Omaha-Ponca bi vs. i with "egaN"

[Koontz John E]

This is an installment in support of my hypothesis that i and bi are two
morphemes which both mark plurality and third person singular proximate
status.  We're looking primarily at the third person singular proximate
cases.  While I believe that i and bi mark the same thing, and are
selected between depending on context, I will keep my eyes open for
indications that bi marks something like irrealis.  I don't see any traces
yet of it marking a quotative sense, thought the quotative (or
reportative) morpheme ama consistently conditions use of bi (as opposed to
i), in cases where one of them would precede it.  There are, of course,
cases where something else precedes.

=========

Use of i vs. bi with conjunctions of the form egaN.

In fact, there are two conjunctions here, and recognizing this is critical
to the enterprise.  As they are written very similarly and seem to have
the same etymology, it is easy to overlook the consistently different way
Dorsey glosses them, the consistently different contextual semantics that
correlate with these glosses, and the difference in accentual patterning.

=========

bi before egaN 'having'

The stress pattern of egaN 'having' depends on the stress of the preceding
verb.  The rule is probably alternating syllables, but this involves some
assumptions.  It does vary, however, and it does seem to depend on the
preceding verb.

JOD 1890:17.3

We'ahide=xti= atta  hi       uxdha'=bi           egaN',
far away very at it arriving [they] overtook him having

t?e'=adha=bi=     ama.
[they] killed him they say

Having overtaken him at a very distant location, they killed him.

- In this example the bi before egaN 'having' is not glossed 'they say',
  though sometimes it is.  See the next example.

- If alternating stress rule for 'having' stress, then this is something
  like uxdha'=b(i)=egaN'.

- Note the -a- between we'ahide=xti and tta DIRECTION.

JOD 1890:40.9-10

E'gidhe         z^e'=adi=gdhaN ppe'z^i gdhi'za=bi                 e'gaN,
it came to pass loincloth      bad     he took his own "they say" having

we'za=            hnaN adha=bi=ama
to give the alarm only he went they say

Then, having grabbed up his vile loincloth, he just went to given the
alarm.

- In this example the bi before egaN 'having' does get the gloss
  'they say', but I bleieve this is a contamination from biama,
  which Dorsey always treats as a unit.

- If alternating stress rule for 'having' stress, then this is
  gdhi'za=b(i)=e'gaN.

- Note the -a- between z^e' 'penis' and =di LOCATION in 'loincloth'.

As far as the accentuation issue, Dorsey does sometimes write bi before
egaN 'having' as just b, e.g.

JOD 1890:23.4

a'=b egaN
'he said "they say" having'

This tends to confirm that the i of =bi elides before egaN 'having'.

=========

But i before e'=gaN 'as, because, so'.

This conjunction always has initial stress.  I interpret it as part of the
following clause, though the glosses 'as' (which Dorsey often uses) and
'because' tend to suggest attachment to the preceding clause.  In any
case, I believe the e' of e'gaN '(that) is so' refers to the subordinated
preceding clause.

JOD 1890:17.9

"Ga'=ama naghi'de=dhiN'ga=i   e'=gaN e'=di dha'=z^i=a   he" ehe'=  dhaN
 those   they are disobedient as     there go not   IMP DEC I said PAST

s^aN' s^i      e'=gaN c^?e'=dhidha=i.
yet   you went as     they killed you

'Those folks are disobedient, so don't go to them!' I said, yet you went,
so they killed you.

- 'Disobedient' is Dorsey's gloss, but 'wild, unruly' seems to fit
  better.  The form literally means 'they lack inner ears'.

- Note the c^?e for t?e in 'kill'.  I call this phenomenon "grandmother
  speech," though that term may miss the essence of it.  (The speaker
  is Rabbit's Grandmother, i.e., the Earth.)

=========

It is possible to switch the glosses about.  For example, 'as' would work
instead of 'having' in the English glossing, but if you think about it,
they didn't kill him because they overtook him, but subsequent to
overtaking him.  It's true they (the Black Bears) couldn't have killed him
(Rabbit) if they hadn't overtaken him, but they always intended to kill
him, to avenge themselves for his actions (killing their chief and
taunting them with it), and were chasing him long and hard with that
intent.  The emphasis in the context is on sequentiality.  In the next
'having' example, if you look at it, 'as' won't work at all.

In dealing with Dorsey's texts one has to be cautious about his glosses,
but one ignores them at one's peril.  Thus, he spuriously glosses many =bi
markers as 'they say', working from a false conclusion as to the relation
of =bi=ama to the gloss 'they said', but a careful consideration of the
evidence suggests that it may provisionally be taken as an error.  I have
not yet regretted making that provisional assumption, and so I stick with
it.  On the other hand the consistent pattern of 'having' vs. 'as' does
reflect something very real, if easily overlooked, since it corresonds to
something real in meaning, morphology, and phonology.  Dorsey's very
tendency to consistency in glossing makes the one practice a probable
error and the other an important distinction.

I do not wish to suggest that Dorsey is never inconsistent and if I found
a mismatch between the behavior of (b)i and egaN and glossing I would look
first to a possibile inconsistency in explaining it.

On the other hand, there are some differences that do seem inexplicable.
One I have noticed is:

Dorsey 1890:15:7-9

AN'haN -- negi'ha -- wa?u'z^iNga aka' -- dhine'gi -- Wasa'be --
dhiNkhe'=tta -- maN'dhiN=a he -- ai' e'gaN -- aN'husa=i egaN' --
phi ha,...

Yes -- o mother's brother -- old woman the -- your mother's brother --
Blackbear -- the-to -- walk thou -- she said having -- she scolded me
having -- I've come DEC

Clearly these are 'having' both by gloss and by context, but they have
unexpected i.  The one thing noticeably different thing about these
examples is the 'crying' intonation indicated by the -- (long dashes) in
Dorsey's texts.  I can't say at present if that is relevant.

I believe this exception and others that may exist are just that.  The
vast majority of instances (I checked the first 50 pages, albeit hastily)
seem to be consistent with the rules I've offered.  I didn't count them,
but it seemed like dozens, even hundreds, that met the patterns, and
perhaps this one set that didn't.