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

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

>> >> 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?

> If e was simply a declarative, why would it occur especially frequently
> with sentences of the form DEMONSTRATIVE e DECL (where DECL is the he/ha
> you decided you might prefer to gloss as emphatic).

The model I was suggesting (and I don't claim to be married to it) is as
follows.  The particle e that appears after the verb or nominal in almost
all the example sentences you gave a few days ago occurs only after
(accented?) -e and fits the position and meaning of the (non-pluralizing)
particle -i, which I have considered to be declarative.  Hence, e is an
allomorph of declarative -i.  Its only particular association with
'this is the one' kinds of sentences is that "this", dhe, and "that", she,
both happen to be non-ablautable -e stems, and hence condition the -e
rather than the -i form of the declarative.

Regarding the he/ha particles, I also originally supposed them to be
declaratives.  This view became untenable to me, at least as an absolute,
when I found out that they frequently followed the command particles
a/ga in commands.  Since then, I've preferred to consider them
emphatics, though I grant that they may function as declaratives as well.


>                                               I think clearly
> something about the e added to the demonstrative produces the sense
> 'this/that is it/she/he', where the 'is it/she/he' of the English must be
> the sense added by e.  The question seems to be how the e works to
produce
> that 'is it/she/he'.  I think that understanding that will help explain
> cases of VERB e.  I don't think we need to jump from the initial
> difficulties of explaining some VERB e examples to an explanation that
> seems to me to make it harder to explain how DEM e ha/he means 'DEM is
> it/she/he'.

I don't think it makes it any harder to explain at all.  But I think your
objection here segues into a larger issue I had been wanting to bring up.

When we make what we regard as a complete sentence, two things are
involved.  First, we are invoking a subset model of our shared
conceptual world.  This involves words of reference and their logical
relationships.  Second, we are making a demand on the listener.

If our utterance involves only that structural model of a conception
alone, without the demand, then we have spoken only what seems like
a noun phrase to us English speakers; the utterance seems vain unless
it simply fills in information requested by prior speech.

In English and other Indo-European languages, the demand generally
rides on the finite verb.  If I say:

     The Siamese cat with the screechy voice that my grandmother
     in Oregon gave me last Christmas ran out the open door to the
     tree in my cranky neighbor's back yard last night...

no demand has been made on the listener's credulity until we hit the
word "ran".  At that point, a claim of fact is made along with the
imagery of running.  After that word, we are simply filling in more
details.

Because of this Indo-European characteristic, I think that we Western
linguists tend to harbor the prejudice that a finite verb is always
needed to make a complete sentence.  In Siouan, however, I think
we're dealing with a different linguistic pattern.  Here, the demand
rides on a particle that follows the final verb, or noun if there is
no verb, of the sentence or clause.  In this kind of language, a verb
may augment the subset model by describing an action or relation, but
it makes no more demand on the listener than a noun, and hence is
equally dispensable.  A string of nouns and verbs build the
conception, but they do not make a complete sentence.  That doesn't
happen until we hit the "demand" particle at the end.

(I don't mean to be too absolutist about the above paradigm of
Siouan.  I recognize that languages are necessarily gradient, and
that some sentences in Siouan may lack any "demand" particle.  Also,
when I say "Siouan", it should be understood that my own experience
is with OP and Lakhota.)

A demand might be:
     Accept this as an addition to your knowledge base!
     Give me the information I request!
     Do this!
     Consider this as a hypothesis!

A few weeks ago, we discussed e'gaN.  I would suggest the following
analysis for its use with "demand" particles:

     e         - the foregoing

     gaN       - so, thus, in such manner

     e'gaN          - in the manner of the foregoing


    "Demand" particles

     -0        - zero, perhaps DECL for generalities

     -i        - DECL, perhaps only for entities

     -bi       - hypothetical, irrealis

     -ga/a          - command

     -a        - inquiry


     E'gaN.         It is so. / Okay. / As you say.

     E'gaN i.       He/She/It is that way.

     E'gaN bi=ama.  It is supposedly that way.

     E'gaN a?       Is it/he/she that way?

     E'gaN ga!      Do accordingly! / Do what has just been described!


Note that in the last example, I believe that the "do" has
nothing to do with the gaN; the English "do!" is implicit in
the command particle ga.

In this view, the declarative particle -i can be used equally
well for nouns or verbs.  If used after a verb, it means that
the verb took place.  If used after a noun, it simply implies
the existence or identity of the noun, in a way that we would
handle with the verb "is".

     VERB i.        VERB happened/happens.

     NOUN i.        NOUN exists. / He/She/It is NOUN.

Since DEMONSTRATIVE references a noun phrase, your objectionable
sentence DEM e ha/he can simply be understood as a case of the
last sentence type:

     NOUN i EMPH   ==>   DEM e ha/he   ==>  'this/that is it/she/he'


Rory