Nominal Ablaut, Noun Theme Formants, and Demonstratives

[Rankin, Robert L]

> > I see John's examples with DEM N as ordinary modified nouns.

In my own data, a single demonstrative precedes the N. If it follows a
demonstrative, it's normally paired with a verb root (i.e., positional) or
other constituent.

> I think that the preposed demonstrative is the more marked
> possibilty. In Dakotan demonstatives can only precede the noun if the noun

> is followed by an article.  If the demonstrative follows the noun the
> intervening article can be omitted.

Dhegiha looks to me to have the opposite pattern; the DEM tends to follow
the N only if there IS an article (which is always deverbal).

>Demonstratives follow and are written as enclitic in Mandan.  A posiitonal
>can follow the demonstrative.

Oddly positionals tend to follow 'this' but not 'that' in Kennard.

>The list I provided gave samples of most possibilities, though not of
things like NOUN=ART DEM=ART and so on.

I think in every one of my Kaw examples of this construction, the DEM-ART is
a predicate.

> So, of course, when the demonstrative precedes I see that as a sort of
> extraction.

The pattern is so prevalent in my data that I have a hard time looking upon
it as an extraction.  Unless the DEM follows the N and forms an NP distinct
from the N, DEM-N looks normal to me in Kaw and, I expect, in Dhegiha
generally.  This sort of thing can happen in languages. In Romanian you can
say either "omul acesta" or "acest om" 'this man' but in Spanish "este
hombre" is the rule and I can't get speakers to accept *"hombre este" as an
NP.

Again, does any Siouan language have anything resembling a consistent noun
"ablaut"? Or, are what little there is in the way of rules/alternations in
the extant languages found in matching environments? (the sort of thing one
might expect of relic forms.) If not, then for now at least the article
theory of ablaut is still DOA for me.

Bob