(in)direct reports in Siouan

[Koontz John E]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Daniel Altshuler wrote:
> > Both 'to say' and 'to think' that take quotations seem to involve focus
> > constructions - the initial e= is a focus marker for the preceding
> > quotation.
>
> Do you know if the sentence is ungrammatical if there is no focus marker?

The verb is not lexically correct if it is missing.  That is, a syllable
is missing.  The morphology of the verbs is not entirely productive.

> What do you mean by "a focus marker"?

I mean a mechanism that indicates a contrast between one possibility and
another, or emphasizes some aspect of the thing focussed.  Something like
a cleft construction or contrastive stress or word order.  In this case
apparently a demonstrative following the thing focussed.  There's been
some discussion of this on the list in the past, and the data in
Omaha-Ponca were the subject of my unpublished paper at the SCLC a year or
two ago in Wayne, NE.

> > The form of 'to say' that uses the remote demonstrative usually is used to
> > indicate that the quotation follows.
>
> Same question as above: Do you know if the sentence is ungrammatical if
> there is no demonstrative? Is *both* a demonstrative and a focus marker
> necessary?

Same answer, but with examples:

OP JOD 1890:17.14-15

"S^i   a'=thaN a=z^aN?"  a'=       bi=  ama
 again why     you do it they said PROX REPORT

"'Tell us again why you did this?' they said."


OP JOD 1890:13-14

E'gidhe ni'as^iNga=akha ga'=                 bi=  ama:
finally person     the  "he said as follows" PROX REPORT

INs^?a'ge,    wahaN'=   wakhidhe=  the= ha.
Old man (VOC) move camp cause them EVID DECL

U?aba[?]e dhiNge'=ha.
hunting   lacks   DECL

U?ab[?]e thaNge'=tta tti'= wakhidhe=  the= ha,"  a'=     bi=  ama.
hunting  big     LOC dwell cause them EVID DECL  he said PLUR REPORT

"And then the man (or "some fellow"?) said, 'Sir, have them move camp.
The game is depleted.  Have them go where the hunting is good,' he said."

Also see Boas & Deloria pp. 101 and 102.

> I guess, I'm asking the same question as in the previous e-mail: can
> speakers of Siouan speakers indirectly report (1) and (2):
>
> (1) John said: "Randy is in Billings."

Not sure this is possible in OP in an indirect form.

> (2) John thought: "I am going to SCLC."

This might be indirect:

JOD 1890:...

GaN'khi a's^i   adha'=    bi=  ama    wasa'be=ama,
and so  outside they went PLUR REPORT black bears

ni'kkas^iNga=bi    edh=e'gaN=bi=egaN'.
being men    PLUR  they having thought

"And so the black bears came tumbling out, they say, thinking that they
(the turds giving the war cry) were men."

> If not, this would be extremely interesting. If yes, I am very
> curious about the grammatical means that a speaker would do so.
>
> > In OP and probably in Dhegiha generally indirect discourse uses a
> > different form of the plural/proximate marker.
>
> Different from any other sentence type? Are these the continuative
> (aspectual) auxiliaries or the verbal prefixes?

See above, where =bi would normally be =i.  Plurals/proximates don't occur
with continuative auxiliaries.

> Finally, I wonder about the intonational contour of a (in)direct
> report.

Can't help you there.

> Since the "say"/"thought" appears at the end of the clause, is it
> parenthetical/evidential-like? Though I'm probably English-centric when
> I ask this question (not to mention that I'm note clear on the role of
> evidentials, semantically speaking, in Siouan).

Me either, but I'd say it's not particularly evidential-like.  In some
languages, though, the reportive marker is clearly derived from 'to say',
e.g., in Mandan.