Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote:
> I'm getting that from one or more explicit charts with commentary
> in the Dorsey dictionary, or some of the other notes on reels in
> Mark's collection.  I haven't worked that out on my own from the
> texts, so I may be out on a limb here.  From Box 1, Reel 22,
> Slide 7:
>
>   akHa', cl. the sing. or collective sub. of an action, that is
>       performed of his or their own accord, and not by request
...

These examples were originally presented in:

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0110&L=siouan&P=R792

The version I have comes from the NAA 4800 Dorsey Papers, Item 120
"Envelope marked "C/egiha Grammatical Notes.  Not copied on slips Nov/93."

The table illustrating the interactions of aspect and proximity marking
doesn't lend itself to exact reproduction, but by rearranging things a bit
I can give as follows.  I have changed the orthography to the one I use in
email and indicated my own comments with my initials.

Sentences in pairs to be glossed as follows.  JEK

x.1 "The horse eats or ate the corn (complete action)"
x.2 "The horse is eating the corn (continuous or incomplete action)"

Preceding quoted glosses and parenthetical notes are Dorsey's exact words.
So the first sentence in each pair below is perfective, and the second is
imperfective, though these terms are not perhaps quite apt.  JEK

Dorsey's first column (JEK):

"By Consent or Command" (Dorsey's words, i.e., obviative subject JEK)

A = "if standing"

A.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe'e ha
A.2 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe thaN ha

B = "if moving"

B.1 s^aNge dhiN wahaba khe dhathe'e ha
B.2 s^aNge dhiN wahaba khe dhathe dhiN ha

C = "if sitting"

C.1 s^aNge dhiNkhe wahaba khe dhathe'e ha
C.2 s^aNge dhiNkhe wahaba khe dhathe dhiNkhe ha

D = "if reclining"

D.1 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe'e ha
D.2 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe khe ha

E = "if standing, past time; action occurring then, not now"

E.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhathe dhaN s^ti
E.2 s^aNge khe wahaba khe dhathe thaN dhaN s^ti [thaN + dhaN? spurious?
JEK]

F = "if standing, past time (present time not excluded)."

F.1 s^aNge thaN wahaba khe dhate the ha
[no F.2 example  JEK]

So the pattern for the continuous obviative (x.2 examples) is to use the
obviative (or object) articles with the subject and with the verb (as a
progressive auxiliary).  JEK

The pattern for the completive is to replace the auxiliary with =e. JEK

In the past time forms (evidentials, like Turkish perfects) there is
probably no contrast of x.1 and x.2, and the single form has the unmarked
verb stem followed by dhaN(s^ti) or the.  E.2 is probably spurious. JEK

"Without Consent or Command" (Dorsey's words, i.e., proximate subject JEK)

A = "if standing"

A.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhathai ha
A.2 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhate akha ha

B = "if moving"

B.1 s^aNge ama wahaba khe dhathai ha
B.2 s^aNge ama wahaba khe dhathe ama ha

C = "if sitting"

No proximate examples.  JEK

D = "if reclining"

No proximate examples.  JEK

E = "if standing, past time; action occurring then, not now"

E.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhathai dhaN s^ti
[no E.2 example  JEK]

F = "if standing, past time (present time not excluded)."

F.1 s^aNge akha wahaba khe dhatai the ha
[no F.2 example]


So the pattern for the continuous proximate (x.2 examples) is to use the
proximate (or subject) articles with the subject and with the verb (as a
progressive auxiliary).  JKE

The pattern for the completive is to use the plural/proximate marker =i.
JEK

In the past time forms (evidentials, like Turkish perfects) there is
probably no contrast of x.1 and x.2, and the single form has the
plural/proximate form followed by dhaN(s^ti) or the. JEK

"All in dicty; not yet in Gr./86"  (JOD's words)

=====

My comments:

It seems doubtful that =e (the final e in dhate'e) is acutally the marker
of perfective obviation in the A-D.1 obviative examples.  Examples without
it occur in texts, and this marker is also found with first persons.  It
is also clearly not a variant of =i, being actually opposed to it in this
table.  Moreover =e does not condition ablaut, while =i does.

My suggestion is that =e is a marker appropriate to the third person
obviative perfective context, but not indicating it per se, or restricted
to it.  I'd suggest a new information or focus marker, something analogous
to "It is/was the horse that ate the corn." or "The horse is the one who
ate the corn."

Note that "by consent or command" is a variant of Dorsey's reports
elsewhere that obviative forms indicate that the subject was out of site
while acting or acted on behalf of someone else.  By contrast proximate
forms indicate that the subject was visible or acted for itself.  In the
case of the horse eating the corn, this means, pragmatically, that a horse
eating corn on its own initiative is doing so improperly.

JEK