Omaha-Ponca Wa + 'give'

[Koontz John E]

I'm not sure this much help!  The problem is that David Rood's wa-test has
some issues outside of Dakotan, because something close to homophonous
with wa- is used for the third person plural instead of wic^ha-.  I tend
to think that Dakotan has basically innovated wic^ha- as a sort of
clarification or replacement of this third person animate plural usage.
An incorporated noun has replaced a sort of pro-incorporated noun, if we
regard wa- as a specific element meaning "the object is indefinite or
unspecified" (often extended to third person plural) rather than as a more
abstract "valence reducer."

It appears that OMaha-Ponca doesn't use wa- as a non-specific object with
?i.  Instead, you can omit any reference to a nominal patient and get what
ammounts to a wa-effect.  If wa- is actually present it seems to refer to
third person plural recipients.  However, it's often hard to tell.  I
don't find any examples with two wa's, where one might be an indefinite.

Hypothetically, one doesn't need wa to omit a non-indexed argument?

First off, there are cases where the thing given is a noun and the wa in
the verb presumably is a third person plural recipient.  I've picked
examples in which wa- seems to clearly refer to the recipients, because
the patient is singular.  In many cases the patients and recipients are
both plural and it would be hard to tell what wa- referred to (though wa-
is not normally present if the object is given as a noun).

JOD 1890:119.16
maNs^tiN'ge=dhaNkha  wiN wa?i=     ga
rabbit      the (pl) one give them IMP
give (each of) them one of the rabbits

JOD 1890:85.20
ttakkaN' s^i   e'=kkina       wa?i=          bi=ama
sinew    again that many each they gave them PL QUOTE

One oddball noticed in which wa- occurs with a noun-patient and a singular
recipient.

JOD 1890:279.10
hiNbe'=   dhaN wa?u'z^iNga wa?i'=   dhaN
moccasins the  old woman   gave him the
the moccasins which the old woman had given him

In the following example I have the impression, from comparing the two
clauses, that wa- refers to the beneficiaries, e.g., equates to Dakotan
wic^ha-, e.g., I-to_them-gave.  In other words, simply omitting references
to nominal patients (things given)  suffices to make them indefinite.
Note that it is normal for a- 'first person agent' (like Dakotan wa-) to
precede wa- (any wa-) in Dhegiha.

JOD 1890:439.9-10
gaN aN?i=i          e'gaN, wi'=s^ti e'adhadha             awa'?i
and they gave to me HAVING I   too  in various directions I gave
And, they having given to me, I also gave things to various ones

Note no wa- with 'they gave to me', suggesting the one with 'I have to
them' is the recipient.

Dorsey translates this, "As they had given something to me, I, too, gave
presents all around."

An ambivalent example in which I think wa- refers to the recipients,
i.e., equates to wic^ha- because the recipients are clearly specified and
seem to require indexing.

JOD 1890:504.11-12
ukki'tte dhe  s^aaN'= ama athi=i            ha.
nation   this Dakotas the they-arrived-here DEC

s^aN'ge wa'bdhiN   e'=de waN'gidhe awa'?i.
horses  I had them "but" all       I gave (to) them
The Dakotas visited this nation.  Though I had horses, I gave them all to
them.

Also ambiguous, but I think wa- is the recipients, because they are
clearly specified.

JOD 1890:644.15-16
ni'kkas^iNga waxpa'ni=s^te      awa'?i=        naN=  maN
person       poor     "so-ever" I gave to them HABIT I-AUX
I used to give things to any poor person.

In this cases the wa- is clearly the recipients, since the patient is
singular and specific.

JOD 1890:635.5
awa'?i=           m=az^i
I give it to them I not
I did not give it to them

Another fairly clear example, involving gapping:

JOD 1890:635.6
maN'zeska wi'tta gdhe'ba ithe'=wikhidhe e'de,
money     mine   ten     I put it awway for you though

witta'haN t?e',    a'daN     awa?i.
my wifbro he died  therefore I gave (it) to them
I had saved ten dollars for you, but my wife's brother died, so I gave
it to them (the family).

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