tracking grammatical device, should examine the Muskogean data.

Bob Rankin

*******************************

regina pustet wrote:

> ... this functional aspect would, at least theoretically, not preclude the occurrence of coordinated NPs which differ with respect to obviation status. Intuitively, I'd say, something like this is unlikely to occur, but the more I think about it, the more fascinating I find this possibility.