Nominal Ablaut, Noun Theme Formants, and Demonstratives

[Rankin, Robert L]

>As far as e vs. a demonstratives, I think that the e form is clear and
reconstructable for Proto-Siouan, if evidently not Proto-Siouan-Catawban.

I assume this is what we've been reconstructing as *7ee? It is an unmarked
demonstrative in most or all Siouan languages as far as I know. Both length
and the glottal stop are clearly present in some forms and need to be
reconstructed.

>The a or ha form (?*Ha) is more obscure, but here's the data,

I see what John is talking about here. I'm familiar with the Dhegiha data on
these, but I've always thought of ha- as equivalent to WH-forms, not
TH-forms to use the English analog. I guess I've just never called these
demonstratives.

>Kaw - hago'j^idaN 'when', hago'ha 'where, whither', hakhaN' 'when, how
far, how long', ha'yoNska 'how big', ha'naN 'how many, how much', hago',
ha'go 'why', hago'daN 'why, how come'.

>So there's definitely a Proto-Siouan demonstrative e, and there's
definitely a Dhegiha, possibly a Proto-Mississippi Valley, "demonstrative"
(indefinite/interogative root) *Ha.  The real issue is whether they have
anything to do with the finals of nouns - or in some restricted ways -
of verbs.

I think I would generally resist the notion that we have derivational
affixes that can be either preposed or postposed.  It's not out of the
question if resegmentation/reassociation can be demonstrated, but it is far
too permissive for me to accept as a general principle of reconstruction.

In addition, here, we are dealing with two particles that share neither
function nor basic meaning; i.e., they are not a "pair" in any discernable
sense.

Bob