=(b)(i) in Dakotan

[ROOD DAVID S]

Hi everyone,
	Sounds like I missed a terrific meeting.  I'll try not to let that
happen again, but it was certainly crucial to everyone else's happiness
around here that I stay here for the weekend.

	The pi/kta discussion reminds me of something that I only vaguely
remember, but which someone who works with Lakota in Canada, or Dakota,
should tell us more about.  In the relative clause construction in Sioux
Valley, according to some 60's or 70's work by either Pat Shaw or Jack
Chambers or Valerie Drummond or some combination thereof, the clauses
were said to end in either -g (from ki) or -b (from pi); can anyone recall
or find out what these marked?
	As for the -kta on embedded verbs, that's one more reminder (if we
needed it) that that is NOT a future marker, but irrealis; if you "want"
something from the past, you apparently didn't get it, so the embedded
clause is an unreal statement.
	David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu