'to lack' and Subject

[R. Rankin]

Yes, these are very nice examples as they show
unequivocally that /dhiNge/ is NOT a 3rd person,
impersonal verb with a dative or patient-object.  That
is, /dhiNge/ cannot really be properly translated as
'lack' and /aN-dhiNge/ does not mean 'it is lacking to
me'.  John's right, I think; these serial VPs show that
/aN-/ here is an experiencer, not a dative, and, for
those of you who believe in the universality of
'subject' -- /aN-/ is a subject.

bob

> I've noticed these constructions in OP, in all of
which the aN Pat1
> encoded first person of dhiNge' 'to lack' is paired
with Agt1 agreement in
> an auxiliary.  This at least demonstrates the Agt and
Pat agreement can be
> in concord, and also tends to suggest that the
experiencer patient of
> dhiNge' is the subject, since these auxililaries
would concord with the
> subject in other kinds of sentences, whether that
subject was encoded as
> agent (in transitive and active verbs) or (in stative
verbs) as patient.
> (It seems to me that subject is a primarily a
syntactic notion, which is
> not marked as such in Omaha-Ponca morphology.)
>
> JOD 1890:261.13
>
> mikka'he aNdhiN'ge     miNkhe dhaNs^ti
> comb     I have lacked I PROG heretofore
>
> I was without a comb.
>
>
> JOD 1890:495.2
>
> nie' aNdhiN'ge=xti  anaN'z^iN
> pain I lack    very I stand
>
> I have no pain at all.
>
>
> JOD 1890:522.6
>
> wadhi'ttaN ui'kkaN     aNdhiN'ge=xti= maN
> work       t help him  I lack    very I AUX
>
> I have no work to help him.
>
>
>
>