Two -bi, or not two -bi.

[Rankin, Robert L]

>I thought I remembered the term (conjunct) coming from Bob, but I can't
guarantee it, and I don't recall if it was on this list or maybe at the last
Oklahoma Siouan & Caddoan Conference.

I really can't remember. If the verb in the subordinate is treated
differently, then I wouldn't object to 'conjunct', but it's probably best to
try to keep terms as standard as possible.

> those cases where it seems to co-occur with =i (as =i=bi?).

That's interesting, and I don't recognize it from Kaw. In the ?i-i=bi 'give'
examples quoted, noting it would involve vowel length, a long-discussed
problem.

>Incidentally, am I correct in thinking to recall that in Dakotan the
order is article + demonstrative, whereas in Dhegiha it is demonstrative +
article?  I think that is a context where Dhegiha articles behave rather
like verbs, though perhaps trivially so.

I THINK that's right but will, obviously, defer to dakotanists.  My
(typically diachronic) view would be that the positional articles of Dhegiha
are different (and at the end, i.e., verb-like syntactically) because they
represent more recent grammaticalizations. And they're from verbs 'sit,
stand, lie, move'.  The Dakotan article, kiN, is apparently older usage with
cognates in, e.g., Tutelo, and it has no de-verbal source as far as I can
tell.

Bob