Omaha-Ponca Modal of Obligation (fwd)

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Rory M Larson wrote:
> >> abdhiN=   tta=miNkha=s^e
> >> I have it will AUX    must
> >> 'I have to have it'
>
> Yes, and in the (s^)niNkHe=s^e form we don't get ablaut to [a].

That's a very good point that I hadn't really thoguht of.

> I had always supposed that the =s^e in (s^)niNkHe=s^e and (s^)naNkHa=s^e
> were a type of vocative particle that was only found in 2nd person
> constructions.

Bob Rankin notes that various first persons of articles, e.g., athaN=he 'I
the standing' have =he and pair with dhathaN=s^e.  Thus, though miNkhe
lacks the =he, it seems that some sort of inflected auxiliary of the form

A1  *p- he
A2  *s^-(h)e
A3  (?)*he

may be involved.  The change of *phe to he occurs also in ehe' 'I said'.
However, Osage has ephe [eps^e] for 'I said' and I think it has the he
form of the auxiliary.

I think Bob suggests that miNkhe, s^niNkhe, dhiNkhe may actually be

A1 *w-  iNk=he
A2 *s^-riNk=he
A3    *riNk=he

or something on the order of that with the auxiliary *he appended in
uninflected form, and then with *s^e 'you-AUX' attached pleonastically by
analogy with the other articles.

The connection with the vocative notion is because =s^e occurs with second
persons of articles and those tend to occur in vocatives, e.g., 'o you who
...'.