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

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> Rory: In this case, where is the demonstrative *7e pointing?  Does it
> indicate the *wi, or does it reference something else that is being
> linked to the *wi?

Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I'd argue that it was pointing
at the pronominal or demonstrative or clause it was following, or, perhaps
better, that both (7)e and the thing before it are pointing at the same
thing. It ((7)e) is essentially the 'it' of 'it is X' or 'X is it/she/he'.

> Bob:  It is simply a part of the independent pronominal set. Whether
> the 7e is/was a copular verb of some kind or whether it was a
> demonstrative particle begs the questions that we've been trying to
> answer, i.e., is it a case of homophony or polysemy?

Well, if it's a demonstrative particle, it seems much more likely to be
something like polysemy (i.e., of (7)e serving as both a demonstrative
pronoun and an appendage to personal pronouns, focus particle, etc.),
unless we want to argue that there are two different demonstratives of the
shape (7)e.  On the other hand, I can see where if it's a copular verb it
might be better characterized as homophony.  (Except that I think some
historical linguists think that demonstratives are a major source of
copulas.)

> Rory: Now you say that you've never heard the verb bliN used with a
> contrastive pronoun.  I take it this means that you have never
> heard
>
>      wie bliN
>
> in Kaw?
>
> Bob: No, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What's it mean? It's
> me (rather than someone else)?

Yes.

> Rory:  If so, that surprises me.  In Dorsey's OP collection, the
> statement wiebdhiN is actually somewhat common.  However, in
> Dorsey, the contrastive, disjunctive personal pronoun set
> seems to me to be clearly
>
>      wi   - I
>
>      dhi  - you
>
>      oNgu'     - we
>
> Bob (?): I've heard the final -e of these forms elided or semi-elided,
> so I look upon the Omaha-Ponca versions without a clear [e] as just
> fast speech forms. It seems clear that the forms WITH the 7e underlie
> these throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. It might pay to listen for
> a long V here.

In OP the e is always present when dhiN 'to be' follows the pronoun, and
only e, without dhiN, or dhiN without e, seem to occur as third persons.
On the other hand, in Dorsey there is never e after just wi or dhi without
(inflected) dhiN following it.  I do recall wi in elicitation, and I'd say
it was long.  However, I concur with Rory that there's just no e with wi
and dhi if dhiN doesn't follow, and the forms he cites (not to mention
witta 'my', now usually wiwitta, etc.) would be the ones I'd cite.
Different languages, different forms.  I'm always shocked at how "devient"
from the Dhegiha norm Kaw and Osage and Quapaw can be.  :-)  Sometimes I
doubt they're even really underlyingly Omaha-Ponca ...

> >It seems to me (and I think to John also, no?) that these
> basic pronouns still exist independently of following 7e
> in OP, though they may be fused in other Siouan languages.

Precisely.

> My sense of the wiebdhiN sequence is:
>
>      Wi        e         bdhiN
>      I         s/he      am
>      I am s/he, the one just spoken of.
>
> >In this interpretation, of course, bdhiN would be a
> copula of identity, not of set membership, but I think
> that is required by the context in any case.
>
> I don't think so.

I do agree on this, but also with the fuzziness of membership vs.
identity.

> I think the complement "s/he" here is an artifact of
> English. Also, this is one of those cases where 'identity' and 'class
> membership' overlap somewhat. Nonetheless, I certainly wouldn't be dogmatic
> about insisting that dhiN can ONLY be set membership. It's just that
> virtually all my cases are that way.