Omaha-Ponca bi vs. i with "egaN"

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> First, I'd like to summarize John's model as I understand it:
>
>   Two different conjunctions exist, both pronounced egaN.
>
>   The first means "having".

Or can usually be rendered that way, I think it implies simple sequencing
or association of events, as opposed to causation or implication or the
more specific temporal connections covered by 'when' in English, etc.

>                             It can be accented on either
>   the first syllable or the second, depending on where it
>   would best fit to extend an alternating accent pattern
>   from the last accented syllable of the preceding verb.

Or, putting it another way, it behaves as an enclitic - a part of the
accentual domain (word) with the preceding verb.

>   If the preceding clause is third-person proximate, an

Or any person plural.

>   -i/-bi particle is added between the verb and the conjunction.
>   In the case of the "having" egaN, the particle chosen is -bi.

After your last letter I looked further and found a few cases with =i,
leading me to decide that I would have to agree with you that =bi (as
opposed to =i) indicates indirect experience (or something like that).

I suspect that probably also accounts for the variability of =i vs. =bi
before =the.  It certainly explains why it's always =bi=the=ama and
=bi=khe=ama when the/khe/... and ama co-occur.  If you argue as I was that
it's the following morpheme that conditions =bi, then here you'd probably
have to say that the influenced of =ama was extending through the
=the/=khe, since it seems that =the and =khe don't consistently condition
=bi.  But if =the or =khe occur with =ama then it's plainly an indirect
experience (as well as being a conclusion from evidence):  "they say that
apparently ..."

>   Here, the [i] is generally elided, giving us b=egaN.
>   Then, if the last syllable of the verb is accented, the
>   accent will be b=egaN'; but if the penultimate syllable
>   of the verb is accented, we will have b=e'gaN.
>
>   The second form of egaN means "so", "as" or "because".
>   It is always accented on the first syllable.  If the
>   preceding clause is third-person proximate, the -i/-bi
>   particle chosen is -i.

It seems like there should be the potential for =bi as well, but I don't
at the moment know of any examples.  It may be that there is something of
a clash in pragmatics between categoprizing something as hearsay and then
taking it as causal to something else.  But more likely I just haven't
seen the examples yet.

> John, is this a fair statement of your position?

I elaborated as needed, including the required concession on the nature of
the =bi ~ =-i opposition.

> My model is as follows:
>
>   There is just one word egaN, which is a compound of
>   e, "that", or "the preceding", and gaN, "so", "thus",
>   "like", or "in such manner". ...

I agree with this, too, of course, in an etymological sense.  That is, the
two egaN function words both derive from this e'=gaN 'to be like that'.

>   Used as a conjunction, the accent on egaN is normally,
>   but not always, on the second syllable; otherwise it
>   normally falls on the first syllable.

I think that seeing the two egaN functions might clear this up.

>   Use of the particles -bi or -i depends entirely upon the
>   semantics of the preceding clause; this usage is
>   completely independent of the conjunction egaN that
>   follows the clause.  The particle -bi signals that the
>   foregoing clause is based on hearsay, while the particle
>   -i may be used when the speaker is making a personal
>   assertion.  ...

I think I've come around to this.  It certainly looks like it makes sense
of some of the difficult cases I was facing.  Naturally =bi would be very
regular in front of =ama, which marks something that is close to being
the same thing..

>   I am not yet convinced (though open to being so) of the
>   existence or utility of the proximate/obviative dichotomy
>   in OP.  ...

I think we're still waiting for Ardis to rise to the bait, though I may
have to see what I can do.

I'll try to address the rest later.