Omaha-Ponca bi vs. i with "egaN"

[Koontz John E]

Warning!  This is probably going to be more interesting to students of
Dhegiha morphology and syntax than Siouanists generally!

I'm using the Macy Schools Orthography, more or less, in this.

I'm starting here to address Rory's specific comments.  Note that I have
conceded that =bi vs. =i marks indirect vs. direct experience on the part
of the speaker, so I won't address examples that simply confirm this
elucidation of Rory'ss.  However, I have not conceded that =bi ~ =i vs.
[nil] doesn't also mark proximate vs. obviative in the third person
singular (and plural vs. singular otherwise).

This example is awkward because the form of the definite article suggests
that the sentence is proximate (Rory's catch, my mistake), but the the
verb is apparently obviative.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> John critiqued my argument last month, offering his interpretation of
> the -bi-less cases.
>
> >> Rory:
> >>     She' akha' MashchiN'ge-iN' akHa' pa'de wa'gazhi egoN'
> >>     oNpa'dai ha -- "That one, the Rabbit, bade us cut it up,
> >>     so that's why we cut it up".
> > John:
> > The first example is 'having', and should have =bi if it is
> > proximate, but it is evidently (consistent with the context)
> > obviative and has neither =i nor =bi.
>
Rory:
> I had understood before that proximate statements were marked
> by =i or =bi at the end, and subjects that took akha' or ama'
> as articles; while obviative statements had no =i or =bi at
> the end, and had subjects that did not take akha' or ama' as
> articles, but rather such "object" articles as thiNkHe' or
> tHoN.  Here we have a clause that has no =i or =bi at the
> end, but has a subject that takes akha' as its article.  Am I
> misunderstanding the criteria for distinguishing proximate
> from obviative?

No, you're quite right.  My screw-up.  This is proximate, as shown by the
article akHa, but it lacks the expected =i or =bi.  As it does seem to be
direct experience I'd have to expect =i, not =bi.  So this is not a case I
can explain.  I'm not sure how it would fit into Rory's analysis either.

Possibilities that occur to me as I grope:  Dorsey might have missed =i
after the final i of wa'gazhi 'he ordered us' (from a'gazhi 'to order
someone to')?  That would be convenient, maybe a bit too convenient, but
he doesn't do that consistently, cf. ...gazhi=i in 90:52.1, 52.12, 53.2,
53.11, ... so that's at best a weak possibility.

Alternatively, it could be a mistaken use of akHa in an obviative clause.
That seems even less likely.

Finally, it could be a situation not previously encountered, so, casting
about for other examples, i.e., searching for something like [~B][~I] EG
in the Siouan Archive version of the texts in my text editor:

17.3 zhu'ga bthu'ga thishpa'shpa=xti=egoN 'they having pulled his whole
body to pieces'  Here it's actually a plural missing =(b)i.  The context
might be phonology.

63.6 noNbe'=the gitoN'be=egoN 'he having seen his own hand' This could
actually be obviative, but the reference is proximate immediately before
and after.  Perhaps the obviativity arises from a lack of deliberation in
seeing his hand.  He notices it, rather than deliberately looking at it.

72.14 waga'zhi=egoN 'he having told them'  Again the referent is proximate
immediately before and after an obviative reference.

85.18 a'higi toN'ga t?e'=wathe=egoN 'they having killed a great many of
them' This would seem to need a plural.  (Note that a'higi toN'ga modifies
the PRO-argument wa-.)

90.5/6 ugi'ne moNthiN=egoN 'they (or he/she?) having walked seeking their
own' This might be a plural and it might be a singular proximate.  It
might be obviative.  It's hard to say from the context.  It should be a
=bi, not an =i, if not obviative, in any event.

117.18/19 wahu'toNthiN i'bahoNzhi=egoN 'he having not known the gun'
This might be obviative.  It's hard to say immediately, from the context.

163.15 nu'zhiNga=thiN waki'depi he'gazhi=egoN 'the boy having been such a
good marksman'  This clearly is obviative, as indicated by the use of thiN
with the subject of the clause, and is included just to show that does
actually happen!

(Searching for example stopped at this point.)

===

So, there seem to be some anomalous cases where no plural or
proximate-marking =bi or =i is present.  In some cases this might be
argued to be due to phonological context (after =i(N)), but not always.
I cannot account for these cases.

JEK