Omaha-Ponca bi vs. i with "egaN"

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> I am not yet convinced (though open to being so) of the existence or
> utility of the proximate/obviative dichotomy in OP.  ...

> The formula seems not to cover large areas of the language, the number
> of possible obviative statements seems minuscule, and when I do find a
> third person statement with an "obviative" subject that takes dhiNkhe'
> or thaN or whatever, it seems as likely to take a clause-final -bi as
> any other narrative statement.

It's true that there are comparatively few obviative examples.  Speaking
for Ardis, she notes that OP proximate/obviative systems seem to be rather
different from Algonquian ones, in that a number of references can be
"proximate" at once.  She suggested an analogy with staging of a play, in
which characters center stage are "proximate," while characters offstage
or perhaps in the wings are "obviative."  I think she suggested that
onstage and offstage might be more apropriate terms, but we seem to have
stuck to proximate/obviative.  As in many cases in linguistics, or rather,
grammar-writing, terminology is usually recycled in an approximate sort of
way rather than carefully reinvented for each language.  Ayway, the
converse of the prevalence of proximates is the paucity of obviatives.

> I asked for the practical semantic difference between "The Omaha saw
> the Pawnee <proximate>" and "The Omaha saw the Pawnee <obviative>",
> and was referred to Ardis, who did not take the bait.)

I guess Ardis decided to let me do my own work.  Drat.  (Actually, I think
she was pretty much e-incommunicado most of the Summer.)

OK, keep in mind that it's the Omaha who would be the proximate and
obviative referent in the two hypothetical sentences.  The Pawnee would be
(formally) obviative in both cases, since objects aren't marked proximate
(as indicated by the use of obviative, alternatively object articles with
them when articles are appropriate).  I guess if you use the staging
metaphor you'd have to characterize objects as upstaged, as opposed to
offstage.  The guy with the lines or the business (the subject) is the
center of attention, as actors all know.

I can attempt to characterize the difference as follows:  as described by
Omaha speakers whom Dorsey consulted in the editing of the texts (George
Miller and Samuel Freemont), the difference would be that when proximate
the action is of the subject (the Omaha)'s own accord (Dorsey 1891:28) or
"voluntary action" (Dorsey 1891:58), whereas when obviative the subject is
acting "by request or permission" (Dorsey 1891:29) or the action is an
"involuntary action" (Dorsey 1891:58).  Alternatively an obviative
description might occur because the speaker did not see the subject act
(Dorsey 1891:29).  These seem to me to be essentially ways of saying that
the subject has been upstaged or is offstage.

Somewhere - I've momentarily lost the reference - LaFlesche says that a
verb 'to die' that's given in proximate form was probably intended to be
obviative, as the subject probably did not die deliberately (or words to
that effect).

Notice that the idea of "not seeing" the action is consistent with
interpreting =i as some sort of declarative, but, the conception of
involuntary or permitted/directed action is described as interchangeable,
and is not consistent with that, and, moreover, the characterization
applies to the use of the articles akha and ama as opposed to dhiNkhe,
etc., as well as to the use of =i and =b(i) (e.g., p. 28-29) both, and is
restricted to third persons singular.

As far as inconsistencies of marking (between articles and verbal
enclitics) Dorsey discusses the semantics of the distinction specifically
in connection with such errors, as they are corrected by the consultants.
I don't think he and they caught all the problems.  I've noticed that the
ones they comment on all involves cases of the first refernce bewing
obviative and the second proximate.  My suspicion is that in repeating
material for Dorsey (or perhaps just in formulaitng long periods) the
speakers shifted references from obviative to proximate, or brought them
mentally onstage, resulting in mixed, grammatically incorrect (or less
felicitous) sentences.

> Until I am shown some compelling evidence in Dorsey for the
> proximate/obviative distinction, I can't take this model seriously as
> a factor in the current analysis.

Technically I ought to follow this up with some nice text, carefully
analyzed to show the aptness of the interpretations, but maybe not here
and now.  I do have a paper on this that I will try to dig out and send
Rory.  It's not great as a text analysis, but I do have a few examples,
and, if I can get Ardis to send him her more recent effort, that goes
further as a text analysis (of a different text).

===

In addition, I mentioned that Dorsey had some canned examples.  These are
in the National Anthropological Archives Dorsey Papers Dhegiha (3.2) [5]
(preceding crossed out) 120 "Envelope marked "C/egiha Grammatical Notes.
Not copied on slips Nov/93".  A.D. Approx. 30 L. and slips with 6 large
verb charts."  (If I have not messed the associations in my files.)

There are two columns, one is "By consent or command." and the other is
"Without consent or command."  That is, obviative vs. proximate.  The two
examples are:

(1) The horse eats or ate the corn (complete action).
(2) The horse is eating the corn (continuous or incomplete action).

That is, punctual vs. continuative.

A, if standing (col. 1 vs. col. 2) (obviative vs. proximate)

(1) shaNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe'=e ha       (aiee! the e)
    vs. shaNge akha wahaba khe dhatha'=i ha   (as opposed to the i)

(2) shaNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe thaN ha
    vs. shaNge akha wahaba khe dhathe akha ha

The extra e is marked with a breve, as is the e in khe and the a in ha.
I've inserted aspiration, recode c to sh, etc., added the =-signs.

For B, if moving, change all thaN to dhiN and all akha to ama. For C, if
sitting, change all than to dhiNkhe, and no column 2 exampls are given
(because there's just akha and ama for proximate articles, and JOD's
analogized those to thaN and dhiN).  For D, if reclining, change thaN to
khe, and again, no column 2.

For E, if standing, past time; action occuring then, not  now:

(1) shaNge thaN wahaba khe shathe dhaN=shti
    vs. shaNge akha wahaba khe dhata=i dhaN=shti

(2) shaNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe thaN dhaN=shti
    vs. (line, to indicate no analog?)

For F, if standing, past time (present time not excluded):

(1) shaNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe the ha
    vs. shaNge akha wahaba khe dhatha=i the ha

(2) (not given)

I'd maintain that E includes a time particle dhaN=shti, but thatmay well
be the dhaN-form of the evidential particle (plus, shti 'too'), and that F
is the the form of the evidential particle.  A-D are essentially (column
1) the obviative forms (in the various positional genders) and (column 2)
the proximate forms (in the two positional genders/numbers).

At the bottom of the page is the hand annotation "All in the dicty; not
yet in the Gr./86."

The next page appears to be the handwritten notes for the page just
described (thaN exx. only) and says of the proximate example "of his own
accnt, not (scribble) [=by?] command, what he had no business to eat", and
of the obviative example "his regular meal, given to him."

Another example inerted to the side is:

nuzhiNga akha najiN akha ha [the man (prox) is standing] "of his own
accnt"

"but" nazhiN thaN ha [(he) stood] "because commanded to stand"

After some more of the horse eating there's the comment "See chart on desk
for all the distintions."  I suppose this might refer to the preceding
page.

===

By the way, attached to the end of this stack of sheets is a brief summary
sheet entitled "SUDDEN ACTION" with a short list of 'suddenly'
auxiliaries:

The first part, glossed, combines the motion verb thi with the motion
positional dhe (and its vertitive gdhe), unreduplicated and reduplicated,
except that the first is a causative of dhe, and the last a causative of
gi.

dhedhe 'send off'
thidhe 'to pass on'
thidhedhe
thigdhe 'to come and go, to appear and disappear suddenly (once)'
thigdhagdha 'to come and go repeatedly'
gidhe 'to send this way (suddenly)'

Then follows an unglosed list (actually arranged tabularly):

idhaN, idhaNdhaN, ihe, ihaha, ithe, ithatha, khidhaN, khidhaNdhaN, khihe,
khihaha, khithe, khithatha, thidhaN, thidhaNdhaN, thihe, thihaha, thithe,
thithatha, gdhidhaN, gdhidhaNdhaN, gdhihe, gdhihaha, gdhithe, gdhithatha.

This is basically some of the motion verbs (i, khi, thi, gdhi) combined
with the positionals (dhaN, he, the), unreduplicated and reduplicated.

===

I still didn't get to the disputed examples.

JEK