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

[Rankin, Robert L]

I've always suspected that the male Kaw form was probably -abi, just as in Omaha, and, as you say, that -abe is feminine -abi+(y)e.  I think Justin ran across -abi in some of Dorsey's Kansa notes at the NAA just a few days ago.  He can clarify that -- I can't remember what speaker was being quoted, but it was undoubtedly a man.  BTW we found that Dorsey was doing field work with Kaws as early as 1882 (not 1888 as some of his typescripts are dated).  Truth is, however, that we don't have very many instances of anything but the -abe form even from males in the 19th century.  Kansa -e and Omaha -i are not a regular vowel correspondence in any event.  I'd have to go dig through the files for Quapaw.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Koontz John E
Sent: Tue 5/30/2006 7:24 PM
To: Siouan List
Subject: =be Plural/Proximate in Kaw; =pe Plural/Proximate in Osage



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?