Verb auxiliaries.

[Robert L. Rankin]

> Well, in fact, the articles themselves, or at least articulate uses of
> these whatever they ares, can also be inflected.  It depends on
> whether you want to call the occurrences after relative clauses
> articles, and I do.  For example:

> PpaNkka=mas^e! 'Oh ye Poncas!'

That's really interesting.  I hadn't noticed these constructions, and if I
had, I'd probably have assumed the s^e was the mid-distal demonstrative
that is homophonous.  But I bet you're right.

> I believe there are non-vocative occurrences, though vocatives provide
> a natural context for the second person cases.

> After contemplating Catherine Rudin's assessment of the situation, I
> believe I agree with her that these forms (akha and ama) are, in
> effect, suppletive, and employ the personal forms of dhiNkhe in the
> first person, etc.

As post-verbal particles, I think that would be my analysis in Kansa too,
with perhaps additional AUXes being substitutable also.  In other words,
-akha and -aba are suppletive with several different 1st and 2nd person
AUX forms?  Is that possible while still calling it 'suppletion'?  It
certainly broadens the definition.  In Kansa it looks like the "first
person" of -akha could be either miNkhe or ayiNhe (for sitting or moving)
at least -- maybe others.  Something to check out in the other languages.

> It would be interesting to know more about the Quapaw situation.  I
> guess I'd better dig out Bob's sketch of a few years ago.

It should actually appear in the vol. edited by Heather Hardy and Janine
Scancarelli on SE languages someday.  In the meantime, xeroxes by request.
There's a longish Dorsey text at the outset in which you can see the
absence (!) of -akha.

Bob