Obviative/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

>> If -bi and -i are taken as semantically equivalent alternates
>> derived from the standard Siouan pluralizing particle *pi,
>> then I think it is almost impossible to give a satisfactory
>> phonological or other explanation for their distribution in
>> OP that is not arbitrarily cut to fit the individual cases.

> John:
> That's essentially my contention.  Though I think that the =bi cases are
> always more fossilized - more hidden as it were.  The =bi forms occur
with
> particular following morphemes with which they tend to fuse, like =ama
> QUOTATIVE, or =egaN CONJUNCT, or in formulaic contexts like names and
> songs.  The productive form is =i.  Or would be, if that, too, weren't
> being replaced by a-grade conditioning zero.

> I don't think there's any need to require =bi => =i via =wi.  Loss of
> intervocalic postaccentual b (or /p/) is common enough in Dhegiha, cf.
> Osage sae ~ sape and so on.  However, I don't see any way to get around
> the linguistic awkwardness of this change being essentially an arbitrary
> feature of this morpheme.  Barring the possibility of homophonous or
> near-homophonous morp dubitative and plural/proximate morphemes, there's
> no other b-initial post-stem (i.e., "enclitic" in the Siouanist sense)
> morpheme, and though there are various post-accential root-internal b's,
> cf/ sabe 'black' mentioned above, these don't seem to be subject to
> b-elision or softening or any other reduction of that nature.  It is true
> that *e=p-he 'I say' is reduced to e=he', but *uNphaN '(female) elk' is
> still aNphaN 'elk'.

> On the other hand, I suspect that most of the environments in which *=bi
> remains =bi can be summed up as (a) before a vowel-initial fellow
> enclitic, (b) in names (treated as part of the root?), and (c) in songs
> (lack of change prized?).  The main exceptions to these are the cases of
> =bi=the and =bi=khe as "evidently" evidentials (but often =i appears
> before =the).  Thus, though =bi is written =b in =b=azhi 'negative
> plural', but =bi in =bi=ama and =bi=egaN, in fact, the latter two are
> close to =b=ama and =b=egaN.  (What I actually heard for =bi=ama in the
> one case I heard it in speech was [bea:m].)  The use of =bi in quotations
> under verbs of thinking are most effectively pre-vocalic, too, I think,
> though this is an area I have to resolve, like the cases of =bi=the vs.
> =i=the and the small number of cases of =i=bi.

I think we substantially agree on conditions (b) and (c),
in which the old *(a)pi with its normal use-value is clearly
fossilized as =bi.  Of course, even here there is an issue
of whether the shift from =bi to =i was conditioned
phonologically or semantically.  If it was conditioned
phonologically, then we should rather expect the change
to occur in the names and songs anyway, no matter how
much lack of change was prized, since the change would
be gradual and in the absence of writing it would be difficult
to know what was original.  If it was conditioned semantically,
however, then =i would have appeared in productive form
as a quantum jump.  In that case, the preservation of the
old forms within previously established "texts" would be
only natural, without even having to assume any special
effort to keep them.

Regarding condition (a), I don't think the pattern you're
trying to extract will be very helpful.  I think we've identified
just two common words that fit that pattern here: ama' and
egaN'.  Of these, ama' does show signs of partially fusing
with the preceding =bi, and if it were the only case of =bi in
productive speech, then you could certainly make a good
argument that the bi- in biama' was simply a fossil relic
preserved by its fusion with ama'.  With egaN', however,
there is no sign of fusion that I can see in Dorsey, and it
can be preceded equally well by =bi or by =i.

Another important word you need to consider is the
conjunction ki, "when".  This word does not fit the
phonological pattern, but it does share with egaN' the
status of being a conjunction normally governing entire
statement clauses.  In general, ki implies that the
foregoing clause sets the scene for the following clause,
while egaN' means that the foregoing cause offers some
sort of explanation or prerequisite for the following clause.
Like egaN', ki can be preceded indifferently by =bi or =i,
or for that matter, by biama', or ama', or none of the above.

The =bi or =i, or biama' or ama', simply belong to the
preceding clause and have nothing to do with the
conjunction that follows them.  They are terminators
of statements.  If we want to understand what distinguishes
them, we need to look in the other direction, to the
statement they belong to.

The material in Dorsey that I have seen so far consists
of myths-- traditional stories to which the narrator cannot
personally attest.  The material can be divided into
narration statements, in which the narrator is describing
what happened, and dialogue, in which characters in
the story are directly quoted.  The narration comprises
the bulk of the text, probably at least 70%, but there is
still a substantial amount of dialogue.

In the dialogue, =bi hardly ever occurs, and when it
does it is associated with irrealis conditions.  I pointed
out a couple of examples about a month ago, in which
=bi was tacked onto the end of a noun or stative verb
to indicate that the previous was an assumption based
on what had been heard, rather than a fact grounded
in direct experience.  In both of these cases, Dorsey
had a note explaining that that was what was going on.

In the narrative, however, =bi is overwhelmingly common
as a statement terminator.  This is most notably the case
with the incessant "biama"s that complete almost every
sentence, but it is also in those same "biama" sentences
that we can expect to find a =bi terminating the statement
clauses that precede the conjunctions ki and egaN'.

In the dialogue, we generally find an =i after the final
verb of a third-person statement, in the same position
that we would usually find a =bi in the narrative.  The
presence of =i or =bi in either case seems to have
nothing to do with plurality; they will appear in the
singular as well as the plural.  (I believe John has
pointed this out long ago.)

The =i seems to be a declarative particle used to
terminate active statements, at least in the third person.
The =bi particle functions the same way grammatically,
except that it indicates that the preceding statement is
a supposition, or an inference based on hearsay, and
hence to be doubted.

All narrative statements in the myths are third person
and based on hearsay, and hence properly should
be qualified with =bi.  Most of them are.  There is a
significant minority of them, however, that use the
standard declarative =i form.  In these cases, the
sentence usually seems to be short.  I think these
cases are probably lapses from the proper but
tedious =bi form into standard declarative form for
a momentary wake-up effect.  This may be similar
to a narrator in English telling a story set in the past,
but shifting into present tense now and then for
dramatic effect.

One more use of =bi can be found in its alternation
with =i after tta.  X tta=i means X _will_ happen, but
X tta=bi means that X was supposed to happen
(but didn't).  This usage can be found several times
in the story "The Chief's Son and the Thunders",
pages 177 - 179.  The chief's son tells his scouts:

     Ni'khawasaN', e'gidhe dhiti'gaN wiN ...
     t?e'dhadhe ttai' ha.

     Warriors, beware lest you kill one of your
     grandfathers!

The scouts go out and make an attempt to kill
some ferocious totemic animal, and lose one of
their own as a result.  When they report back to
their war leader in shame, he chews them out
for having disobeyed his orders:

     Ni'khawasaN', dhiti'gaN t?e'dhadha-ba'zhi tta'-bi,
     ehe' dhaN'shti.

     Warriors, I said before you were not to kill your
     grandfather!

Actually, when understood this way, even the contrast
of =bi with =i in the song and story, respectively, of
"The Lament of the Fawn for its Mother", page 358, makes
sense without having to attribute conservatism to the song.
In the story, the two characters are assertively arguing
with each other over whether the beings they perceive
are men or crows.  They both use =i to emphasize
their respective claims as facts.  In the song, the Fawn
reflects on their past argument in the format of

     nia'shiNga'-bi ehe', kaxa'-bi eshe' ...

     I said they were men, you said they were crows ...

thereby casting their former claims in the subjunctive,
just as we do in English.


In sum, I think that the existence of an active particle =bi,
used to indicate supposition, hearsay and the
subjunctive, in semantic contradistinction to another
particle =i that is used as a factual declarative, and
both of these distinct from the historical pluralizing
particle =i, is quite clear in the Dorsey texts.  I can't
speak for the etymology of these particles, but their
semantically distinct usage in historical OP seems
to me to be absolutely plain.

Rory