Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer

[Koontz John E]

I will pass along an inspiration I had back in December or so.  We got to
discussing wa and what not and I set it aside.  Call this my SSILA paper,
albeit a somewhat offhanded one.

It occurred to me that all my problems trying to explain Omaha-Ponca
proximates historically come from starting with *pi = plural.  But, of
course, we know from the behavior of *pi with the inclusive, and with the
plain first person in Winnebago, that *pi is NOT a plural, strictly
speaking; rather, it is is augmentation marker, i.e., it means something
like 'and some other guys'.  A1 = 'I', and A1 + *pi = 'me and some other
guys; nos alteres'; A2 = 'you', and A2 + *pi = 'you and some other guys;
you all'; A12 = 'you and me', A12 + *pi = 'you and me and some other guys;
us all'; A3 = 'he or she', A3 + *pi = 'him or her and some other guys'.

So I asked myself, how do we get from 'him and some other guys' to 'he
(proximate)', while just 'he' is 'he (obviative)'?  And I answered myself
(I was driving at the time), that doesn't work, but suppose *pi actually
means 'X pre-eminently' or 'it was particularly X who'.  That is, what if
*pi was a sort of cleft construction, singling out a particular person
among several for attention, but implying the participation of the others?
In this case the plural reading, which is now the common one, e.g., A2 +
*pi = 'you and some other guys' was origially 'it was particularly you who
...', which clearly implies the plural, i.e, that some other guys were
also porentially participating.  In Dhegiha, however, the combination A3 +
*pi = 'it was particularly he who ...' has become not only 'he and some
others' but also 'he (proximate)', or basically, the original reading
preserved.

Another way of looking at it is that if you start with proximity or focus,
as the meaning of *pi, you can easily get to plural, while it's rather
harder in the other direction.

Of course, some of you may wonder what happens to the plural category in
this case, but notice that the *pi "plural" is only reconstructed for
Proto-Mississippi Valley.  Other branches have other plurals.  Also, it is
rather weird to have the plural marker off at the other end of the verb,
working idependently of the pronominals at the front, if it really has
anything closely connected to do with them.  But it is maybe not so weird
to have a focus marker over there - a marker that does something
independent of the pronominals, though involving them, and only later
becomes a plural.

I wonder if this assessment might not also offer a possible explanation of
the *pi nominalizer in Dakotan, as in thi'=pi, etc.  Seen this way, here
it amounts to a sort of specific subject marker or inalienable possessor:
'she in particular lives (there)' or 'her dwelling' (which I believe is
the historical Plains logic with respect to the gender of the owner of
dwellings).  I don't know if this specific subject logic works for *pi
nominalizations in general, but it seems to work for thi'=pi.

So, in a way, *pi 'specific subject' is the opposite of wa 'nonspecific
object'.

John E. Koont
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz