More plural (plural enclitics)

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rory M Larson wrote:
> John wrote:
> >     Ma     Da/Dh   IO       Wi       Tu       Of  Bi
> > 1   --      --     --       wi       12           --
> > 12  riNt    *pi    wi       wi       --           daha/tu
> > 2   riNt    *pi    wi       wi       pu           daha/tu
> > 3   krE     *pi    wi/ne    wi/irE   h(e)lE   tu  daha/tu
>
> 1 stands for exclusive, 12 for inclusive, correct?

Right.  Not elegant, but fairly clear.

> And the 12 in the 1 position for Tutelo means you don't recall
> what it is, but that it is the same for both forms of we?

Sorry - my omission:  It means that you use the historical inclusive form
(without any special enclitic) as the plural of the first person.

Note that Winnebago is the only Siouan language in which both the first
person *and* inclusive can be pluralized.  Correlating with this, it seems
also to be the only Siouan language in which the inclusive cannot co-occur
(in transitives) with either the second person (we-you, you-us) or first
person (we-me, I-us).  The usual constraint is that it cannot co-occur
with the first person (we-me, I-us).  Third person with third person
(he-him) is, of course, a special case.  Anyway, this is the conclusion I
draw from Lipkind.

General Siouan      Winnebago
S       O                O       S
   1  12  2  3      1  12  2  3
1  -   -  x  x      -   -  x  x  1
12 -   -  x  x      -   -  -  x  12
2  x   x  -  x      x   -  -  x  2
3  x   x  x  x      x   x  x  x  3

Incidentally, the missing elements for Ofo I couldn't recall, and I
haven't dug up Bob's Ofo grammar summary.  In Biloxi the present 1 is the
old 12 (used in both singular and plural), and the 1 has been lost, except
that some allomorphs of the present 1 may be derived from allomorphs of
the old 1.