A Metaphorical Suggestion

[Koontz John E]

Many Siouanists may know that Ardis Eschenberg has been able to make
progress with understanding Omaha-Ponca obviation by restating the
proximate/obviative distinction in terms of on-stage/off-stage.  She
observes in particular that there is no limit on the number of proximate
references, and that this is more consistent with the staging metaphor.

It has occurred to me to wonder if the akha : ama distinction might be
relatable to this metaphor by considering ama as tantamount to a stage
direction of 'enter X' or 'exit/exeunt X', while akha refers to a
reference which is currently on stage.  Dhegihanists will recall that
Omaha intuitions as to what explained obviative subjects - as reported by
Dorsey - were in terms of incidental factors.  Obviative subjects were
characterized as being out of sight or acting for others:  in short "off
stage."  Perhaps explanations like 'moving' and 'plural' (numerous,
non-individuated) are similar ways of characterizing maginality or
transition with respect to staging?

I haven't any evidence to support this hypothesis at present.  At best it
is consistent with some tentative suggestions of Carolyn Quintero relative
to Osage (a)kxa : (a)pa.  It's probably a little too convenient (for my
own good).  At any rate, it should be fairly easy to test from texts,
which is convenient for me.

JEK