Historical Explanation for *pi as Plural and Proximate and Nominalizer

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote:
> Hey!  I'm not sure I follow the problem of pi being plural.

I was looking at it without this intermediate step, of course!  I think
what you're saying here is that the existence of clauses like

{no explicit subject} {explicit singular object} verb=PLUR

which in OP come out like

> ...  monzhon     thon    wethinwin-bi
> ...  land        the     sold it-  pl
> '... the land was sold ...'	(Dorsey 678.1)

suggests that zero subject + plural verb backgrounding of the subject (and
hence foregrounding of the object) can lead to singular object + plural
verb implying foregrounding of the object.

And, then, as Rory suggests, there is a stage at which singular anything +
plural verb indicates foregrounding of the anything, leading to the
present state in which plural verbs can indicate foregrounding of a
singular object with unmarked subjects or of a singular subject.

In the Dhegiha context singularity is reasonably detectable in the
morphology, of course, with akha for subjects and dhoN/the/khe for
inanimate objects and dhiNkhe/dhiN/thaN/khe for animate objects
(depending on the shape logic of the object).

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to suspect that the current
"object/obviative" articles were the original set, and that the subject or
proximate animate pair akha/ama were somehow grafted onto this later,
whereas, particularly with this new approach I've suggested, I'm forced to
assume that =pi as a proximate marking scheme is older.

Assuming I understand the next stage of your logic, I'd have to admit that
I'm not sure I see how to pick between this approach and the one I
suggested.  I definitely like your analysis better than my old "Nude
Descending a Staircase" analysis of plural => motion => better subject.
That doesn't explain the akha "singular" subjects very well, for a start.

I don't know that your approach accounts for the Winnebago use of "plural"
marking with first persons as well as with inclusives, but you could argue
that that was a development within Winnebago, or that once it was lost
elsewhere the environment for your analysis exists.

My approach does require a rather peculiar sort of focus marker, for which
I don't know of an exact parallel, and peculiar is never a positive factor
in an argument.

How would you deal with the extension to intransitives?  And what about
the use of the "comitative" a-plural in motion verbs as part of the
proximate marking pattern for motion verbs?  These must complicate the
process of extending object foregrounding to subject foregrounding.