Locatives and wa- problems.

[Rory Larson]

Ø  > The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing "whatchacome" wa-.  I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-'s.  I've always tended to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though.  It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like 'us' and '(animate) them' would be a very natural development for a "whatchacome" wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in for any old object.

Ø

Ø  I think the 'us' morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be.  It often seems to be associated with another -a- that leaves it long.  Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question.
Yes.  The 'us' seems to be handled a little bit differently than animate 'them'.  In the causative in Omaha, 'us' is /-awa-/, while animate 'them' is simply /-wa-/.  Otherwise, both are /wa-/, but when the affixed pronoun is initial, the /wa-/ seems to draw the accent if it means 'us', while letting it go to the next syllable if it means 'them'.  That might indicate that there is an extra /-a-/ following the /wa-/ for 'us', which would make it long and draw the accent.  This would suggest two original morphemes to make 'us': /a/ + /wa/ in the causative, and /wa/ + /a/ in other contexts.  If that is our hypothesis, is there any reason to assume that the underlying /wa/ component of the 'us' construction is any different from the plain /wa/ of animate 'them' or from the general "whatchacome" /wa/ ?



Ø  > Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the 'I' form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard 'we' form.  (I'm going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.)

Ø

Ø  That would be surprising too.  The form without -(a)wi should already be 'inclusive' as it is in the other languages.  I don't know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1st sg. form of the verb.  I could be corrected on this though.
I thought I remembered a discussion many years ago (maybe 6 or 8 or so?) on the list which probably involved John Koontz.  What I had taken away from it was that there were certain dialects of Hocank in which, uniquely in Siouan, all four "person" categories could be pluralized.  The 'I'-plural contrasted with the 'we', singular and plural, in that one meant inclusive we (including the person spoken to) and the other meant exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you).  Looking at what I typed above, I suspect I got those reversed, assuming I'm remembering it right at all.  In any case, if you don't recall this, and it doesn't seem right to you, let's just shelve the thought until we can either find the discussion or get expert input from somebody who really knows Hocank.



Ø  > Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi.  The elements are the same; it's only the meanings that are different.

Ø

Ø  I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from -api.  I don't see a difference in meaning really.  It means 'pluralizer' throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan.  Maybe you're talking about the 3sg use of -abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called 'proximate vs. obviative'.  I guess I'd consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer.  But, again, I could be corrected on this.
I think the question here is the semantic history of the *(a)pi particle in MVS.  We are in agreement that the reflexes of this particle in two of the three branches of MVS, Dakotan and Hocank-IOM, primarily indicate plurality.  In Dhegiha, it is more complicated.  In Omaha, we have two particles to consider.  The (a)bi particle primarily signals that the foregoing is hearsay or hypothesis, i.e., that it is to be taken with a grain of salt.  It is used almost exclusively in the third person, singular and plural.  The (a)i particle is, or was, used in some contexts to indicate plurality, especially the plural command and probably the indicative plural of 'you' and 'we'.  It largely dropped out of the language in the 20th century, leaving only its a-grade ablaut behind, but in the 19th century it was used most commonly as the opposite to (a)bi, to signal that the foregoing is straight fact according to the testimony of the speaker.  In this role, it also occurs in the third person, equally in singular and plural.  Both (a)bi and (a)i also imply what John called "proximate", or what I might call "narrative action", in contrast to the case in which neither particle occurs, which I believe is what John called "obviative", or what I think we might consider declaration of a state of action or a general truth.

This is the first I've known you to propose that 3sg use of (a)bi in Dhegiha is a distinct morpheme.  Can you elaborate on that a bit?  Are you claiming that the (a)bi particle is not derived from the same MVS *(a)pi particle that gives us the pluralizing (a)pi particle in Dakotan and pluralizing (a)wi in Hocank-IOM?  In that case, would you claim that the (a)i particle IS derived from it, but not (a)bi?  Or is it only in the 3sg case that you would consider it different?  I.e., for [verb](a)bi, the (a)bi is a different morpheme depending on whether the subject is singular or plural?  In this case, would you postulate separate (a)i morphemes as well, depending on whether the subject of [verb](a)i is singular or plural?


Best,
Rory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130909/c793893f/attachment.htm>