Attn: Dhegiholics.

[Rankin, Robert L]

Ardis, Catherine, John, Rory, et al.,

I recently queried Kathy Shea about the reality of a construction that John
discovered in Dorsey 1890.  The only 2 sentences using it are copied below.
I am sending this to all of you because Kathy's Ponca speakers didn't
recognize these as legit Ponca sentences. No doubt the pattern was rather
rare.  I wonder if ANYone working with Omaha (or Osage) can get recognition
of this pattern using a conjugated forms of /the/ (aspirated T + e) with the
forms a-the, dha-the "I must have..."?

Bob

Here is my original note to Kathy:

"Here is an excerpt from my ICHL paper in which I quoted JOhn Koontz.  I
hope the 'funny characters' came through OK.  If they did not, please
let me know if clarification is needed:

(G)  Conjugated evidentials.  Koontz (2000 and personal communication)
reports a few instances in which evidential classifiers are found in
Omaha (Dorsey 1890:63) with person-number prefixes, i.e., they are
conjugated as verbs just like the verbal classifiers discussed above,
except that here it is the inanimate set of classifiers that is involved
even if the subjects are animate.  If we have analyzed these correctly,
they represent yet another stage in the grammaticalization of the
evidential-classificatory articles and the only instances in which
inanimate classifiers are used with actual animate pronominal prefixes.
Both are with the 'standing inanimate evidential'.

(53)  na!  agðáthe -- a-thé --           é-ama
     EXCLAM SUUS-eat  I-EVIDENTIAL say, they say.
    'Why!  I ate mine -- I must have -- he said, they say.

(54)  na!      agðá-snì    kki   a-zhaN a-thé, é-ama
      EXCLAM SUUS-swallow when I-sleep  I-EVIDENTIAL, say, say.
    'Why! When I swallowed mine I must have been sleeping, he said, they
say.'

WHAT I'D LIKE TO FIND OUT IS WHETHER THIS IS REALLY A CONJUGATED
"EVIDENTIAL ARTICLE" OR SOME OTHER, UNIDENTIFIED, PARTICLE.

SO ONE WAY TO FIND OUT WOULD BE TO CITE THE SENTENCE TO PARRISH WILLIAMS
AND TELL HIM WHAT DORSEY SAID IT MEANT.  THEN SEE IF IT CAN BE SAID IN
THE 2ND PERSON, E.G.

(53')  na!  ða-gðáthe -- ða-thé --           é-ama
     EXCLAM SUUS-eat     YOU-EVIDENTIAL say, they say.
    'Why!  YOU ate YOURS -- YOU must have -- he said, they say.

(54')  na!      ða-gðá-snì    kki   ða-zhaN ða-thé, é-ama
      EXCLAM SUUS-swallow when YOU-sleep   YOU-EVIDENTIAL, say, say.
    'Why! When YOU swallowed YOURS YOU must have been sleeping, he said,
they say.'

THE CRITICAL FORMS HERE OF COURSE ARE THE /DHA-THE/ IN EACH SENTENCE.

IF THOSE WORK OUT, THEN YOU MIGHT TRY FOR A FEW OTHER ANALOGOUS CASES
WITH /THE/ AND DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.  YOU CAN TRY FOR OTHER 'YOU MUST
HAVE...' OR 'I MUST HAVE...' OR 'WE MUST HAVE...' SENTENCES. THESE AREA ALL
CASES IN WHICH THE SUBJECT DOES SOMETHING UNAWARES AND THEN REMARKS UPON IT.

THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION WHETHER OTHER "EVIDENTIAL ARTICLES" CAN
APPEAR IN THE SAME SLOT.  THIS SEEMS MORE DOUBTFUL, SINCE /THE/ WAS THE
ORIGINAL 'RUMORED' EVIDENTIAL PARTICLE.  IT IS WORTH EXPLORING THOUGH.

I HOPE YOU HAVE GOOD LUCK ELICITING THESE.  I SUSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION
WASN'T USED MUCH SINCE IT ONLY OCCURS TWICE IN DORSEY'S TEXT COLLECTION.
YOU NEVER KNOW THOUGH....

THAT LITTLE BOOKLET THAT KINKOS DID UP FOR MY WORKSHOP PAPER IN BOULDER
CONTAINS FURTHER DISCUSSION."

Bob

Part of Kathy's reply:

"I finally got around to asking Uncle Parrish about the sentences you
sent when I went over to his house last Sunday to take him a Christmas
present.  Uncle Paul Little Voice happened to be there visiting, so I
submitted the sentences to both of them.  Both of the them said the
sentences didn't make any sense, even though I read the them several times
with the translation. They were pretty emphatic about their opinions."