Obviate/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

I wonder if I could get an expansion on the discussion below
from John or anyone else doing Dhegihan grammar.  I'm a
student in Mark's Omaha class, and I've been studying the
Dorsey texts for much of this past year trying to make sense
of the language.  Much of it seems clear, but the rules and
meanings of suffixed -bi or -i, and a- prefixed to verbs of
motion, are still thwarting me.  John's explanation of -bi / -i is
tantalizing, but I'd like something a little fuller, plus some
more examples set in a larger context.

Before reading the contribution below, I was working with
the following scheme.  The pluralizing particle equivalent
to Dakotan -pi had shifted regularly to -bi in Dhegihan.  In
recent Omaha, probably in the 19th century, the initial stop
had been slurred away so that it became -i.  In archaic
quoted speech, as in songs, it might still be preserved as
-bi; a good example of both forms in equivalent usage is
found in "The Lament of the Fawn Over its Mother", Dorsey
page 358, with -i in the text and -bi in the song.

However, another particle -bi also existed in Omaha,
which was perhaps an entirely different word, although it
fell in a similar position.  Dorsey has an extensive note
describing this, in the story of Ishtinike being dropped
down a hollow tree, and feigning to be a fat raccoon to
get some women to let him out (I can't locate the reference
at the moment.).  This -bi was a dubitive particle which
meant: "This is my understanding or presumption about
the situation I am describing, but I am not a witness and
hence do not take full responsibility for the correctness
of what I just said".

The dubitive -bi remained -bi, while the rival pluralizing
-bi shifted to -i partly to maintain its functional distinction
from the dubitive.  Being much reduced, the -i would
often just be dropped in sloppy speech, so that the
plurality information would just not be conveyed.

A problem with this is that the -i sometimes shows up
for a singular subject.  The situation may be saved
by postulating another -i particle as well, since the
-i for a singular subject often seems to be used in
cases of accomplished actions that preceded the
current flow of narrative events, or else for actions that
are understood as passive events.  These postulates
are dubious; I'm still sniffing down this trail.


Now as I understand John's explanation, there
is no such thing as dubitive -bi, despite Dorsey's
note and his consistent glossing of singleton -bi
as "they say".  The initial stop is consistently
retained in bi-ama because of the quotative
ama.  Why should this make a difference?
Looking back at Dorsey, it appears that most of
the cases of singleton -bi either preceed
egaN (accented on the second syllable), or
come at the end of a clause.  It would seem
that egaN and ama have a parallel, mutually
exclusive relationship to -bi, however we
interpret -bi.  They are phonologically
similar in being two-syllable words accented
on the second, with an initial vowel.  Is the
conservatory function of ama phonological
in basis?

I understand that third person singular and
plural have merged.  This may be, though
my prejudices are against them having
merge in favor of the plural form.

My model would predict that one could
have pluralizing -i followed by dubitive -bi.
I have not been able to find a case of this
yet, which favors the model John presents
of only one -bi / -i particle.

Now we have the obviate/proximate
distinction.  As I understand the explanation,
a third person verb with -bi / -i is proximate,
while without one it is obviate.  "Obviate"
means something like "off-stage" or
"out of sight".  How does this work in
practical speech?  In describing events
and situations that are not present to the
listener, just what does it mean
for one actor to be "out of sight" or
"off-stage" and the other one not to be?


This has been long.  Thanks for any
thoughts, expansions or clarifications
anyone can offer!

Rory






Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>@lists.colorado.edu on 07/23/2001
06:04:24 PM

Please respond to siouan at lists.colorado.edu

Sent by:  owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu


To:   "'siouan at lists.colorado.edu'" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
cc:

Subject:  RE: Odds & Ends of Ioway-Otoe in Omaha Sources


On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Trechter, Sara wrote:

> Hey John, I've missed something...what do you mean by "a simple
declaration
> (in obviative form)".  It's obviously "the obviative form" that I'm
> curious about.

I'm sorry I was obscure.  I was afraid I was droning on about something
that might not be generally interesting, so I hurried.

> kkettaNga           wa'the         agi'=bi=ama
> big turtle          he struck them he came back QUOTE

This is embedded under (or tagged with) a quotative (=ama), but the verb
is agi=bi 'he comes back', which is the third singular proximate form (in
Omaha-Ponca), homophonous with, or better, identical with, the third
plural.  The form should be pretty recognizable as being like a plural to
a Dakotanist, as =bi compares nicely with =pi.  The quotative conditions
the conservative form =bi of the proximate/plural here.  Otherwise it
would be agi=i.


> es^a=i=dhaN
> you said EVID?

Here's the second person quotation form I mentioned.

> e'  the       agi          ha
> him he struck he came back DECL

This is in obviative form, having no =i ~ =bi with the third singular.
And then the ha (=ha?) is the declarative.  So this means something like
'he-obviative struck him' or 'he-offstage struck him' or 'he-(not seen)
struck him', whereas the first clause would mean 'he-proximate ...', etc.