*pi (Re: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented) Pronominals

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote:
> One quibble:
> > I want to draw particular attention to your
> > correction of the plural marker to =wi from
> > my =i.  That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca,
> > where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.).
>
> At one time, OP =i was regarded as a simple allomorph of =bi.  I think John
> and I are in agreement now that these are semantically different morphemes
> in 19th century OP.

Yes.

> I am skeptical of the view that they are historically cognate, though
> there may be evidence for this in Osage, Kaw or Quapaw of which I am not
> yet aware.  Unless there is a very strong argument for this, I think
> that we should consider the alternative possibility that OP =i is
> related to Hocank =ire, not to MVS *=pi (> OP =bi, H =wi).

Although I agree that the distribution of =i and =bi doesn't work quite as
I originally thought, I remain convinced that they derive from the same
source.