Algonquian Parellel? Muskogean Parallel?

[voorhis at westman.wave.ca]

Koontz John E wrote:
>
> It occurs to me that I've heard of a class of verbs in Algonquian
> languages that are similar to Omaha-Ponca (et al.) 'to lack; not to have'.
> The characteristic of 'to lack; not to have' is that it takes two
> arguments, but only the person lacking the thing can be non-third person
> and govern concord, at least as I have encountered the verb.

> Aside from the wrinkle that the inflectional prefixes are patient (object,
> stative)  forms, which leads to a sort of experiencer analysis ('me
> lacketh' or 'I lack' rather than 'I don't have'), this reminds me of
> certain Algonquian transitive stems I've heard of that agree only with the
> subject, not the object.

There are such stems.  But the absent affixed object pronouns can be
expressed by independent pronouns.  For example, a Kickapoo man
addressing peyote said: nekiisinaacihie kiai 'I sought help from you'
containing ne- 'I', naacihiee- 'seek help from' with the long ee
shortened when final, k- 'your', -iai 'self' usually reflexive but also
serving as a second-person inanimate pronoun -- peyote is inanimate in
Kickapoo.

Of course, modern Algonquian languages cannot reproduce the stative vs.
active contrast of Siouan and Muskogean because they mostly use the same
pronominal affixes for both subject and object, sorting out the
reference with the so-called theme signs, though the latter must have
been object pronouns originally.

> (I hope it was that way, and not the reverse!)
> Were these called pseudo-intransitives or pseudo-transitives?  Or maybe
> half(-assed) transitives?

My take on the pseudo-intransitives is that they are just intransitive
verbs that seem to contain a morpheme that usually indicates
transitives, cf.  Ojibwe pimipattoon 'run' and aapacittoon 'use it',
both with -ttoo- (-n is just the 2nd sg. imperative suffix).
Conversely, pseudo-transitive verbs lack any common transitive morpheme,
cf. Ojibwe miicin 'eat it' and wiissinin 'eat'.

It would be like calling Dakota nazhiN 'stand' pseudo-intransitive
because na- 'by foot' is in so many transitive verbs, and calling uN
'use' pseudo-transitive because it lacks an instrumental prefix.  Why
don't Siouanists do this?  Maybe because it's not a very useful
concept?  But maybe some other Algonquianist can make a better
pseudo-defense.

Paul