Strange use of Quapaw article/aux.

[R. Rankin]

Koontz John E wrote:

> 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.

I'm not suggesting that.  I'm not even sure that at the stage we're at one can even
fault the analysis.  You've demonstrated clearly that these constructions exist.
What I find unclear is still whether or not they are evidentials.  If we already
have an evidential construction with approximately the shape {-abiama}, then what
does the addition of the positional {-the, -khe, -dhaN, -ge} in the middle add to
that?

It is clear that {-the}is the unmarked positional, in that it's the one that occurs
with nominalized verbs, subordinated clauses and so forth.  But what's its function
in these present cases?  Evidential, incipient tense, classification, what?  {-khe}
is the one I remember getting from Mrs. Rowe when I changed a present tense English
sentence into a past tense equivalent.  At the time I thought she might be forcing
a grammatical distinction that didn't really exist in Siouan.  I think we should be
looking at/for distinctions beyond that of "evidential".


> It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while "*khe* might refer to durative
> events.

That's the general sort of thing I'm thinking about.


> 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?]
>

That's a baffling one, certainly.


> 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."

Right, but probably not as evidentials, unless there are "by sight", "by sound"
etc. evidentials, something I don't think is the case in Dhegiha.

BTW, are these connected to the conjugated auxiliaries, mikhe, nikhe, athaNhe,
adhiNhe, etc.?  They don't seem to be to me (following -abi as they do), but my Kaw
and Quapaw data are a lot sparser.

Thanks again for the many examples.  At least no one can say there's no more to do
in Dhegiha grammar!

Bob