noun endings

[R. Joe Campbell]

Leonel,
   I'll try not to overlap with what Tezozomoc has already covered -- very
well.  Two comments below.

Best regards,

Joe


On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Leonel Hermida wrote:

> (3) why so common a noun as "innan" (mother?) appears to fall outside of
> the 'rule'?

Actually, "innan" does follow the rule.  It is not a generic reference to
'mother', but means specifically 'their mother'.  The possessive paradigm
for "nan(-tli)" (as usual, with vowel length omitted -- a pesky
transgression of mine which I will account for at the pearly gates):

   nonan     my mother          tonan    our mother
   monan     your mother        amonan   y'all's mother
   inan      her mother         innan    their mother

Since "nan(-tli)" refers to a class of concepts which Nahuatl grammar
categorizes as 'inalienable' (i.e., normally possessed), it seldom occurs
with the absolutive suffix (i.e., -tli/-tl/-li or -in).  In the case of
'mother' and 'father', the 1) need for generic reference and the 2) need
to observe the principle of 'inalienability' (2 needs in opposition) is
satisfied by using the *non-specific* possessive prefix "te-" (someone's):
   tenan     mother or someone's mother
   tetah     father or someone's father




> (4) In Teteoinnan (a divine name) the first part must be teo-tl (god), but
> it appears reduplicated: is this a plural indicator? If so, how is
> reduplication done? And is it common to make plurals that way? Is it the
> rule?

   "teteoinnan"  is really a phrase: "teteo innan".  The first part
obviously involves plural formation from "teotl" by reduplication.
"innan" is in the paradigm above, so the phrase means 'mother of the gods'
or 'the gods' mother'.