Ambiguity

[Campbell, R. Joe]

"I think I've found an ambiguous word in Nahuatl!"

   When I say that, I'm assuming that some people will react in
the same way that my syntax professor did in my early years in
graduate school when I arrived in class and proudly announced,
"I think I've found an ambiguous sentence in English."  Ignoring
the fact that this was just my way of introducing what I thought
was an interesting sentence, he barely looked up and said, "I
think if you stop to think about it, *most* sentences in English are
ambiguous."

   So I assume that most of you know that ambiguity is common in
Nahuatl.  My aim is simply to bring a particular class of Nahuatl
words to your attention.

   By "ambiguity", I mean what linguists mean, not the meaning
that is probably the first one referred to in everyday
conversation, which is "not clear, uncertain in meaning".
The use in linguistics refers to a word, phrase, or sentence which
has more than one syntactic structure, such as "I hate visiting relatives":

  1. I hate the activity of visiting (particularly relatives);

  2. I hate relatives, the kind who visit.

   Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl has many examples of
ambiguity, one of which involves the structure of compound nouns
with at least three components.  Nouns with two components like
"petlacalli" and "teocuitlatl" obviously can have only one structure,
but nouns like "tepozpetlacalli" (iron or copper box or chest) and
"teocuitlacozcatl" (gold ornament) have more than one possible
structure.  I will indicate close relationship with a single
hyphen and secondary relationship with a double hyphen.

These words are not compounded as follows:

   tepoz-petla-calli       metal chest

   teo-cuitla-cozcatl      gold ornament

where no two adjacent stems are more closely to each other than to
the third stem.

Neither are they compounded in this way:

   tepoz-petla--calli (hinting at an intermediate component "tepozpetlatl")

   teo--cuitla-cozcatl (hinting at an intermediate component "cuitlacozcatl")

That is, we recognize that we are dealing with a "petlacalli" made
of "tepoztli" and a "cozcatl" made of "teocuitlatl", respectively,
but there is nothing in the structure of the words that informs us
of this.

   The word "chilmolcaxitl" presents us with true ambiguity:

   chil-mol-caxitl is both:

    chilmol-caxitl     bowl for chile sauce
and
    chil-molcaxitl     sauce bowl for chile

   But I digress.  The ambiguity that I want to address is that of:

   nitetlacualtia  (reasonably glossed as 'I feed somebody')

   The traditional description involves the causative formation:

   nitetla    cua-l-tia      I *cause* someone to eat something

However, "nitetlacualtia" has another possible analysis, parallel
to "nitecactia" (I provide someone with shoes):

   subj  obj  noun stem    have  causative-a

   ni    te   cac          ti    a

   ni    te   tlacual(li)  ti    a


   It should be remembered that ambiguity is something inherent in
some linguistic structures; it is *there* regardless of whether a
speaker or hearer perceives it or not.  In other words, when a
hearer "gets" or understands one meaning of "I hate visiting
relatives", the other meaning is available for interpretation (and
is sometimes taken advantage of in jocular exchanges).

   To be explicit about the class of ambiguous words that I am
pointing to, they comprise verbs that can be interpreted
as 1) a verb stem with a causative suffix or as 2) a verb stem
which forms a patientive noun, which noun is suffixed with
"-ti" (have) + causative-a = "-ti-a" (provide with).  Here is a
short list of examples:

In this first group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is obvious
from the 'l' before '-ti-a'.

  nin-aahuil-ti-a        I provide myself with "ahuilli", I enjoy myself
    (ahuiya)
  qui-huical-ti-a        she provides him with a companion or a load;
    (huica)              she sends it with him

  nicno-mamal-ti-a       I provide myself with it as a load;
    (mama)               I carry it

  quin-tlacual-ti-a      he provides them with food, he feeds them
    (cua)
  ninote-tlaquehual-ti-a I provide myself to someone as a laborer,
    (tlactli-ehua)       I hire myself out


In this second group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is implicit
before '-ti-a' (i.e., "tlanamictli, quentli, nemactli, cuicatl,
etc., are nouns).

  nite-tlalnamic-ti-a    I provide someone with a remembered thing,
    (il-namiqui)         I remind someone of something

  c-ama-quen-ti-a        he provides it with a paper covering,
    (quemi)              he wraps it with paper

  c-on-nemac-ti-a        he provides him with a given thing (gift),
    (mo-maca)            he give it to him as a gift

  ni-te-tlatqui-ti-a     I provide someone with a possession,
    (tla-itqui)          I give away or send something to someone


     So, while the the causative in -tia following -l- or other
nonactive forms and the noun-ti-a formation appear very similar
because both derive from nonactive verb forms, they differ in that
the latter is formed with a verb suffix 'ti' followed by a
causative 'a' and is attached to a stem with nominal rather than
verbal force.

Iztayomeh,

Joe


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