argument structure k'u etc.

[Koontz John E]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote:
> It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak.
> hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions
> in the clause:
>
> wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook'
>
> Mary wohena z^echa  'Mary is a cook'
>
> z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the
> second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha.

I agree with you, anyway.  This seems to me to be rather different from
the constructions you get in Omaha-Ponca, like

JOD 1890:18.8
wanaN'ghi dhidhi'Nge=tta=i= the
spirit    you lack   IRR PL EVID
You will be without souls

JOD 1890:495.9
ni'kkas^iNga=ama iNt?a= i
people       the me-died PL
Relatives of mine have died

but the general construction is similar - nouns are critically present
that are not recognized in the verbs by indexing.  As far as I know, these
verbs never take more than one index, and it always the experiencer of the
situation.

Note, however, that "people" is marked as a subject (or as a proximate
plural, anyway) in the second case, and that the verb is plural.  Although
we tend to think of plural marking as part of the same package as person
marking, because in so many languages it is, I'm not sure it's at the
same thing in Siouan languages.  I believe the plural marking here (and
eligibility for a proximate article, something only Dhegiha can offer as a
diagnostic in the Siouan) show that 'the person who died' is in some sense
an argument, though only eligible for singular/plural indexing, and not
for person indexing.