Obviate/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

John, thanks so much for your long reply to my lengthy question.  I hope
that didn't cost you your whole Saturday!
You've given me a lot to chew on, and I'll need a while to digest what you
said in consultation with Dorsey.  For now, a few thoughts from the hip:

>> 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".

> I wonder if this was a case with =the (~ =khe ~ dhaN ~ =ge) as an
> 'evidently' evidential to describe something that must be concluded from
> the context, but wasn't actually witnessed?  Anyway, I know the text, and
> I'd be interested in the comment.

> This story is the part of the Trickster cycle where buzzard, having been
> insulted by the Trickster after agreeing to fly him across a stream,
drops
> him into a hollow tree.  The Trickster gets some women out collecting
wood
> to cut a hole and let him out by pretending to them to be a fat racoon.
> In the Dorsey texts, see pp. 74-78.  (Note that there's a reference to an
> Oto version to be published in a projected collection of Chiwere texts.
> It is said to have been given by J[oseph] LaFle(s)che.  I don't think
I've
> ever seen this text in manuscript or otherwise.)

> The only note here is one that says that in wedhe t[h]i=bi=ama the bi=ama
> refers to the thought of IshtiniNkhe and must not be rendered "it is
> said."  The full clause is produced as IshtinNkhe is stuck in the tree
and
> runs "'Ni'ashiNga we'dhe thi=bi=ama,' edh=egaN=bi=ama".  "'People
> seeking-wood they-arrive-QUOTE,' he-thought-QUOTE."  This is certainly
> interesting in terms of the semantics of the quotative, but I'm pretty
> sure it's not the note Rory has in mind.  From personal experiences of
> this sort I'd guess he has the locations of several interesting =bi=ama
> notes mixed!

Actually, the note I had in mind was the one right below the one you
discuss.  This references page 75, line 14-15.  Ishtinike has just spoken
to the women from inside the tree, as follows: "Mika' taN'ga bthiN' ha" --
"I am a big raccoon.  Make [the hole] big around."  One woman says to the
other: "HiN!  shikaN', Mika' akha' taNga'-bi ai he" -- "Oh! sister-in-law,
he says he is a big raccoon!"  This uses -bi with respect to the
information the "raccoon" has offered about himself, and -i with respect to
the fact, clear to both women, that he has said the thing the woman is
repeating.  The note on page 77 says:

     75, 14. mika akha taNga-bi ai he.  She had perceived by the sense of
hearing
     (taking _direct cognizance_) that he had said this, so she says "ai"
instead of "a-biama."
     But she did not learn by direct cognizance that he was large, she
learned it _indirectly_,
     so she says "taNga-bi," not "taNga."

I've run into another line and note that seem to say the same thing.  In
the story, "How the Rabbit Killed the Black Bears," page 16, line 4-5, we
have: "GaN'khi a'shi adha'-biama' Wasa'be ama', ni'kashiNga'-bi edhe'gaN-bi
egaN' " -- "And so the Black Bear went outside, they say, thinking that
they were people".  In this case, we have -bi appended directly to the
noun, and precisely to the noun of the false assumption, since these
"people" were actually the Rabbit's own faeces giving the scalping cry.
The note on page 18 says:

     16, 5. niashiNga-bi edhegaN-bi egaN.  The -bi after niashiNga shows
that the Black
     bear, while he thought that there were men outside, had not seen them.
[...]

In both of these cases, -bi seems to make very good sense if understood as
modifying the foregoing with the caveat of "presumably" or "supposedly" or
"seemingly".  Dorsey, or whoever wrote the notes, certainly seems to have
believed that this was the sense.

Another argument in favor of dubitive -bi is that is that it nicely
explains why -bi is so rare in the dialogues, while it absolutely infests
the narrative.  In telling a myth, the speaker is constantly trying to
distance himself from responsibility for the truth of the tale, and
consequently tends to qualify every main verb of a clause with the caveat
-bi, "supposedly".  In dialogue, one usually knows well enough whereof one
speaks, and hence feels no need to -bi everything.  It would also explain
the close association between -bi, "supposedly" and ama', "they say",
because these are both used habitually to deny responsibility for the truth
of the tale, though their exact meanings are different.


>I have been calling "proximate" those cases where the third person
>singular subject is marked plural (in the verb) and (if definite) takes a
>"subject" animate article.  The others I call "obviatives."  This is
>because Dorsey or rather his sources describe the latter as situations
>where the speaker did not see the event occur, or where the subject did
>something at the behest of others.  Rory mentions this, but I believe he
>has it backward.  It is the non=bi, non=i cases that are this way.

This is a problem.  I think I have no trouble seeing all non-fossilized
cases of -bi in Dorsey as being dubitive in sense, while -i acts as a
different (though possibly mutually incompatible) morpheme.  If "obviative"
includes "that which the speaker cannot vouch for", and is signalled by the
absence of -bi / -i, then our interpretations of -bi are going to be hard
to reconcile.  We may need to rake in a few more examples from Dorsey or
native speakers.  I hope that Ardis will be able to add some comments too,
especially on the practical usage of obviative/proximate.


>I hope this has been some help, and I hope it will prove convincing when
>compared to the state of things in the texts or with speakers.  If it
>doesn't, of course, I'd appreciate counter arguments.  Examples would be
>good, if the non-Dhegiha folks will bear with us.

>Incidentally, I may be a bit out of touch next week and, especially, the
>week after, due to travel.

>John

It's been a great help, and I really appreciate your comments.  I'll also
be gone next week, so the non-Dhegiha folks are guaranteed a respite!

Rory