Tloc, nahuac, tech, tlan

[Michael McCafferty]

Quoting David Wright <dcwright at prodigy.net.mx>:

> Susana:
>
>
>
> As far as I can see, in early colonial central Mexican Nahuatl -tloc,
> -na:huac, -tech (preceded by the ligature -ti- when the noun it follows ends
> in a consonant), and -tlan (preceded by the ligature -ti- in place names)
> are postpositions; -tla:n (never with -ti-) is a locative suffix.



tla:n is usually seen place names. It's not that common otherwise.


> Postpositions are like English prepositions in that they express relations
> (spatial, temporal, and other sorts), and have been labeled as such because
> of their similar function, and the fact that they are added to the end of
> nouns. Postpositions can also be added to possessive prefixes; the existence
> of examples where the latter happens is what distinguishes postpositions
> from locative or other sorts of suffixes. This is why -tla:n is usually
> labeled as a locative suffix: it’s not found stuck to a possessive prefix.
> To label a morpheme a “locative suffix” is a risky proposition, since if an
> example can be provided of it being attached to a possessive prefix, then we
> would be forced to move it to the category of postpositions.
>
>
>
> Colonial grammarians (Andrés de Olmos, Alonso Molina, Horacio Carochi, and
> others) called postpositions “preposiciones” in spite of their place and the
> end of words. The earliest use of the term “postposition” (or its cognates
> in French or Spanish) that I’ve seen is in the grammatical sketch by Siméon,
> published in 1885. Others have followed this practice, including Ángel María
> Garibay, Thelma Sullivan, Joe Campbell, and Frances Karttunen. Richard
> Andrews preferred to call them “relational suffixes” in 1975 and now prefers
> the phrase “relational NNC” (NNC = “nominal nuclear clause”). Lockhart calls
> them “relational words.”
>

It's a convenience to refer to such entities as "postpositions". 
However, Andrews demonstrates that such a view is, as it puts it, 
"ethnocentric (or 'linguicentric')".

This is of course one of Andrews' fortes, explaining Nahuatl from 
within rather from without (i.e., from a European language point of 
view. English grammar has suffered a somewhat similar fate in having 
been analyzed in the past through the lens of Latin grammar.)

As Andrews explains, what we like to term "postpositions" for 
convenience sake are in truth noun stems "used to form adverbialized 
NNCs." This is not to say that we can't continue to call them 
"postpositions," but they are truly not postpositions.


Michael


>
>
> The classic example of postpositions behaving like nouns is the name of the
> Nahua deity Tloqueh Na:huaqueh, “owner of that which is together, owner of
> that which is near”, a ubiquitous, invisible being. Here the
> “postpositions”, exceptionally, come first, adding the singular possessive
> suffix -eh. The final c in both cases becomes qu because of a Spanish
> spelling convention, both being /k/.
>
>
>
> Alonso Molina’s Arte de la lengua mexicana y castellana (1571), chapter 6
> (folios 74r-80v), has a good treatment of postpositions combined with
> possessive prefixes. An example is notlan (the first person singular
> possessive prefix no- plus the postposition -tlan). Rather than “my with”
> (which of course doesn’t make sense in English), notlan means “with me”.
>
>
>
> As for possible translations, I’ve compiled a list for each postposition (or
> in the case of -tla:n, locative suffix), putting together all of the
> possibilities I’ve found in a variety of colonial and modern sources. Since
> most of these are in Spanish, I’ll leave them in this language, to avoid the
> double distortion we would have if I were to translate them into English.
>
>
>
> Postpositions:
>
>
>
> -tloc
>
> al lado de/cerca de/con/junto a
>
>
>
> -na:huac (na:hua + (co - o))
>
> al lado de/cerca de/con/en compañía de/en la vecindad de/junto a
>
>
>
> -tech
>
> a/adherido a/con/de/en/en contacto con/entre/incorporado a/junto a/sobre
>
>
>
> -tlan
>
> al lado de/cerca de/con/debajo de/en/en compañía de/en el interior
> de/entre/junto a
>
>
>
> Locative suffix:
>
>
>
> -tla:n
>
> con/en/entre/junto a/lugar de
>
>
>
> As you mentioned, there’s a lot of semantic overlap. I guess the next step
> would be to observe their use in early colonial texts to get a better grasp
> of how they were used.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps clear things up.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> De: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org]
> En nombre de Susana Moraleda
> Enviado el: martes, 10 de noviembre de 2009 01:50 p.m.
> Para: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Tloc, nahuac, tech, tlan
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm a bit confused on the uses of TLOC, NAHUAC, TECH and TLAN since they all
> have similar meanings.  I've consulted Garibay, Sullivan and Horcasitas, but
> the differences are not clear.
>
> ·         TLOC and NAHUAC are synonyms and mean "junto a", "cerca de".
>
> ·         TECH means "en", "pegado o adherente a", "referente a".
>
> ·         (TI)TLAN means "en", "entre", "con", "junto a", "cerca de". And
> besides, Garibay says "sobre", while Sullivan says "debajo"!!!
>
> Are there any rules saying when to use which?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>
>
> Susana
>
>




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