Obviative/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

> True, but the situation may be more complicated still. In Dakotan there
are
> two allomorphs of 'plural' (at least), -pi and -u. And they occur in
> well-defined environments with no intermediate forms that I know of. I
> suspect most Dakotanists would want to derive the -u from a vocalized
[p],
> certainly a possibility syllable-finally. But outside of MVS in the rest
of
> Siouan there seems to be no trace of -(a)pi, and in OVS the morpheme is
-tu.
> Go figure.

Well!  I took two years of Lakhota, and I don't recall ever running
into a pluralizing -u!  But if that's so, it provides an even easier
solution to our problem.  In Omaha, *pi => bi, and *u => i.  A
dubitative -bi comes in, and the particle i < *u becomes the
pluralizing particle of choice.

OVS is Ohio Valley Siouan, comprising Biloxi, Ofo and Tutelo,
correct?


> The -a- is tied in with the entire Mississippi Valley Siouan "Ablaut"
> problem. I have a paper on the topic. Historically at least, the -a- is
part
> of the following morpheme, not the verb stem.  It replaces preceding -e
> (which some consider epenthetic anyway).

Hmm, that requires me to do some rethinking.  I assume that
the "Ablaut" problem concerns the verb endings the Colorado
Lakhota project people express with a capital -A, which derives
-a, -e or -iN depending on what follows, correct?  I had been
inclining toward the notion that the -a was the basic stem, with
-e being an alternate of -ai.  A lot of verb or ta- endings in Omaha
do seem to be allomorphic this way, and I had been about to
ask about this issue in conjunction with the "two -bi or not two -bi"
discussion.  Could you expand on your paragraph, or perhaps
put me in touch with your paper?


> I'm trying to remember if Osage has the -i variant. Carolyn can tell us.
> This is enough monkey wrenches for one day.  :-)

It makes my day a little more confusing.  Thanks for your input!

Rory