Strange use of Quapaw article/aux.
Koontz John E
John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU
Fri Jun 9 05:19:07 UTC 2000
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote:
> Since you were discussing this earlier, I figured that what this was. What I
> find strange is the part about agreeing with "the evidence". I think I need
> to understand that a little better.
> > E=di ahi=bi=ama=kki, t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama.
> > There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say.
> > jod 1890:178.5
>
> But it isn't an exact equivalent since the person in the horizontal position
> is subject of the clause in the Omaha example, but not in the Quapaw one.
> > I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of
> > the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work)
> > that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion.
> > Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or
> > something else). Sometimes it's merely implicit.
>
> I hope we can pin it down better than that. See this is what happens when we
> get off into discourse. I still hope it will turn out to be more grammatical
> than "merely implicit." Too much wiggle room there.
Perhaps if there were any question whether such things existed, but the
numerous *the* examples show they do. Flexibility can be a fault in an
analysis, but I'm not sure it's a fault in a grammar. Difficult to learn,
maybe! In these examples I've stuck with khe or dhaN. The more numerous
*the* examples are coniderably harder to analyze. For one thing, *the*
seems to be a favored or default choice. For another, it's very hard to
tell what *the* might be referring to, even if there's an NP with a *the*
article in the context. It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while
"*khe* might refer to durative events. Of course, *khe* often does refer
to a constituent NP or some aspect of the verbal action not represented as
an NP, and I suppose *the* must often do so, too. The problem is that
*the* and *dhaN* are not very "marked" articles, though *khe* and *ge*
are, referring here to frequency of occurrence.
Subject agreement:
jod 1890:35.3
si=khe snede'=axti=hnaN=i=khe
the foot(print) was always very long
jod 1890:32.1
ppa'hewadhahuni wiN e=di=khe=ama
a man-eating hill was lying there
An object:
jod 1890:222.4
ihe'=dha=bi=khe=ama
it {an arrow] had been placed (or mounted) [on a wall], they say
[*ihe'* also refers to the arrow's shape.]
Probably a reference to the implicit action of the verb
jod 1890:379.7
ni'as^iNga j^u'ba sigdha'=bi=khe=ama
some persons left a trail in a long line, they say
[shape attributed to the trail]
jod 1890:148.5
du'ba z^aN'=bi=khe=ama
four it as sleeps (days), they say
[or perhaps to the set of four?]
Perhaps a reference to the trail/path evidencing the departure?
jod 1890:58.19-59.1
a'khi=a'gdha=i=khe
they [group of people at a dance] have gone home
[khe because of the set?]
jod 1890:149:7-8
agdha'=bi=khe=ama
they say he had gone homeward
[but not here]
Clearly a reference to the feather, but NP perhaps an object.
jod 1890:52.6
hiNxpe' wiN udhi'xpadha=bi=khe=ama
a feather had fallen (he had discarded it by hand)
To a distant subject:
jod 1890:116.3-4
waba'gdheze z^iN'ga ... "..." a'=bi=dhaN=ama
manual [when clause] [quotation] it said, they say
"When he had read the manual, it told him he would get a gun."
Who knows?
jod 1890:17.14
wasa'be ghage'=xti=hnaN naNz^iN'=bi=khe=ama
black bear just crying hard he stood there, they say
[perhaps the duration of time?]
When we have parallel examples of =bi=the=ama and =bi=khe=ama and
=bi=dhaN=ama, I think we can take it that they are doing similar things,
but differ somehow by "gender." There are also parallel =tta=the and
=tta=khe as 'futures of surity', and parallel uses of =(i)=the=(di) and
=(i)=khe=(di) as 'when', and parallel uses of =the and =khe and =ge with
locative predicates. This inclines me to understand =(i)=the and =(i)=khe
as parallel, too.
More information about the Siouan
mailing list