mohottah

[John Sullivan, Ph.D.]

Fran and all,
	I should have explained that this is a case of long vowel reduplication.
John
On May 12, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Frances Karttunen wrote:

> It's not the way I would expect it to work either.  In my experience, the reduplicated form of ahci is ahahci, without the object prefix c- getting involved in the reduplicative process.
> 
> Must be a regional thing.
> 
> Fran
> 
> 
> On May 12, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Michael McCafferty wrote:
> 
>> Hi, John,
>> 
>> You know, my first (gut?) feeling about this was that that -c- was
>> epenthetic, not resulting from reduplication.
>> 
>> Yes, this is cool, and...strange.
>> 
>> */ni-k-aa?si/ -> /ni-ka-k-a?si/
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." <idiez at me.com>:
>> 
>>> Michael,
>>> 	If I want to reduplicate the stem of quiahci, the first syllable
>>> that contains elements of the stem is ah, so the a is reduplicated.
>>> If I want to reduplicate the stem of nicahci, the first syllable
>>> containing elements of the stem is cah, right? So in this case the ca
>>> is reduplicated. This only happens with transitive verbs whose stem
>>> begins in a vowel, and when the subject is ni or ti (hence, the
>>> initial sequence nic or tic). Cool, huh?
>>> John
>>> 
>>> On May 12, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Michael McCafferty wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." <idiez at me.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Piyali Ben,
>>>>> 	You know that when mo- and itta come together, the o wins out over
>>>>> the i because although both are short, the o is stronger than the i.
>>>>> So we get motta, which you will see all the time in texts. Now, when
>>>>> it comes time to reduplicate, you reduplicate the new word, motta,
>>>>> which is now understood to be m-otta, and you get m-ohotta.
>>>>> 	This kind of re-analyzed reduplication happens in the Huasteca too. So:
>>>>> 1. ahci, nic. to touch s.o. or s.t.
>>>>> 2. aahci, nic. to touch s.t. after all
>>>>> 3. Carlos quiaahci. Carlos touches it after all
>>>>> 4. Nicacahci. I touch it after all.
>>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> John:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm wondering about number 4. I don't get the second -c-.
>>>> 
>>>> Michael
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 12, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Leeming, Ben wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Piyali listeros,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can anyone explain to me the process by which mo+(i)ttah (they look
>>>>>> at each other, see themselves) becomes mohottah?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On p. 90 of Andrews? Workbook (1975 ed.), Ex. 38A, no. 3 he writes:
>>>>>> Nepanotl mohottah, and then on p. 195 gives the translation ?They
>>>>>> are staring at one another mutually; i.e., They are staring at one
>>>>>> another.?  On p. 445 of the text, in the Vocabulary under (iTTA) he
>>>>>> has ?MO-(iTTA) = to look at oneself, to see oneself.?  This is close
>>>>>> to but not identical with mohottah.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have this sinking feeling that it?s something really obvious, but
>>>>>> for whatever reason I can?t account for that first h!!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ben Leeming
>>>>>> Chair, History Department
>>>>>> The Rivers School
>>>>>> Weston, MA 02493
>>>>>> (781) 235-9300
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sample disclaimer text
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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