display | more...
Grammatical term in contrast with proximate for the further or second of two third-person pronouns. This system is called "fourth person" and typically occurs in some American languages.

For example, in Cheyenne an obviative person is out of sight or somehow not focused on. The obviative does not distinguish singular from plural. (My information says "he/him" but I think it includes everyone.)

návóómo = I saw him (prox.)
návóomoo'o = I saw them (prox.)
návóomamóho = I saw him/them (obv.)

návóoma = he (prox.) saw me
návóomää'e = they (prox.) saw me
návóomaetsenoto = he/they (obv.) saw me

The prefix is né- if one of the actants is second person, otherwise ná- if one of them is first person, otherwise é-. The stem looks to be an unchanged -vóom- apart from that change of pitch in the first one, and the suffix indicates the actual relationship between the two actants, e.g. -oo'o = I on them (prox.).

Now with third persons you can have reflexives for both proximate and obviative:

évóomahtse = he (prox.) saw himself
évóomâhtseo'o = they (prox.) saw themselves
évóomâhtóho = he/they (obv.) saw himself/themselves

But when subject and object are different third persons, one of them has to be obviative and the other one proximate. You can't say "he just here saw him also just here", you have to say in effect "he there saw him here":

évóomää'e = he/they (obv.) saw him (prox.)
évóomaevóho = he/they (obv.) saw them (prox.)
évóomòvo = they (prox.) saw him/them (obv.)

Now the puzzling thing here is that my source, which is supposed to be a complete list of the possibilities, doesn't include a form for "he (prox.) saw him/them (obv.)", which you'd think would be allowed by the system. I don't know whether this is oversight or some non-obvious restriction in the system. As the passive only exists for "they (prox.)", not the other two third persons, it seems systemic.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.