Algonquian Parallel? Muskogean Parallel?

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Pamela Munro wrote:
> I'm very interested indeed by these thoughts about the Siouan "III"
> series. I had not thought about this this way, and it's interesting.

The three-way contrast of pronominals presumably works for Muskogean
because the marking of dative is wholely confined to the object
pronominal.  I seem to recall that it has something to do with the nasal,
but it has been a while since I read anything relevant.  If the marking
can be fairly transparently factored off and the remaining pronominal
element matches the II series, then maybe the III series is still somewhat
notional.  But I don't recall if this works.

In OP, dative marking affects the wa-locative-pronominal string in
idiosyncratic ways, depending on the locative (or absence thereof), but,
in the absence of a locative, it affects both pronominals (agent and
patient, or I and II).  So, while I tended to think in terms of agent,
patient, and dative pronominals initially, I ended up resolving not to,
feeling that in the OP case that approach obscured matters mroe than it
helped them.

The situation in Dakotan is materially simpler, but complicated in a
different way (from my point of view) by the apparent swapping of the
dative and suus paradigms (relative to Dhegiha).  Still, I think it makes
more sense there, too, to think in terms of dative as separate from the
pronominals, though I'd have to review matters to be sure!