Two object pronouns in a transitive verb

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, SOUP wrote:
> I have been transcribing Buechel's Lakhota version of Bible, phonemizing it
> and supplying it with literal and free translation. During the work I came
> upon a transitive verb with two object pronouns in it:
>
> nima'kahipi (<kahi') = they brought you to me
> (Pilate talking to Jesus, pp. 282; 1924)
>
> I only know the use of two object pronouns in few stative verbs, but I have
> never encountered this kind of construction in a transitive verb (and I
> don't recall it being described in any of the works on Lakhota known to me).

I'd tend to suspect that this form popped into existence to accomodate the
context, but cannot affirm this.

> 6) If it is not regular to use two object pronouns in a transitive verb, how
> would Lakhotas express sentences of the type: "They brought you to me"?

In Omaha I'd expect something like '(they) having me, they came to you',
or something on the order of aN'dhiN s^=athi'=i (or aN'dhiN s^=ahi'=i, or
aN'dhiN s^=agdhi'=i, or aN'dhiN s^=akhi'=i, depending on where there was).
The closest analog I've noticed is aN'dhiN akhi=i 'having me, they went
back'.  The 'to you' sense is regularly expressed, however, by the
proclitic s^u 'thither (near you)', which regularly contracts to s^ before
the a-prefix common in third person plurals (and singulars in OP)  of
motion verbs.

Note that the verb 'to have' is a...dhiN, but the a-prefix regularly
contracts with first person aN as aN'-, hence aN'dhiN, not *aaN'dhiN.  One
might wonder if the a was simply not being heard, but I think not, because
'have for me' is iN'dhiN, not *aiN'dhiN or *e'iNdhiN or *e'aNdhiN.  The
rule for forming datives with or without various locative sequences is to
insert gi or change a vowel (e.g., form aN to aiN or a to e) or vowels.  I
won't go into the details, which are convoluted and depend on the locative
present (or the absence of the locative).  In this case the change shows
that there is no a present, however.  Note that the vowel that changes is
not always the vowel next to the putative slot for any underlying gi,
hence my reluctance to define tha change int erms of contraction with gi,
though this is likely to be the historical origin of the change.  For
example, aNg + a + (putative gi) + stem produces iNg-a-stem.  (This is by
memory, but I htink it's right.)

Anyway, this 'having + Verb of motion' construct is the most common way of
saying 'bring' or 'take' in OP.  The usual equivalent of 'send' is 'cause
+ Verb of motion'.

Note:  iN'dhiN gi=ga! 'having (it) for me come back (male imp)', i.e.,
'bring it for me!'.  This can also be 'bring it (or him) to me'.

Another verb used with verbs of motion is dhighe 'to pursue':  dhighe
athi'=i 'pursuing him they came', etc.

JEK