Ambiguity

[Campbell, R. Joe]

Galen,

   I'll intersperse my comments and mark them with ****.


Quoting Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu>:

> Joe,
> I have to admit that I may not be understanding all of your
> explanation, but let me ask a few follow-up questions.
> Although I've read Andrews explanation of this, I did not understand
> how he arrived at his conclusions.

**** The group of people who don't understand how Andrews arrived at
his conclusions is very large.  Although I admire the depth of his
analysis and the insight that went into it, I recognize that his
attitude toward linguistics is very different from that of most people
who went through their linguistic education post-1950.  Most of us can
remember the pressure to present *evidence* for linguistic
descriptions; an elegant answer to a problem was not highly prized
unless accompanied by multiple motivating reasons.  A colleague of mine
famously used to say, "that solution has nothing to say for itself
except that it *works*!  -- but why should I believe it?"

   At least partly because Andrews didn't emerge from that kind of training,
it is not part of his culture to lead the reader by the hand or to coax
him into accepting the description offered.  He simply states his
conclusions.
   Although I would prefer some statements to support the conclusions
and wouldn't mind being coaxed into accept them, I am glad that we
don't have to look out over the landscape of the Nahuatl language
without Andrews' help.



In fact, I think I started
> thinking about this issue in these terms after reading Andrews'
> description of causatives. I guess my question has to do with how to
> determine the nature of the morphology in this case. Or is that even
> possible? Maybe Andrews has an argument to support his assertions,
> but I don't remember him presenting it; and it was not immediately
> obvious from his description.


> With regard to the Andrews description, many of his examples could be
> interpreted differently. For example, with cualantia, he says that
> this is built on "cualano" rather than "cualantli." But it is unclear
> to me why this is necessarily the case. In pragamatic terms, I'm not
> sure it makes any difference. But I'm interested in whether or not
> there is some systemic reason for interpreting it this way.

**** At the beginning of Chapter 25 in the revised edition, he says
that the second type of causative verbstems are formed from nonactive
stems, claiming a derivative order and "accounting" for their
correspondences.  Like you, I'd like to know reasons for believing this
to be true.

> His example of "tlanextia" is also ambiguous. Molina gives
> "tlanextli" as light. This term raises its own questions for me with
> regard to why there is an object pronoun.

**** This is a topic that I suppose never stops being a "gotcha".  If
someone asked you how many "tla"s there are in Nahuatl, the first one
you'd name would be the nonspecific object (e.g., nitlacaqui), then the
one glossed as 'if' (and sometimes mistakenly to be a *part* of a word
"intla" (also meaning 'if')), then the 'verbing' "-tla" which takes
nouns as embeds and makes transitive verbs out of them (e.g.,
mahuiztla, icniuhtla, tlazohtla, etc.).  And somewhere in your list
would be the impersonal "tla-" that has a function *somewhat* like the
so-called nonactive suffixes "-lo" and "-hua".

   tlahuaqui         things dry out
   tlachipahua       it dawns (the tla- is not an object because the preterit
                       is like other intransitive verbs: otlachipahuac)
   tlayohua          it gets dark
   tlacacalaca       there is rattling (as opposed to cacalaca, it rattles)
   tla[i]hyaya       there is stinkiness
   tlamani           it is customary (as opposed to tlamana, he lays something
                       down)

   Another frequent one is: the non-specific possessive (tlacpac, on
top of something)
     also a special variety of this possessive is one in which the
possessive apparently lacks the effect of causing the absolutive suffix
to drop; the possessed stem is "promoted" (Andrews calls it "demoted"
back to absolutive status:

   tlamaitl       sleeve
   tlaixcuaitl    front of something
   tlacuexcochtli stern of a boat

---- **All this** to highlight "tlaneci";  Molina says about it:
aclarar el tiempo, hazer claro o sereno, hazer claridad o amanecer.
And in the Nahuatl version of "Las manyanitas", "ya amanecio'" is
"yotlanez".

And the patientive noun formed from  tlaneci  is tlanextli  (light),
where the "tla" is still a marker for impersonalness, not the object
"tla".

And since we're talking about ambiguity, the transitive (causative) 
verb "nitlanextia", (I discover something) yields the patientive noun 
"tlanextli", something discovered, homophonous with the intransitively 
derived "tlanextli", light. I can't resist adding that the verb derived 
from tlanextli (light),
"tlanextia" (tlanex-ti-ya) is homophonous/ambiguous with the
object-containing "tlanextia" (he discovers something, he causes
something to appear).


> But in any case, if we have
> a noun "tlanextli," I'm not sure why we have to posit the causative
> form "tlanextia" as being built on "nexohua."

**** It really isn't that I ran low on ink, but I share your position.
It seems to me that claiming that causatives are derived by a process of
deleting -o, -hua, -ohua, or -hualo is not a unified process.  Maybe
someone can help us out.

> It seems to me that in the section dealing with this causative form
> (at least the section that I just reconsulted), all of Andrews'
> examples with the exception of one can be interpreted as being built
> on a noun rather than the non-active form. The exception would seem
> to be "choctia" and maybe there are other examples of similar words.
> This may be what led him to this explanation, because as far as I
> know "choctli" is not attested as a nominalized form of "to cry." But
> if the vast majority of these causatives can be interpreted as
> nominalized forms which are then verbalized using the "-ti-a" ending,
> then it seems to me that you could just as well say that words like
> "choctia" are the result of making a formal generalization that
> produces causative forms like "choctia" built on unattested
> nominalizations, in this case "choctli."

**** In considering the two-origin vs. the single-origin theory of
verbs like "tinechtlacualtia", I'll give a reason below for leaning in
the two-origin direction, but your point regarding the
reasonableness of the necessity of assuming the reality of some
unattested forms is well taken.  If language analysis is to be more
than just a cataloging and categorization of observed form, you must be
right.  I have never seen the patientive noun *cochtli, which would be
derived from "cochi", but there is a sense in which it must exist if we
are going to make morphological sense out of:

  ni-coch-camachaloa            I yawn sleepily

  ni-coch-miqui                 I am sleepy

  te-coch-ehua                  he gets someone up from sleep

  ti-te-coch-mahua              you make someone sleepy by appearing sleepy
                                 (i.e., you infect someone with sleepiness)

> Andrews does say that this type of generalization occurs with the
> non-active form itself, but he doesn't assume the same for noun forms
> in this context.
> With regard to the examples you list below, I assume that the three
> dots indicate examples of unattested noun forms which would be
> problematic. And I think I understand that part of the problem has to
> do with the causative forms in these cases do not have an 'l' as in
> the case of axhitia and cochitia. However, in the case of "caqui," we
> have attestations of both "caquitia" and "caquiltia." So even if
> there is something else going on with "caquitia," couldn't we posit
> an unattested noun "caquilli" used to construct the causative
> "caquiltia"? I don't think there are attestations of "chochiltia," so
> either something else is going on with "cochitia" as with "caquitia,"
> or this form has a tendency to drop the 'l' in some causatives. Maybe
> that is a stretch?

****  I will have to digest this further.  In the meantime, I again 
hope that someone lends us a hand in thinking about it.

> In reference to the examples you list, I'm not sure, but maybe this
> is where my confusing paragraph about object pronouns is relevant (or
> maybe not). I'm not sure why these cases are unambiguous unless it is
> because they have specific object prefixes where patientive nouns
> would have non-specific ones? Or maybe in the first case, which does
> have a non-specific object, because there is a reduplication? I guess
> what I was trying to say is that when a patientive noun becomes
> verbalized again, it seems to me that there is no reason why the
> non-specific object pronoun of the patientive form would need to
> remain non-specific. In other words, the object would be once again
> free to be specific. So in example #2,  "quincualtia," you have an
> underlying "qui" that is covered up by the indirect object pronoun
> "quin." The patientive noun would have been "tlacualli", but in the
> causative form, the "tla" turns into "qui" because it is referring
> now to something specific.

**** There are some very basic assumptions that we all have about the 
way that languages can possibly work.  When linguists work on a 
particular language, they "obey" these assumptions as if they were the 
"rules of the game".  Obviously, the features of a description of a 
given language, like Nahuatl, are partially determined by those rules.  
If linguists try to imitate their colleagues in the hard sciences, 
there are times when they have to conclude that their assumptions were 
wrong and the "rules" have to be changed.  That's science.

   One of my iconic examples is autobiographical:  when I was studying 
linguistics in graduate school, I took a class in field methods with a 
young professor.  He looked over my shoulder at my work and said the 
obligatory "That's good."  ...which is the preparation for "...but..."  
He then gave me a solid explanation of the linguistics of the 1930's, 
1940's and early 1950's:
phonological descriptions do not involve *processes* -- they involve a 
sober exposition of what abstract units there are in a given system 
(i.e., phonemes) and what their "physical" variations (i.e., 
allophones) are.  Phonology is *static*, not *dynamic*; there simply 
aren't processes in it.
   Less than a year later, my young professor had joined a revolution 
in linguistics.  He read and listened to the arguments for questioning 
the basic assumptions of the field and realized that the arguments for 
analyzing language in terms of processes were too strong to ignore.  It 
was a change in "science", not equivalent to saying that the earth 
revolves around the sun, but a huge one for linguists.

...

   So my assumptions are going to show, but these assumptions are 
*right* |8-) .

When we talk about derivations, we take the idea of derivation seriously.
For example, if we say that a form is derived from "tlacualli", we are 
stuck with "tlacualli" -- we are talking about a form with the "tla-" 
bound to a verb stem, which, in turn, has a nominalizing "-l" bound to 
it. Once the [tlacua] becomes a unit, the -l is added to this *unit*. I 
can't wrap my mind around a morphology that *derives* something from 
"tlacualli", but allows us to replace a component of it.
...

   My reasoning for some of the data that seems to indicate that *only* 
the causative interpretation is possible for it, that they cannot also 
be interpreted as N-ti(have)-a(caus):

   "quitlacuacualtia":  there is no noun "tlacuacualli".  I realize 
that we might posit a hypothetical one and I don't know how to answer 
that.

   "quincualtia, quitecualtia, quincualtiaya, oquimoncualtih":  "cua" 
does not have a patientive noun "cualli" which refers generically to 
food.  Although Andrews considers "cualli" and "xochicualli" to be 
derived from "cua", I think that, although this might be true 
historically, it is not relevant in describing the stage of Nahuatl 
that we call "classical".

   "nitetetlaquehualtia" (I rent my servants to someone):  This is my 
favorite one.

    tla:ctli      torso, body
    e:hua         raise

    tlaquehualli  servant, worker  (patientive noun derived through the 
passive)

    tlatlaquehualli  someone who is advised to do harm to someone
                    (a henchman?)   (patientive derived through the impersonal)

    nite-tlaquehua   I hire someone

    tlaquehualo      he is hired

    ninote-tlaquehualtia   I hire myself out

    My thinking about nitetetlaquehualtia is that for it to be analyzed 
as a noun-ti(have)-a(caus) structure, there would have to be a noun of 
the form *tetlaquehualli.  Unless I'm mistaken, that would be 
ungrammatical, since in patientive nouns, the verb object is converted 
from te- to tla-:

   nite-mictia
   te-mictiliztli
   tla-mictli


Joe


And if this works, then the nonspecific
> indirect object pronoun would be free to appear between the specific
> object pronoun and the verb as in example #3, "quitecualtia." What I
> am suggesting is that maybe the non-specific object pronoun of the
> patientive noun does not have to be fossilized in the causative form.
> Maybe the pronoun position is reactivated to function the same way it
> did in the original active form.


> I'm not sure I understand the issue with "netetetlaquehualtia."
> Molina does actually list the patientive form "tlaquehualli" without
> the non-specific object pronoun "tla." Although wouldn't one also
> expect "tetlaquehualli"? But in any case, even if my argument about
> the reactivation of the object pronoun position in the causative form
> is not right, we still have a nonspecific object pronoun in this
> form. Actually, I'm not sure why they would need the causative form
> in this case anyway. If they wanted to say "I hire out people to
> people, why wouldn't they just say "nitetetlaquehua"? If the form
> "nitetetlaquehualtia" is merely a causative not derived from a
> patientive, wouldn't the causative have to be operating on the
> reflexive form of this verb? I'm not sure how you would work in the
> reflexive pronoun, but wouldn't the causative form have to mean
> something like "I cause people to hire themselves out to people"? So
> given that there is no reflexive object pronoun in this word,
> wouldn't we have to interpret this as a "ti-a" causative built on a
> patientive noun "tetlaquehualli"? Then it would just be, "I provide
> someone with the hiring out of people." This would avoid the problem
> of having to incorporate the reflexive within the causative.
>
> Galen
>
>
> Campbell, R. Joe wrote:
>> Galen,
>>
>>    I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****.  I
>> printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary.
>>
>> Quoting Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu>:
>>
>>
>>> Joe,
>>> I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate
>>> morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe
>> discussing the same thing.
>>
>>
>>> Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In
>>> other words, is it possible that even the form that has been
>>> identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the
>>> construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer
>>> "-ti-" and the causative "-a"?
>>>
>>
>> **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what
>> Andrews says about it.  He *does* say that the -tia causative is
>> derived from a non-active verb.  So, according to him, when you delete
>> the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some
>> forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua
>> non-active (ahxitia).
>>    So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms
>> are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and
>> the other with -ti-a.
>> But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the
>> same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the
>> second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms
>>> is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested
>>> in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive
>>> nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't
>>> the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated
>>> by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an
>>> attested patientive form?
>>>
>>
>> **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it
>> with concrete examples:
>>
>>    "provide with" noun             so-called causative
>>
>>    quixtli / exit                  quixtia
>>
>>    coch... / sleep                 cochitia
>>
>>    caqu... / audible thing         caquitia
>>
>>    mauhtli / fright                mauhtia
>>
>>    cualantli / anger               cualantli
>>
>>
>>   ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.))
>>
>>
>>> Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that
>>> patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand
>>> correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue
>>> that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific
>>> object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems
>>> to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there
>>> would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The
>>> restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is
>>> strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and
>>> resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it
>>> wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the
>>> pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to
>>> have either specific or non-specific object prefixes.
>>>
>>
>> **** I have difficulty in handling this.  Could you give me a concrete
>> example?
>>
>>
>>> A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I
>>> would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the
>>> semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form.
>>> Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing
>>> here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form
>>> somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a"
>>> structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one
>>> morphology instead of two?
>>>
>>
>> **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no
>> ambiguity in one direction or the other.  Here is my list so far:
>>
>>
>> *+ambig.no ***
>>   cuacualtia , quintla-.  she feeds them. <p43-p51-dupl-cua:-caus01
>>     +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54|
>>   cualtia , quin-.  they feed it to them; they make them eat it. <p43-
>>     cua:-caus01 +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63|
>>   cualtia , quite-.  he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat;
>>     they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. <p33-p52-cua:-
>>     caus01 +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54|
>>   cualtiaya , quin-.  they fed it to them. <p43-cua:-caus01-ya3
>>     +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63|
>>   cualtih , oquimon-.  they fed it to them. <o:-p43-o:n-cua:-caus02-prt1
>>     +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63|
>>   tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's
>>     part?: 55m].  alquilar mis criados a otro. <p11-p52-p52-tla:ctli-
>>     e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no>. 55m-00|
>>   tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may
>>     be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1-
>>     ti-a case.  but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be
>>     "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".:
>>     71m2].  alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. <p11-p52-p52-
>>     tla:ctli-e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no +prob>. 71m2-23|
>> morpheme count 12
>>
>>    So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" --
>> these look unambiguously causative "-tia".
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nahuatl mailing list
>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>>
>>
>>
>





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