Nominal Ablaut, Noun Theme Formants, and Demonstratives

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> 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.

Yes.  I've neglected the length because it seems to come and go and the
glottalization because I'm mainly aware of it where e(e) follows another
demonstrative and take it for a boundary phenomenon as Bob mentioned
earlier.

> 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.

It's somewhat moot to call them demonstratives, but I'm using the term as
a sort of cover term for the morphemes that can combine with the set of
postpositions and things like *ra(N) 'number', *raNska 'size', etc., plus
*(k)uN 'manner'.  (What do we call these last few things, anyway?)

> >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'.

Incidentally, I think -go here in 'why' is a denasalized version of OP
-goN (or -gaN) as in the problematic egoN (or *-kuN), but in hago'j^idaN
it looks like it matches OP -gu- as in agudi 'where'.

> >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.

I would probably resist a derivational morpheme that was both prefixal and
suffixal myself, at least in a general way ,but I don't have any problem
with a prefix and a suffix coming from the same historical source, say a
demonstrtative.  It's clear that there's nothing problematical about both
ga=tta 'to(ward) yon' and s^aNge=ga 'yon canine/horse' (emphasizing
enclisis of the demonstrative with intent). And e=tta 'to it' or 'to the
aforesaid' is also not a problem.  I think s^aNge e would be 'it is the
horse that', but I'd have to look for examples to be fully confident of
exact parallels in current OP.  However, I'm not at all worried about the
potential for something like *s^unk(...) e 'the aforesaid canine' existing
in Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan.  If what is later an affix starts as
an independent syntactic element, it's ability to occur before some things
and after others depends on the syntax of the language.

> 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.

They do occur in oppositions like e=na(N) 'that many, so many' and a=na(N)
'some quantity' or 'how many', which willy nilly yokes them into a pair.
Of course, it's a pair that's part of a larger set, including also
dhe=na(N), s^e=na(N), and ga=na(N), though I think that the potential of
all the demonstratives (and fellow travelers) to occur with all the
"post-demonstrative elements" is not equal.  I don't know that any of the
last three, for example, are attested except in Dorsey's manuscript
tables, which may overgeneralize.

What I can definitely say I have never seen is a free-floating Dhegiha
(h)a "demonstrative" following a noun or clause.  Of course, that's just
what I'm assuming may have existed at any earlier PMV date.  As far as
indefinites following nouns generally, I'd say that du'ba 'some'
definitely looks like it might have the *tV-stem in it, but, of course,
that interrogative/indefinite stem is indefinite enough in form that I
can't be very definite about that.  Du'ba does definitely follow nouns,
though, as in s^aNge duba 'some horses'.  I do think it's only a
coincidence that that du'ba 'some' falls together with du'ba 'four' in
Omaha-Ponca.

===

Not that I've found Indo-Europeanists are any more thrilled about the
possibility than Siouanists, but it's interesting note that the noun
thematic suffixes e/o and aa in PIE bear a strong resemblance to the third
person/demonstrative elements of PIE, too.

Interestingly, however, I think that at least some Indo-Europeanists
(Shields?) do think that the e/o thematic affix in PIE verbs might reflect
a (definite) third person object concord verb paradigm, on the analogy of
similar patterns in Uralic languages.  Presumably athematic verbs would be
the paradigm without object concord.  (I don't mean to imply that I think
such an explanation would account for verbal ablaut in Siouan.)