WA- once more.

[R. Rankin]

Those interested in the continuing analysis of wa- should acquire a copy of
Ardis Eschenberg's SSILA paper (given last weekend).  She has a really
interesting analysis in terms of semantic aspect (i.e., aktionsart) and manages
to explain the vast majority of usages in Omaha.

My only qualms about the discussion of wa- thus far have to do with the fact
that, from the historical perspective, there are OBVIOUSLY several different
WA's.  These must be kept separate if we're to understand the synchronic
workings of the affix.  After all, we wouldn't want to try to explain all the
constructions with "to", "two" and "too" together in one category.

Everybody accepts that Dakota 1st singular agent, wa-, is different from the
plural indefinite patient, but Dhegihan 1st pl. patient, wa-a, must be
distinguished from third pl. too.  And there may be others.

Bob