Obviative/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

Mon Aug 27 20:12:50 UTC 2001

John and I went off-list for a while with our discussion of the -bi / -i
problem in OP.  We decided to test the tolerance of the other members
of the list by alternately posting our recent correspondence, until we
caught up to where we presently are.  So here's the first chunk!

Rory

---------------------- Forwarded by Rory M Larson/IS/UNL/UNEBR on
08/27/2001 02:52 PM ---------------------------

Rory M Larson
08/21/2001 10:51 PM

To:   Koontz John E <John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU>
cc:

Subject:  Re: Obviative/Proximate and the Omaha verb system  (Document
      link: Rory M Larson)

Hi John,

Thanks for the note!  I've been reading/re-reading the texts
some more, and I've found a few more items I'd like to add
to the fire.

1)  If -bi / -i are semantically equivalent alternates of each
other, then the difference ought to be made by the phonological
environment.  We suggested that a subsequent ama' or egaN'
might preserve -bi, while the morpheme would be reduced to
-i in most other environments.  If -bi and -i are distinct morphemes,
however, then their use should depend on the semantics of the
situation.  I proposed that -bi was a modal marker that conveyed
a dubitative value to the preceding noun or statement, while -i
indicated either plurality, or factuality of the statement.  I argued
that -bi was used almost constantly in narrative statements,
because the speaker wished to emphasize that he was not
personally testifying to the truth of them, but that it hardly ever
appeared in the dialogue, because here the speakers were
normally claiming to know what they were talking about.

We cannot easily distinguish these two models on the basis
of subsequent ama', because ama' means something like
"they say", and is intrinsically dubitative in meaning itself.
Hence, the second theory as well as the first predicts that
the ( -bi | -i ) particle preceding it will always be -bi.  But egaN',
"the preceding having occurred", or "because of the preceding",
is not intrinsically dubitative, and can be used equally well for
factual as for doubtful clauses.  Therefore, our two models differ
in their predictions for the ( -bi | -i ) particle preceding egaN'.
If the dubitative -bi model is valid, then egaN' should normally
be preceded by -bi in narrative statements, but by -i or nothing
in most dialogue statements.  But if the phonological
environment model is correct, then the particle preceding
egaN' should always be -bi, regardless of whether the
statement is narrative or dialogue.

Finding compound third-person dialogue statements is difficult,
but I found two of them in the story, "How the Rabbit Killed a Giant",
pages 22 - 25.  The first is on page 23, line 10-11.  When the giant
demands to know which of them had had the audacity to cut up the
deer they had shot, the two frightened men admit that the Rabbit
made them do it:

     She' akha' MashtshiN'ge-iN' akha' pa'de wa'gazhi egaN'
     aNpa'dai ha -- "That one, the Rabbit, bade us cut it up, so
     that's why we cut it up".

Here the accusation arises from personal experience, and the men
do not precede egaN' with -bi.

The second is on page 23, line 17-18.  As the giant proceeds to maul
him, the Rabbit declares the difference between himself and the
craven men:

     Dhe'ama naN'dhiphai' egaN' a'dhikhi'dha-bazhi'-hnaN'-i;
     wi' naN'wipha ma'zhi egaN' a'wikhi'bdha ta' miNkhe. --
     "These ones fear you, so they don't attack you;
     I fear you not, so I will attack you".

Here again we have no -bi in front of egaN' in either of the two places
it appears.  The first one has -i, which can be construed as the plural
particle.  The second has only the first person negator ma'zhi, but
can't be counted in this test since its subject is not third person.

In these two cases of dialogue, egaN' takes no preceding -bi.  I count
six other cases of egaN' in narrative statements of the same story,
each of which does take a preceding -bi (or -b alone, tacked to the
final vowel of the preceding word).  These are at lines 2, 4, 7, 15, 17
and 20, all on page 23.

This story at least seems to support the dubitative -bi model.  I don't
claim that this is perfectly predictable, since I think I have run into a
case or two in other stories where -bi fails to occur before egaN' in
a narrative statement, but I believe this pattern is the rule.

Also, I should note that statements or clauses ending in one of the
words that you call articles, and that I have been calling dispositionals,
and that Paula Ferris Einaudi calls classificatory verbs in her Grammar
of Biloxi, never seem to take -bi, even in the narrative.  I would claim
that to be a standard exception to the rule of dubitative -bi in
narrative statements.

2) I think I've found a counter-example to our rule that -i and -bi could
not both occur at the same time.  In "Ishtinike and the Deserted Children",
page 87, line4, we have:

     E'gidhe shaN'ge i' khaNthaN'i-biama'. --
     "It happened that the horses mouths were tied, they say".

In this case, we seem to have a pluralizing, or passive voice, -i,
which lets us know we are talking about more than one horse, or
that the tying was done to the horses' mouths without a named
actor rather than that the horses' mouths did the tying.  This is
simply part of the narrative, however, so the whole thing is cast
in doubt with a following bi ama'.  The dubitative -bi model predicts
this as a possibility, but it should not be possible under the
-bi / -i equivalence model.

3) I think I've also found a case of two different -i morphemes
appearing at the same time.  On page 88 of the same story,
line 7-8, we refer to "the children who were abandoned" as

     shiN'gazhiN'ga waaN'dhaii ama'

Here we have two -i's following the verb "abandon them".
My sense is that the first one indicates plurality or passive
voice, "they abandon them", or "they are abandoned", and
that the second throws the action into the past with respect
to the time of the narrative: "the children who had been
abandoned".  If this interpretation is correct, then we are
dealing with at least two separate -i morphemes as well as
a dubitative -bi morpheme.

These are the only examples I've found of these two cases,
both in the same story, which is otherwise rather difficult.
Perhaps NudaN-axa spoke a somewhat different dialect
than that of the La Fleches.

These arguments are tenuous, but so far the dubitative -bi
model seems to offer the best fit for me.  I'd be interested
in any counter-examples from Dorsey you could find
that would support the -bi / -i equivalence model, or
specifically the obviative/proximate model.  I certainly
agree with you that the whole issue is very tricky!

Also, I'm wondering if I could ask a favor of you.  I've been
working up a series of lessons for teaching an Omaha
class, and Mark is thinking of using them on our class
this coming semester.  So far, they're pretty much off the
top of my head, and I'm floundering.  They need to be
vetted both by the native speakers and by a qualified
OP linguist.  Would you be willing to take on the latter
role?  I've got about five lessons done so far, plus an
introduction to explain how I'm doing it and why.  The
lessons are pretty short and simple, and mainly
grammar-oriented.  If you would be willing to look
them over and give me your feedback, I'd really
appreciate it.

Rory

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU> on 08/11/2001 02:15:50 AM

To:   <rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu>
cc:

Subject:  Re: Obviate/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

Rory:

These are fair problem examples, though I think they're just additonal
environments in which i comes out bi.  One's I've been mentally sweeping
under the rug.  I'll try to deal with them when I'm at home!  Thanks for
pointing out the problems here, because I'm pretty sure I'll learn
something from wrestling with these.

JEK