Indefinite Demonstratives in Siouan

[Koontz John E]

In looking to see what Boas et al. had to say about (Omaha-)Ponca ablaut -
not as much as I thought I recalled - I happened upon this Boasian
assessment of Dakotan demonstratives.  It is interesting because it seems
to take the view that the indefinite or interrogative stem to is a
demonstrative on a par with e, le, he, and ka.  It probably underlies my
own views in the matter, not because I had assimilated it directly, or
even necessarily read it before, but because it determines the approach
used in Boas & Deloria, which I have assimilated.

Boas & Swanton, 1911, pp. 944-45

"The demonstrative pronouns proper are *e*, *le*, *he*, *ka*, and *to*.
The first of these always refers to something that has just been said, and
its use is more syntactic than local; *le* ...  to indicates that what is
referred to is indefinite; and it would not have been classes as a
demonstative had it not been employed in a manner absolutely parallel with
that of the other demonstratives.  ...

"...

"The definite article *kiN* is probably formed from the demonstrative *ka*
by rendering the phonetic change to *iN* permanent. ...

"In the plural, and when combined with certain particles, *to* performs
the function of an interrogative pronoun. ...

"In fact, the regular interrogative and relative pronouns *tu'wa* or
*tu'we* WHO, and *ta'ku* WHAT, are properly indefinites, and so related to
*to*; ..."

====

The comment on kiN seems a bit doubtful, and is included to show than even
appealing to established authority has its pitfalls.