Predicative (?)e (was RE: Nominal Ablaut, ...)

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

> John:
> Or, 'this one(dhe) [is] the one(e) [I meant]' or 'it(e) [is] this(dhe)'
or
> 'it(e) is this(dhe) [that is] the one(e).'  It is this that is the
> analysis I currently prefer.

Or in OP: [Analysis]=the [I currently prefer]=the dhe'e ha.   :)


>> Option 3 gives us intelligible sentences in both cases.

> This is true, but I'm not sure I see why a declarative would be
> particularly associated with 'this is the one' kinds of sentences.

I'm confused, but interested.  Could you elaborate your argument
here?  Why are you seeing this (putative) declarative as particularly
associated with 'this is the one' kinds of sentences?


>> However, we already have a declarative modal particle -i,
>> which can fit in much the same paradigms as (?)e under
>> option 3:
>>
>> 289:11    wiz^aN'dhe     MaNtc^u'  i          he
>>      my sister Bear      DECL (she is)   EMPH
>>
>> and
>>
>> 288:12    Edha!     e'        hnaN i          he
>>      Alas!     she says  only DECL       EMPH
>>
>> What struck me about the numerous examples John gave is
>> that, barring just two cases that don't really fit the pattern he is
>> generally describing, every single case of postfixed (?)e is
>> immediately preceded by a word that ends in accented -e.

> I gather this would take us away from the i = 'plural' analysis entirely.

That's the view I would favor.


>> On the other hand, while declarative -i is fairly common after
>> -a, -u and -aN, I'm not sure I ever see it after -i or -iN words,
>> and I'm sure I've never seen it after non-ablautable -e stem
>> words.

> It definitely occurs after verbs of motion in final i (i, hi, thi), after
> agdhiN 'sit' in iN, and after tti 'dwell' in i.

Oops!  I stand corrected.


>> I believe the (?)e morpheme that John presents here fills the
>> gap for the -e stems nicely.  The original sequence
>>
>>      [Statement]-e'      i
>>
>> must have become
>>
>>      [Statement]-e'      e
>>
>> by simply lowering the original *i to match the preceding -e'.
>> Since both are front vowels, they would have been hard to
>> distinguish in quick succession anyway.

> I'm afraid I don't think that's what happened.

>> Counter-evidence to this hypothesis would be examples of
>> accented -e stems followed by the -i declarative, or (?)e of

> Which would theoretically never happen, though we have examples like

> 90:110.6  s^iN'gaz^iNga e'=i 'they are the children'
> 90:149.8  tte=i=the 'she was a buffalo'

> These are among the few examples of e-stems that don't ablaut.

Alright, these are both fair counter-evidence by the first clause
of the criteria I stipulated.  I don't think this clause is very
strong, however.  It's likely that the shift I postulated above
was still in progress in Dorsey's time, and that the declarative
-i after -e could appear as either -i or -e depending on the
speaker, the transcriber, the surrounding words, and the rapidity
of the utterance.  One might pronounce the -i more carefully
after an unlikely declaration like "she was a buffalo", while one
would never utter it any way but -e in the common expression
"I am going."  And for your first example, would we recognize any
semantic difference between

     s^iN'gaz^iNga e'=i

and

     s^iN'gaz^iNga e'=e  ?

The second clause of my criteria is stronger.  Can we find any
examples of this (?)e following any other type of stem than -e ?

>> this type appended to roots that are clearly not -e stems,
>> especially -a, aN, -A and -u stems.  John and I should both
>> be on the lookout for this.

> This kind of example might also help clarify matters here.  Looking at
the
> paradigm of dhiN 'to be' shows that when it occurs with a focussed
pronoun
> it requires an e.

> 90:33.4 wi'=e=bdhiN 'I am he'
> 90:262.1 dhi'=e=hniN=de 'since it is you'  (there's that =de)

[snip]

> 90:113.7 e'=e he 'it is he'

> The closest to an inclusive I know is:

> 90:197.10 aNgu' aNdhiN'=b=az^i 'we are not'

> As far as I know there are no cases in which the third person stem dhiN
of
> 'to be' occurs with a focussed pronominal, so this paradigm is rather
> defective.  And since e occurs alone in the third person in such cases,
> it's open to being interpreted as the verb 'to be' in that person.
> However, the other persons have dhiN in an ordinary dh-stem inflectional
> pattern.

> And the third person does occur without the focussed pronouns.

> 90:148.17 tte'wa?u dhiN 'she is a buffalo woman' (not to be mistaken for
a
> buffalo gal, unless that actually explains the old song)

> 90:148.18 wathaN'ziwa?u dhiN 'she is a corn woman'

Could you define what you mean by a "focussed pronoun"?  I gather
that this is your term for the pronouns wi, dhi, aNgu' and e, which
stand as nominals independent of the verb.  Correct?

If so, wouldn't

     e dhiN         he/she/it is

be about the only possible third person example of dhiN occurring
with a focussed pronominal?  This construction would clash with the
somewhat common form e'dhiN, which I think means "have for him/her".


> On the other hand, you also get:

> 90:247.18 He'ga akh=e 'he is (the) Buzzard', with akha 'the single, not
> moving proximate'

I've been conceiving of akhe' as an e-grade ablaut form of akha',
"s/he is the one", where something one has experienced or discussed is
identified as a specific entity.  This would be in contradistinction
to bdhiN', which identifies the subject as a member of a set.  Ama' / ame'
would be the plural/moving counterpart of akha' / akhe'.  When these
are used as articles, we get the a-grade ablaut form, and the sense
is that X is the specific known entity that committed the action or that
we are talking about.  How does that sound to you?


> And then there's

> 90:385.8 Is^i'baz^i akha=e akha ha 'I. is the one'

> I have no idea what's up there.

Nor I.  We'll have to work on that!

Rory