double inflection
Pamela Munro
munro at ucla.edu
Sun Aug 3 21:39:54 UTC 2003
Wow -- interesting! Thanks!
Koontz John E wrote:
>In spite of my sally about Siouan languages not including multiple
>plurals, I've thought of a counter example. Those pseudo-inflected
>negatives in Dhegiha (or at least Omaha-Ponca) involve a plural form that
>can be pluralized. The forms are A1 =m=az^i perhaps from =maN=az^i, A2
>singular and A3 singular obviative =az^i, plural and A3 singular proximate
>=b=az^i < =bi=az^i. The regular plural can follow this:
>
>dhahu'ni=b=az^i=*bi*=ama 'it did not draw him into its mouth, they say'
>
>hna'tha=b=az^i=*i*=a 'why do you (all) not eat'
>
>wiaN'bahaN=b=az^i=s^te=aN=*i* 'we do not know at all' (we know something
>not soever)
>
>aNdaN'ba=b=az^i=xti=aN=*i* 'we have not seen him at all' (we have very not
>seen him)
>
>It seems that the cases where =b=az^i occurs with nothing following might
>be (third singular) proximates with no following enclitics or cases
>followed by additional independent verbs that preempt the plural/proximate
>marking. I'm not sure that accounts for all the exceptions to double
>marking. It may provide a sort of test for enclisis, since declaratives -
>which Dorsey always writes as a separate word - don't seem to condition
>multiple plurals (but imperatives and interrogatives do).
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Siouan
mailing list