akhe

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> No, actually I've been reading it, and akha, that way for quite a while.
> You may be right in your view that it is simply a contraction of akha=e;
> I just didn't think of that possibility at the time I discovered akhe.
> Another possibility, perhaps, is that it is a merging of akha=i.  ...

Actually, it appears that akh(=)e=bi=ama and akh(=)e=i both occur in the
texts - search for AKE*-BIAMA AKE*I in the Siouan Archives version.  This
tends to militate against seeing akhe as from akha=i, though you could try
to rescue matters by appealing to analogy or error or assuming two
separate i morphemes.  However, I think it's just an akha at the end of an
NP followed by e'=i 'it is' or e=bi=ama 'it is they say'.  Treated as a
verb e 'that; it is' doesn't ablaut.