WA- once more.

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Carolyn Q. wrote:
> LaFlesche's data is wrong according to everything I have from speakers.
> John, in your examples below, and I've numbered them:
> 1.  the form for P1p (or "P12") would be with wa only, not wa-i-a> wea.

So, P1 oNdhoNpize, but P12 wapize?  No sign of i at all, let alone extra
-a- ?  At a minimum I;d have expected we'-, if not we'-a-.

> 2.  in this one you haven't given the P3p to compare with P1p, but both
> should be wa as you have shown for P12.

Sorry, LaFlesche doesn't supply P3p forms as a rule.  (As you know, of
course, but some reading this might not.)  In the datives LaFlesche agrees
with the contemporary Osage dative model.  The only traces of dative ki-
are in the third person in ki'- and perhaps in the fact that the
pronominals are accented (suggesting contraction with something).
However, I'd be surprised to find subject use of wa 3p at all.

> 3.  these are waa'zo in both P1p and P3p

Oops, yes, I should have changed LF's OP-influenced u to o.

> 4.  this should be wa in P12.  Some verbs do vary in P3p only, between ki
> and wa, and this one appears to have ki for P3, not surprisingly.
> 5., 6., 7. group with 2., should be wa for P1p.

> LaFlesche:

> e'kippi?oN ("e-gi-p.i=oN") 'accustomed to, used to'
>
> P1  e'=    ki-p- pi-m- oN
> P2  e'=    ki-s^-pi-z^-oNTher
> P3  e'=    kip-  pi-   oN
> P12 e'=awa-kip-  pi-   oN

> Some of the verbs listed here I don't have, but I have scores with the same
> pattern of patient pronominals, and never any with awa in P1p, always wa.

I'll have to see if I can turn up some examples of the right category in
the Dorsey or LaFlesche ritual texts.