Obviative/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

[Koontz John E]

> Rory:
> If -bi and -i are taken as semantically equivalent alternates
> derived from the standard Siouan pluralizing particle *pi,
> then I think it is almost impossible to give a satisfactory
> phonological or other explanation for their distribution in
> OP that is not arbitrarily cut to fit the individual cases.

That's essentially my contention.  Though I think that the =bi cases are
always more fossilized - more hidden as it were.  The =bi forms occur with
particular following morphemes with which they tend to fuse, like =ama
QUOTATIVE, or =egaN CONJUNCT, or in formulaic contexts like names and
songs.  The productive form is =i.  Or would be, if that, too, weren't
being replaced by a-grade conditioning zero.

> We do not seem to have any cases of -wi, as Dorsey would
> surely have given us had there been an actual phonological
> gradient between the forms.  The two forms are discrete,
> and their distribution is fairly regular.

I don't think there's any need to require =bi => =i via =wi.  Loss of
intervocalic postaccentual b (or /p/) is common enough in Dhegiha, cf.
Osage sae ~ sape and so on.  However, I don't see any way to get around
the linguistic awkwardness of this change being essentially an arbitrary
feature of this morpheme.  Barring the possibility of homophonous or
near-homophonous morp dubitative and plural/proximate morphemes, there's
no other b-initial post-stem (i.e., "enclitic" in the Siouanist sense)
morpheme, and though there are various post-accential root-internal b's,
cf/ sabe 'black' mentioned above, these don't seem to be subject to
b-elision or softening or any other reduction of that nature.  It is true
that *e=p-he 'I say' is reduced to e=he', but *uNphaN '(female) elk' is
still aNphaN 'elk'.

On the other hand, I suspect that most of the environments in which *=bi
remains =bi can be summed up as (a) before a vowel-initial fellow
enclitic, (b) in names (treated as part of the root?), and (c) in songs
(lack of change prized?).  The main exceptions to these are the cases of
=bi=the and =bi=khe as "evidently" evidentials (but often =i appears
before =the).  Thus, though =bi is written =b in =b=azhi 'negative
plural', but =bi in =bi=ama and =bi=egaN, in fact, the latter two are
close to =b=ama and =b=egaN.  (What I actually heard for =bi=ama in the
one case I heard it in speech was [bea:m].)  The use of =bi in quotations
under verbs of thinking are most effectively pre-vocalic, too, I think,
though this is an area I have to resolve, like the cases of =bi=the vs.
=i=the and the small number of cases of =i=bi.

JEK