akhe

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

>> 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.  ...

> John:
> 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.

Actually, I agree with you that akhe' as derived from akha=i is not likely.
I had included that as one possibility among several, but I wasn't really
plumping for it.  Another argument against it is that akha', as a
positional,
ought to come *after* the (-i | -bi) particle if it occurs at the end of
the
sentence, as "the" does in the fairly frequent form [Sentence] bi=the'=ama.
I think the examples you cite above indicate that akhe' functions as a
non-ablauting -e stem verb, however it was derived.


  [snip]
> I do, think, however, that considering the logic of akhe vs. akha and ame
> vs. ama without insisting on a particular analysis of akhe and ame, it is
> still clear that the alternation of e vs. a works differently for these
> than it does for (more typical) verbs, and that this is apparent even
> without addressing cases like akh(=)e=i where it works in quite the
> opposite way from, say, (a)dha=i.

Again, I agree.  The variation of akha' / akhe' and ama' / ame' is not our
standard verbal ablaut.  These words, as you say, need to be analysed
separately.  Unless someone else cares to argue for them, I think we can
reject hypothesis 1 (ablaut) and hypothesis 3 (X akha=i ==> X akhe).  This
leaves hypothesis 2 (X akha e ==> X akhe) and hypothesis 4
(X akha, e akha ==> X akhe).  Bob, did you have another one?

Rory