dhaN 'past' in OP

[R. Rankin]

> I should point out that if I'm right about "used to"
as a working gloss,
> that this is a sort of past durative or imperfect.
If the gloss is
> actually something more liek "once" then it would be
an aorist or
> preterite (or perfective).

I had to come up with an analysis for the Quapaw
cognate for the Quapaw sketch I did for the Hardy and
Scancarelli volume that will appear someday.  This was
in about 1994 or 5.  I think I decided, based on the
autobiography of Alphonsus Valliere I used as a sample
of the language, that it should be labeled 'imperfect'.
Based on John's examples, I think most of the Dhegiha
uses of it sort of fit that mold.  Outside of DH I
simply have no idea though.  We know it forms part of
Dakota k-?uN 'this completed...' and the Omaha
cognate/analog (e)gaN.  Beyond that I don't know.

Bob

>
> > "... e'=di dha'=zhi=a he," ehe' dhaN', s^aN' s^i'
e'gaN, ...
> >      there dont't go  DEC  I said PAST yet   you
arrived there having
> >
> >      Don't go there, I [used to] say, and just as
soon as you got there
> >      ...
> >
> > 1890:17.9
> >
> > "Ppahe'=wadhahuni    ujna'=      khe= dhaN
t?e'=adhe,"  a'=bi=  ama
> >  Hill   he eats them you told it CONT PAST I killed
him he said QUOT
> >
> > I have killed (the) Devouring Hill that you [used
to] tell of," he said.
> >
> > 1890:28.17
>
> On reflection, I have realized that khe (a positional
auxiliary or
> article)  here is not a continuative.  That is, even
if Ppahe'=wadhahuni
> or 'Devouring Hill' governs the khe 'the (lying)'
form of the article, it
> is not the subject here, and so khe isn't a
continuative marker.  The
> alternative (and more normal with inanimate articles)
is an evidential
> marker. though this seems a strange context for one.
If khe is
> evidential, then this example shows khe and dhaN
cooccurring, which would
> argue that dhaN cannot be seen as an evidential
itself.
>
> Unfortunately, what I really have here is a
deceptively simple sentence
> that I don't understand the syntax of.
>
> > "Ni'as^iNga=ama e'=di hi'=       hnaN=dhaN=di,
> >  Person     the there he arrived only PAST LOC
> >
> > Note that in this last sentence Dorsey glosses
=hnaN (modern =naN) as
> > 'only' and elaborates by explaining 'only arrived'
as 'arrived (as a
> > rule)'.  English 'just' seems a good rendition.
> >
> > 1890:32.3-4
>
> Note also that here we have s^naN ~ hnaN ~ naN
cooccurring with dhaN,
> showing that they are different.
>
> JEK
>