More regarding "wa"

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> wa-makha-s^kaN
> WA-earth-move.ITR
> 'animal (i.e. [on-]earth-mover)',
>
> we end up with animate reference for wa- again. Or is there a different
> way of analyzing this form?

I think this sort of consideration depends critically on whether we see
wa- in nominalizations as marking the "subject" of the nominalization or a
non-specific "patient" (stative-pronoun concord) in the case frame of the
nominalization, which, of course, might be a subject.  If the latter then
it would depend on the position of wa- in the case frame.

In other words, in something like OP we'base 'saw' < wa + i + base 'cut by
pushing', is wa- a reference to the saw (something you cut things with)
or to non-specific things cut with the saw (a thing you cut non-specific
things with).

JEK