Strange use of Quapaw article/aux.

[R. Rankin]

> > I haven't seen the inanimate articles conjugated but of course the
> > inanimate ones shouldn't have 1st and 2nd person forms.
>
> I had't either, so I was pretty surprised at the following.  I can't think
> what that a- is if not first person.
> Na!  agdha'the  athe',       e'=     ama.
> Why! I ate mine I must have, said he they say.
> ------------
> Na!  agdha'sniN=kki        az^aN'  athe',      e'=     ama.
> Why! when I swallowed mine I slept I must have he said they say
> jod 1890:63.5-6

I was thinking of those as examples of  -tte/-tta 'potential mode' with the
confusion of th/tt that Dorsey evinced early on.  Quapaw has similar usages,
but they're all transcribed with the symbol JOD used for tt in that language
(around 1890). Quapaw doubles up the tte sometimes, and you find ttaitte and
the like.  They always get some sort of conditional or modal translation.  I
was assuming it was the same morpheme as what we erroniously call 'future
tense' in other words.  I think we agreed a long time ago that it's some sort
of irrealis or potential mode marker derived from 'want' (which meaning it
still has in Hidatsa and Biloxi as I recall).

How confident are you of Dorsey's transcription here?

Bob