transitivity, locative prefixes & the pronomin. argument hypothesis.

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Shannon West wrote:
> > 1. Yes, it is the direct object (atypical for a DO semantically, but a
> > DO).
>
> Ok. But why? :) Why not an oblique? I'm really interested in this one. I
> haven't taken sides yet (I'm such a fence-sitter, I have post marks
> permanently indenting my backside), so I'd really like to see lots of
> thoughts on this. :)

My argument is pretty much along Pam Munro's lines (and others), to wit,
the argument of the locative prefix is the direct object of the
locative-prefixed verb if the verb agrees with the "semantic locative"
(hereafter the locus) but uses regular patient agreement forms to do so.
As Bob points out, the concept of "semantic locative" is something of a
slippery slope, but, in the absence of any universally recognized
metalanguage we're sort of stuck with that slippery slope, I think.
Still, given that Siouan languages do have locative postpositions I think
a hypothetical Osage speaker, suitably inclined, could use Osage itself as
a metalanguage in this case.  The results might be somewhat ungrammatical,
but, then, I'm OK with examples like 'I command it on you' for a'wigas^i
(< a'gas^i 'to command').

Like Bob I like the terms primary and secondary object.  Omaha-Ponca, and
also, I suppose, Osage, permits secondary objects as NPs, but it only
agrees with primary objects.  I'd say a verb like dhiNge agrees with the
experiencer as primary object and that the thing lacked is a secondary
object.  Or, as some would say, an oblique.

In case it helps, some Omaha-Ponca examples follow.  Unfortunately, I
don't have any great examples with a'ttaN 'to tread on'.

JOD 1890:264.5
ttaha'wagdhe iNdhattaN         the  ha
shield       you tread on mine EVID ASSERT

(Spoken by Big (Snapping?) Turtle, referring to stepping on his shell.)

(a) iN-    dha- ttaN
on  me-DAT you  tread

Unfortunately, the morphological logic of OP verbs is such that a-aN on-me
becomes aN only, and the dative is derived from that by vowel shift as iN.

Incidentally, this is one of those cases where only the "derived by vowel
shift" explanation is the only option, as opposed to explaining iN < aN +
gi by some sort of elision of g and fusion of aN and i, because, if you'll
notice, the gi dative prefix ought to follow dha, but has somehow managed
to combine with aN through dha without affecting dha at all.

So, if you know OP morphology this is a convincing case of "agreeing with
the locus using verb morphology", but if you don't and are skeptical, you
might think I'm trying to pull a fast one here.  A case of "I tread on
you" would be much more convincing, were one to hand.  It would be
a'-wi-ttaN, where wi is comparable to c^hi.

JOD 1890:214.14-15

si=  the siNde=ge  wa'ttaN=        bi=    kki
foot the tails the he trod on them REPORT when
(he trod on the tails with his foot)

wa-  a-  ttaN
them on tread

where wa- is the Dhegiha vicar for wic^ha- - or vice versa.

Not as convincing, perhaps, because the pronominal in this case precedes
the a and one might want to argue that it was somehow an argument of the
a, but not the ttaN.

Other, better examples with other stems:

a'-wi-gdhiN 'I sit on you'   JOD 1890:99.13

a'-wi-b-dhaskabe 'I stick to you'  JOD 1890:211.12

a'-wi-gippanaN 'I gaze on you (my relation)'  JOD 1890:230.12

a'-wi-naNge 'I run on (or over) you'  JOD 1890:566.8

a'-wi-gaz^ade 'I step over you'  JOD 1890:568.

a'-wi-naN?aN 'I hear from you'  JOD 1890:717.12

a'-wi-kki=b-dha 'I attack you' (a...kki=dha)  JOD 1890:23.18

a'-wi-gaz^i 'I command you'  JOD 1890:198.7

In all of these cases the primary object is the locus.

I haven't found any examples of a- transitives that seem to agree with
something other than the locus, but consider i'-.  ote that i'- is
sometimes plainly instrumental (governing an argument of means), and in
other cases it is more generally locative.


* Cases where i- governs a secondary object, not the primary object.

waxiN'ha i'-wi-maghe 'letter I ask you (about)'  JOD 1890:658.2

waxiN'ha i'-wi-kkikka 'letter I ask as a favor of you'  JOD 1890:675.5

i'-wi-p-aghe 'I make for you by means of (it)'  JOD 1890:716.2

ga=khe i'-wi-gaxdhi 'that I will slay you with'  JOD 1890:394.3
(I will kill you with that)


* Cases where i- governs the primary object.

i'-wi-hi=b-dha 'I bathe by means of you'  JOD 1890:234.4
(to stones to heat sweat lodge)


* Cases where i- does not seem to be clearly instrumental or even
locative, but the verb stem as a whole is transitive.  Probably i- is
originally locative in some way.

i'-wi-t?a=b=dha 'I hate you'  JOD 1890:669.3

i'-wi-iNga 'I ignored you'  JOD 1891:101.7

ukki'tte i'-wi-ppahaN 'nation(s) I know you'  JOD 1890:426.8

i'-wi-kkiz^az^e 'I threaten to attack you' JOD 1890:582.10 (Hmm.  I wonder
if this provides a root for waz^a'z^e 'Osage'? I'd always suspected
iz^a'z^e 'name', though maybe 'to name each other' is the basis of 'to
threaten to attack'.)

i'-wi-kkaN=i 'I contend with you(pl)'  JOD 1890:166.3


* Cases where whether i- governs the object depends on whether you see the
case as raising:

siNde=khe naNbe'=the i'-wi-kkaNttaN '(your) tail (my hand) I tie
you with'
JOD 1890:96.4-5
(I will tie your tail with my hands.)

dha-gha'ge i'-wi-kkuhe 'you cry I fear it for you'  JOD 1890:372.4
(I fear that you cry)

ppaN'kka=tta ne i'-wi-kkuhe 'Poncas-to you go I fear for you'  JOD
1890:651.6
(I fear that you will go to the Poncas)

wa-dh-xpadhiN i'-wi-kkuhe 'you are poor I fear it for you'  JOD 1891:97.3
(I fear that you are in want)

s^kaN maN-h-niN=ge bdhuga=xti i'-wi-b-dhigdhaN '(in) all your affairs I
rule over you'  JOD 1890:328.5-6