A Metaphorical Suggestion and meeting times.

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> I guess that, to me, that's what proximate/obviative IS basically.  It's
> also been described as "central/peripheral" by Heather Hardy for Muskogean,
> where more than one reference is also possible in both categories, but I
> suspect she may just not have been familiar with the established
> "proximate/obviative" categories.

I don't really have any problem with continuing to use the terms
proximate/obviative, but I thought the staging metaphor was helpful in
explaining the usual multiplicity of proximate references and the sorts of
explanations of obviative references that Dorsey's sources offered.  It
probably makes the Algonquianists feel more at ease, because I think they
feel strongly that one proximate reference should be the maximum at a
time.  This reminds me a bit of Classical theater's limits on the number
of actors.

> While it would be nice to be able to explain everything in the text
> collection, I think this is precisely the kind of problem that can
> best be approached by working with speakers (who can at least try to
> explain what they are thinking when using one or the other particle).
> THEN see if the texts can be rationalized in that light.

It would be nice to be in a position to be able to do this.  On the other
hand, it's difficult to get a really coherent discussion of 'the' out of
an English speaker.  I hoped that a little advance spadework might help
those in a position to make inquiries and conduct tests.  I am embarassed
to say that I seem to have lost track of Ardis's state of advance in this
area.  The Siouan Syntax meeting John Boyle organized in Colorado was
very exciting, and I seem to have lost my grip on parts of it.