yexanztica

[brokaw at buffalo.edu]

Joe, 
Thanks so much. I see I failed to identify the "quiquiz" portion of "toquiquiztica" as a noun. So that shoots a big whole in the theory of "quiztica" as a nominalized form. Let me see if I can put another nail in its coffin. This means that among the attestations of "quiztica," there don't seem to be any cases of any clear-cut nominalized forms. For the theory of a nominalized "quiztica," the "toquiquiztica" was essential precisely because it would have indicated that you can use the nominalizing "ca" with the ligature "ti." The fact that this was the only case that I could find where that seemed to be happening in addition to the lack of the "uh" suffix should have clued me in, but I'm slow. One of the things that I originally considered was that there was no formal homology here, because the nominalized form would be "quizca," for which there are many attestations, and the progressive would be "quiztica." I don't seem to be able to find any cases where the nominalizing "ca!
 " is used with the ligature "ti" as opposed to attaching directly to the verb stem. So if that is the case, this resolves the issue nicely. Does that make sense?
I would point out that the definition of "cencan quiztica" as "something whole" illustrates Barry's point about the ambiguity of nouns and verbs. In defense of masochistic morphology, though, I would just say that it seems to me that this is a pragmatic rather than a formal issue. As some of Joe's examples demonstrate, the sense of the verbal expression "quiztica" is sometimes even best rendered in translation as an adjective ("untouched") rather than a verbal phrase.
Thanks again,
Galen





_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl