Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote:
> Well, actually, this seems to make the issue one of akHa' vs.
> tHoN, rather than =i vs. no =i.

The distinction between third person singular proximate and obviative in
progressives (or imperfectives) is marked by the article used with the
subject (akha/ama vs. thaN/dhiN/dhiNkhe/khe) and also by the use of the
same two sets as as the auxiliaries with the verb.  The distinction
between third person singular proximate and obviative in non-progressives
(perfectives) is indicated by the article used with the subject (akha/ama
vs.  thaN/dhiN/dhiNkhe/khe again) and the use or non-use of =i/=bi with
the verb.  The use of =i or =bi is conditioned by other contextual
factors.

> And then there's that intriguing =e in the tHoN case, which doesn't
> cause a-grade ablaut.

I discussed that in the preceding letter.

> Perhaps the "independent of outside influence" has
> to do only with the proximate positionals akHa' and ama',
> and not with =i and =bi, though these two sets certainly do
> seem to like each other.

Yes.  Though the overall behavior is complex the general observation is
that both article/auxiliary use and =(b)(i) use serve to mark the
proximate/obviative (or without conset/with consent) distinction.  When
both occur, they should agree.  Matters are much complicated by such
cross-cutting issues as use of the "obviative subject" articles to mark
objects and oblique sentence articles, by the use of =(b)(i) to mark
plurals, and by the occurrence of =e in some contexts for separate
reasons.  Also, by the positional gender control of forms within each
article set, and by the direct/reported contrast marked in by =i vs. =bi.
And whatever is marked by nothing vs. =e in non-progressive obviatives.

This must be rather difficult to approach begining students with.  "Bad
news, class!  Today we start the definite article and third person
singular."

JEK