Tense

[R. Rankin]

I think that in those Siouan languages where tense
morphology may actually exist, it represents an
innovation.  Often it seems to involve an auxiliary,
*?uN 'do, be' with one or more prefixes that has become
grammaticalized.  There really are no past tense
morphemes, per se.  I would say that this statement
about the lack of tense is true even for the so-called
'future'.  If you ask for a sentence in future time,
you will normally get a reply with (iN)-ktA in Dakota
and its equivalent in other languages.  But this affix
means both more and less than 'future tense'.  You'll
also get it with conditionals, modals 'may, might' and
other utterances that make it clear that what it really
marks is 'irrealis mode'.  It just marks something that
hasn't actually happened.

There is plenty of morphology that marks modalities and
plenty that marks aspect (progressive/continuative,
habitual, perfect, etc.).  Ordinarily, if time
reference is really required, it is provided with an
adverb or a temporal conjunction.  I did a talk on this
when I was in Australia and can send a copy of the
draft if you like.  It isn't very polished.

It is the progressive or continuative aspect that
usually uses the positional auxiliaries (although
Mauricio Mixco also finds it in use with other
constructions as well in his Mandan sketch).  But
action of the verb can be progressive in the past or
the future as well as the present, so the positionals
don't necessarily mark present.

The traditional grammarians who produced the earlier
(often very good) grammars of Dakota, Lakota, etc. used
terms like 'future' because they didn't distinguish
'kind of action' from 'time of action' in their
grammars.  It is still used to translate ktA today by
some.  But, as I say, I don't think it's tense per-se.

>Most often, the 3Pl subject form -ire (or -hire) is
given to indicate the
subject.  However, in getting forms this actually is
the past tense.

Jagu aire?
Jagu e-ire?
What say-3Pl?
What did they say?

Jagu anaaNk?
Jagu e-naaNk?
What say-3Pl?
What are they saying?

HC may operate differently from LAK in this regard, but
I'd guess that the difference between the two above
examples would be non-continuing vs. continuing action,
not tense.  Try "what do they say?" for the first and
"what were they saying" for the second and see what
emerges.  I can't begin to predict, but it should be
interesting to contrast all four meanings.

>I think Miner is the only one that correctly lists
these forms.  Yet there
is no extensive treatment of tense in his work.  This
seems to be the only
form that indicates something took place in the past
rather than not in the
future.Past can be indicated through the absence of the
positional in other cases.

waNk  naNka naNwaNnaNks^aNnaN.

waNk  naNka  naNwaN-naNk-s^aNaN.

man   that (sit) sing-POS (sit)-Declarative

That man is singing (seated).

waNk naNka naNwaNnaN.

waNk naNka naNwaN- naN

man that (sit) sing- Declarative.

That man sang.

How about 'that man was singing' and 'that man sings
well', where the first is progressive but in the past
and the second is present but not progressive.  I
really wonder if you'll get any overt tense morphology.

Bob Rankin

>In the above forms the demonstrative can be replaced
with the indefenite
article -iz^aN or the defenite article -ra with the
same effect.

>My question is if you all think there is more to tense
in Ho-Chunk than what i have read?  What is happening
in other Siouan langauges.  I believe I read in a paper
somewhere that Lakhota also makes a future-non-future
distinction.  Do positionals have a similar effect (I'm
especially curious
about Chiwere)?  Thank you.

>On a side note, a budding linguist like myself, and as
a person with a
vested interest in Ho-Chunk langauge study I really
appreciate this List.
You all have no idea how much more efficient and
valuable my studies have become based on the archives
and current comments on this List.  Thank you all
again.

Henning Garvin
UW-Madison
Anthropology/Linguistics