transitivity, locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.

[Shannon West]

David Rood wrote:

> In either case, the adposition has to be some kind of
> duplication -- either the affix or the adposition is a copy/agreement of
> the other -- and I am not aware of any kind of syntax that allows
> different case markers depending on the person of the arguments (enlighten
> me, please, if such things exist -- that would be fascinating).

Actually, I think such a thing is possible. If I recall correctly, 3rd
person is treated quite differently from local persons in Athabaskan
languages, especially the northern ones. (If you're truly interested, check
out what Sharon Hargus, Keren Rice and Leslie Saxon have to say on the
issue. They all differ somewhat, but are talking about the same issue - the
difference in case marking between local and non-local persons).

There are certainly case splits that run across person lines (see Jelinek,
1985 on Nisgha, for example).

> >
> > 2.  Likewise the reciprocal prefix *hki(k)-.  Is it the
> > direct object of the verb in, for example,
> > a-hkih-toMpe 'they look after each other, where atoMpe
> > is 'look after'.  Even if you believe in the pronominal
> > argument hypothesis, is -hkih- the pronominal here or
> > is it a voice marker?
>
>
> Again, from the Lakhota perspective, see the Legendre and Rood paper in
> BLS 18 (1992).  Geraldine used the difference between reflexives and
> reciprocals to argue that the reflexive was NOT an object, but rather a
> de-transitivizing operator that required a stative subject, whereas the
> reciprocal behaved like the object of transitive verbs.

I really need to re-read that paper. I'm having nothing by trouble figuring
out reflexives in Assiniboine. They don't work quite the same way as in
Lakhota, and it's confusing me greatly.

Shannon