Dhegiha Plurals and Proximates

[Rory M Larson]

> About a month and a half ago, just before my life became an apparently
> unending sequence of Income Tax forms, miscellaneous and alarmingly
> past-due deadlines, and, more recently and pleasantly, cheering at
> junior girls' softball games, Rory Larson had posted a a very long
> (about 17K) and thoughtful discussion of Dhegiha proximates and plurals.

Uhh... Sorry about that.  Guess I got carried away...

> As I am way behind on acknowledging Rory's postings, I thought I could
> do far worse than to return from the (apparently) dead to tackle some
> aspects of it.

Welcome back!  (I was getting a little worried!)

>On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Rory wrote:
>> I'd like to revise my position slightly from what I was
>> arguing when first grappling with this.  First, the dichotomy
>> between =i and =bi is quite regular in the Dorsey texts.  If the
>> verb is followed by =i, the speaker is asserting it on his own
>> account as the straight goods.  If the verb is followed by =bi,
>> it means that the speaker is absolving himself of responsibility
>> for the implication of what he has just said.  Thus, =bi is
>> regularly used in reporting hearsay, or in describing a former
>> hypothesis.  In the latter role, it may cover supposition or
>> expectation ("supposed to").

> I think I've stated before that I am more and more convinced that this
> does explain the opposition of =i and =bi in Omaha-Ponca texts and, on
> presume, in conversation, though there are some additional special
> cases like names and songs where =bi appears.  As Rory points out
> subsequently - I may not make it that far this evening - it might be
> possible to regard these as special cases of quotative usage,
> stipulating that this term is not perhaps used ideally in Siouan
> grammatical terminology.  Was it reportative that was considered
> the better term?

I know I didn't like "quotative".  "Reportative" is better, but might
be better yet reserved for the /ama'/ in /biama'/ and elsewhere.
In OP, my sense is that =i implies that you are talking about the
real world, while =bi means you are talking about the concept, or
a hypothesis about the real world.  I can't think of a really
good word for this in Latin.


>> In third person declarative statements, neither =i nor =bi
>> normally has anything to do with plurality.  They do indicate
>> that the concept is complete rather than progressive,
>
> That is, progressives are formed by adding one of the positional
> forms that serve also as definite articles, and this positional
> follows a verb that ends in the stem final vowel, without any
> sign of =i ~ =bi.

Yes.

>> and that it is independent of outside influence.
>
> Does this refer to sporadic comments in Dorsey's footnotes,
> especially in Dorsey 1891 that certain forms without =i would
> be this because the action must have been performed at someone
> else's behest?

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
      or permission of another.

      ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHa'i ha
      the horse eats or ate the corn
                  (which he should not have eaten); but

      ShoN'ge tHoN waha'ba kHe dhatHe'e ha
      the horse eats or ate the corn
                  (given to him for that purpose).

      ShoN'ge akHa' waha'ba kHe dhatHe' akHa' ha
      The (motionless) horse is eating the corn
                  (which he should not eat).     [...]

Well, actually, this seems to make the issue one of akHa' vs.
tHoN, rather than =i vs. no =i.  And then there's that
intriguing =e in the tHoN case, which doesn't cause a-grade
ablaut.  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.


>> In commands, and in statements and exhortations that use
>> the potential particle /tte/, =i at least signals plurality.
>
> Typically, of course, =tte is followed by a positional, but
> it does occur without it in a sort of precative or exortative
> sense that Dorsey tends to gloss 'you will please' as in
>
> i'=dhadhe=tte
> you will please send it hither
> D90:689.10
>
> udha'gdha?a?a=tta=i ha
> you will (please) give the scalp yell
> D90:15.12

Yes.  I've been teaching the class to use this form as a
substitute for "please".


>> There are a few very rare, but illuminating cases, however,
>> in which =i is replaced by =bi in these contexts.
>
> Referring now to imperatives in =ga (IMPm), rather than precatives.

Yes.

>> Usually, you command a group of people in the form: V=i ga!
>> But if you are conveying someone else's command, you can cast
>> it in the form: N V=bi ga!, where N is the name of the party
>> whose command you are conveying!
>
> I think the only examples are instances of
>
> maNc^hu is^ta'z^ide   uihe    thi=dha=bi=ga  hau
> Red-eyed Grizzly Bear to join pass along     DECLm
> Go to REGB to fetch the meat!
> D90:43.12
>
> Dorsey glosses this "grizzly-bear eye-red to-come-for-the-meat
> pass-ye-on" showing the idiomatic sense of the phrase,
> referring to the women being summoned to carry home the kill.
>
> I think that Rory is exactly right here and the use of =bi
> conveys that the summons was issued by someone else and is
> being reported on behalf of the original summoner.  I suspect
> this is at least one variant of the standard message to this
> effect, delivered on behalf of the hunt leader.

I'm glad you agree.  This is the only example I ever found.


>> ... In these cases, I don't know whether =bi would be used
>> in the singular or not. ...
>
> As far as I can tell, the =i ~ =bi here is always plural
> (with the unmarked second person of the imperative form).

This case, and the cases of tta=i (will do X) vs. tta=bi
(were supposed to do X), all happen to be plural in reference.
A singular situation should be equally possible, but I've
never run into one.


Rory