Another (?) Omaha particle.

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote:
> If I'm right, that would make the -gi- part cognate with Dakotan (and Tutelo)
> ki(N) 'def. article'.  Does that make sense?  The particle is certainly -gi-
> since the conjugation is egimaN, egiz^aN, egaN, isn't it?

Yes, it's definitely gi, per the logic Bob presents.  This parallels
e=gi=...he 'to say to'.  But given the (sometimes omitted in translation)
'to him/her' implied by the gi in e=gi=...he 'to say to one' and in
e=gi=...aN 'to be thus to one (be like one)', I've always made this the
dative, in spite of its weird pre-pronominal position.  I don't have the
examples at hand, but there are bi-personal cases like 'I am thus to you,
I am like you'.  I'd expect 'I say to you', too, but don't remember at the
moment if the texts have examples.

JEK