Proximate/obviative

[VOORHIS at BrandonU.CA]

> If I have understood the discourse so far correctly, it might be
> interesting to look at Muskogean languages.  I will not get into deta=
> ils
> here, since Muskogean isn't Siouan obviously,

Likewise I apologize in advance for posting a few comments on Algonquian to the
Siouan list.  I do so in the hope that the characteristics of the Algonquian
obviative may be a help in recognizing similar phenomena elsewhere.

> but in Muskogean langua=
> ges
> there are two enclitics which could be described as -t 'proximate' an=
> d
> -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.

In many sentences in an Algonquian language, the proximate will be found to
translate the nominative and the obviative will translate the accusative of an
Indo-European, Semitic, or Uralic language that retains such a case system.
There are several differences, though, that reflect the fact that the obviative
is really a secondary-third-person indicator rather than a direct-object
indicator.

First, the obviative indicates a direct object only when another third person,
pronoun or noun, is the subject.  If the subject is a first- or second-person
pronoun, then the proximate forms are used for a direct object.  Accusative
case forms are, of course, used for all direct objects without regard to the
person of the subject.

Second, obviatives can be subjects and proximates can be objects when the focus
is on the object.  The inverse suffix on the verb signals this reversal of more
typical roles.  The situation certainly resembles the passive formations in
some of the nominative/accusative languages except that while the basic object
becomes nominative in a passive construction (viewed as a transformation of an
active), the basic subject can never become accusative, but must be moved into
some other case, such as the instrumental, or become the object of a
preposition.  Accusatives can't be subjects, but obviatives can.

Third, the possession of a third-person possessor must be obviative in
Algonquian.  In fact, we can certainly imagine a language in which either
possessor or possession could be obviative, but Algonquian languages do not
offer the option.  Obviously possessions in case-system languages are never
confined to the accusative case.  Furthermore, the third-person possessor
itself will be proximate or obviative in Algonquian which certainly contrasts
with Indo-European, Semitic, and Uralic languages where there are special
genitive case forms, prepositions, or adjectival forms to identify possessors.

	Paul