Winnebago =ire

[Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht]

Dear Rory,

let me briefly respond to your query on Hocank (Winnebago).  -ire ist
indeed a 3pl suffix  that neutralizes the active / inactive distinction
in intransitive verbs. In transitive verbs it is the 3pl actor exponent.

The idea that -wi  is a general pluralizer is not quite correct. It is
used to pluralize first and second person prefixes of the actor and
undergoer series of pronominal prefixes. I never saw it pluralizing a
3sg which is zero in Hocank. The example you cited from Lipkind - if it
really exists - is certainly not the standard form. I did not come
across the form xawi as a regular form for 3pl-bury. Both forms we are
talking about are in complementary distribution.

-wi is not specific with regard to the semantic role in intransitive
verbs. It is not specific with regard to the semantic role in transitive
verbs either. If there are two core participants of the first and second
person represented by the respective prefixes, -wi can pluralize either
one or the other or both. I'll illustrate this with an example:

hiNnaxáwi            'you (sg) bury us (excl)'
/hiN-ra-xée-wi/     'you (pl) bury us (excl)'
                            'you (pl) bury me'

Since -wi is used to pluralize SAP(s) only it cannot be used as an
indefinite pronominal affix. Reference is alsways definite. On the other
hand, -ire can be used as an indefinite pronoun pretty much like the
English they. Both suffixes -wi and -ire trigger e->a ablaut, and -ire
also undergoes this rule, but I am not aware that this is determined by
the class of the verb (active/ inactive).

I hope this answers the questions.

Best
Johannes Helmbrecht


Rory M Larson schrieb:

>I have a couple of questions about the Winnebago
>pluralizing particle =ire.  I was wondering if
>any of the Hochank specialists in particular
>would be willing to respond?
>
>1.  How would you describe the relationship
>    between =ire and =wi?  I understand that
>    =wi is a general pluralizer that can be
>    employed anywhere, while =ire is restricted
>    to the 3rd person plural.  Is there any
>    semantic distinction between them?  For
>    3rd plural, when would you use =ire, and
>    when would you prefer =wi?
>
>2.  In Lipkind, I found that =ire can be used
>    for both active and stative verbs.  The
>    example given for an active verb was /xe/,
>    "bury" (or was it "dig"?).
>
>       xe         xa=wi          xa=ire
>
>    The example given for a stative verb was
>    /sh?ak'/, meaning "old".  I recall the
>    "they are old" form as being
>
>       sh?agire
>
>    (Now I'm forgetting if that glottal was
>    there or not.  Correct me if I'm wrong!)
>
>    I assume that /sh?ak'/ is related to OP
>    /iNsh?age/, meaning "old man".  I assume
>    its original form would be something like
>    /*sh?ake/.
>
>    Would it be correct to say that the =ire
>    ending conditions a-grade ablaut in active
>    verbs, but not in stative ones?
>
>Thanks for any advice you can offer!
>
>Rory
>
>
>
>
>