akhe

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu wrote:
> 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.

This is a good point that I had overlooked.  In analyzing akhe=i as
akh[a]=e=i, you have to assume that the [... akha] is embedded under the
e=i.  This would be a Siouan case of enclitics not respecting the phrase
structure of the sentence.  The e=i is attached phonologically to the "...
akh[a]" but the akha forms a constituent with the preceding NP, not with
the e=i.

> This leaves hypothesis 2 (X akha e ==> X akhe) and hypothesis 4 (X
> akha, e akha ==> X akhe).  Bob, did you have another one?

I didn't specifically address 4, but I think that any additional akha
after akhe is functional, so that "... akhe" and "... akhe akha" are
separate cases.

I think Bob was arguing at least that at least some akhe were a-khe, where
khe was the 'horizontal definite article' khe used with inanimates and
some animates (typically, ex-animates).  I'm not sure I buy that for most
akhe, but the two examples he suggested this for at least deserve another
look on my part.

Actually, at the risk of confusing matters, let me add that historically I
do actually think that akha might well be from a + khe and ama from a +
ma.  I can't account for the final vowel shift in the first case.  I
assume the initial a is another instance of the *(r)a that occurs so
widely after nouns or between then and other things.  However, there is no
sign of initial h with this a in Osage, Kaw or Quapaw, e.g., the Osage
articles are akha and apa.  The lack of h poses a problem in associating
these various post-nominal/pre-articlar/etc. a's with the forms that serve
as the indefinite demonstrative stem in Osage, etc.  In OP the indefinite
stem is is a, too, but in Osage, etc., it's ha as I've mentioned before.
One possibility is that there is no such association, of course.