=be Plural/Proximate in Kaw; =pe Plural/Proximate in Osage

[Koontz John E]

And, for that matter, =we in Quapaw.

I have been thinking of these forms, which alternate with =bi, =pi, and
=wi, respectively, as fusions of the latter with =e, i.e., =be < =b(i)=e,
etc. And I have been thinking of =e as a feminine declarative.  But I'm
not sure, after going back through Carolyn's Osage grammar comments.  I
thought I remembered some unaccounted for forms with =pa from back when CQ
was still writing.  But I don't see them now.  Looks like everything
can be accounted for as =pa or =apa among the positionals (like OP =ma or
=ama).

Just to clarify my original thinking, I knew that Carolyn worked directly
mostly with female speakers of Osage, and that it was the same for Bob in
Kaw. Given that, and given that Omaha-Ponca of the 1870s and 1880s has
final -a in male illocutionary particles and final -e in female ones, I
thought I saw a pattern.  Examples - the OP declaratives in Dorsey's OP
work are /ha/ (male)  and /he/ (female).  At present the male form is hau,
and the female form is uncertain, though I have one weak attesation of ha.

Another possible problem with my initial impression.  I have found some
examples quoted in the LaFlesche Dictionary that
suggest =pi au for the male declarative.  I suppose that might be a sort
of hyper-correction or conservative version of =p=au, which might be the
same as =p=a.  Omaha switches to -au in the final of male illocutionary
particles in the course of the 1890s or so.  Dorsey has some examples of
this, and LaFlesche is fairly consistent in writing -o (i.e., au).  I'm
not sure
why -a > -au should have occurred in both OP and Osage about this time.
Maybe fashions in writing the final vowel are what really changed?

So, is =(dh)e DECLARATIVE definitely not linked to a particular speaker
sex?  Is Osage =pe still considered most likely to be =pe < =pi + (dh)e?

How about Kaw =be and Quapaw =we?