Locative Postpositions

[Robert L. Rankin]

Thanks to John for his interesting discussion and examples of the
predicative use of *?e:, the general demonstrative.

> > JOD1890:77.9  wi'=e=bdhiN 'it is I'
> > JOD1890:22262.15:  dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you'
> > JOD1890:113.7:  e'=e he 'it is he DECf'

Cf. Kansa be?e?e: 'who is it' (responding to a knock at the door).

The demonstrative seems to have an underlying glottal stop that shows up
in various contexts.

> I recorded this latter example myself and concur with Dorsey that it
> cam across as an enclitic.  The pattern of omitting what I might
> characterize as 'be' and other auxiliary verbs with the third person
> is general in Omaha-Ponca.  For example, =xti 'very, true' requires an
> inflected auxiliary support maN 'I use', z^aN 'I use' in the first and
> second person, but this is omitted (usually, not always) in the third.

In Omaha, does this latter verb really mean 'use'.  Given its meaning in
other Dhegiha dialects, I'd have expected it to mean 'do'.  I thought it
was only Dakotan that had screwed up the semantics/morphology of *?u~

Proto-Siouan *?u:~ seems to be translatable as either 'do' or 'be'.  The
verb 'use' is, etymologically speaking, the verb 'do' with the usual
instrumentive prefix i-.  'To do with' = 'to use' of course.  This results
in a verb that is variously i-?u~ or (as in Biloxi and some other langs.)
simply yo~.  'To use' really ought to have the i- prefix (except in
Dakotan where the two verbs simply conjugate differently).

Bob