Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates

[Koontz John E]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> JEK: I'm pretty sure now that the Dhegiha progressives are originally
> nominalizations,...  These nominalizations do not have -a-.  The verbs
> involved do not ablaut, though a-ma and a-kha seem to have the -a- as
> a prefix, and the the obviative forms thaN, etc., get an unexpected a-
> in the inclusive inflected forms.

I should probably have said "though a-ma and a-kha have *an* -a-,"
thinking about this, not taking the identity of morphs for granted.

> JEK:  ...  It would be nice if a piece of *=tk remained [in the Crow
> and Hidatsa futures], but I gather it doesn't.
>
> RLR: Sorry, I'm sitting here on Sat. a.m. half asleep, but I don't know what
> you're referring to with *=tk.  Could you possibly mean *kt- the 'irrealis'

Oops, yes, I definitely meant -kt-.