From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 17:35:27 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:35:27 -0600 Subject: noun as adverb Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of money can‘t be an object of the verb. So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 01:06:05 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:06:05 -0600 Subject: 3rd mail on nouns, adj and adverbs Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I see that my first two mails haven‘t been posted, so I‘m assuming this is due to the effects of the hurricane, and I hope everyone is ok. I am thinking that in Nahuatl, all nouns, regardless of the process of their formation (cihuatl, tetic, cuahuitl ihuehueyaca, tecuani, tlaxcalli, topileh, tizayoh, etc.) refer to an entity, but by extension, they can refer to the characteristics of that entity. 1. So for example if I juxtapose noun2 to noun1 or tack noun2 on to noun 1, noun 2 can lend noun1 its (noun2‘s) characteristics: in other words, noun2 takes on an adjectival function. Huehueyac huapalli, “It is a long board.“ Cihuatequitl, “It is woman‘s work.“ Chipahuacatl, “It is pure water.“ 2. On the other hand, if I juxtapose a noun to a verb or incorporate a noun into verb that already has all of its object spaces filled up, the noun can lend the verb its characteristics. In other words, the verb is performed with the characteristics of that entity. Chipahuacanemi, “He/she lives chastly.“ Or Chipahuaca nemi, “He/she lives chastly.“ Huehuexcatlahtoa, “He/she curses.” Moquichihtoa, “He boasts of his manly deeds (Se cree muy hombre).“ I think perhaps that a noun is a noun in Nahuatl, whether it points directly to an entity, or loans its characteristics to another noun or an action. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Nov 2 18:03:03 2012 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:03:03 -0400 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nice, John. I would agree. Or perhaps ome pesoh is an independent statement. Can 'in' be said before "ome pesoh," for example? Michael Quoting John Sullivan : > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan > Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going > to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? > object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the > applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or > ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? > But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the > verb. > So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the > beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded > like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So > perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking > about HOW I paid you. > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Nov 2 18:13:35 2012 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:13:35 -0400 Subject: Outages Message-ID: Colleagues, Our famsi server was attacked a few weeks ago by spammers, and we have had a very difficult time getting it up and running. Our list admin, Sandy Mielke, has done yoeman effort in setting things aright. If there were messages which you sent in the last couple of weeks which never appeared, please resubmit. We are still having trouble with some subscriptions, because larger providers like msn and hotmail automatically reject postings from us because of these attacks. We are working to "clear our name." Fritz -- John F. Schwaller President SUNY Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 schwallr at potsdam.edu tel: 315-267-2100 fax 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 19:54:10 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:54:10 -0600 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: <50940640.7020703@potsdam.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jess, In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, “to ask for a woman‘s hand in marriage.” In all other cases we have: 1. Nitlahtlani, “I ask (a question) or I make a request.” 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, “I ask you a question or I make you a request.” 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” I all of the 3s, the “external object” is not supported by the verb. One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to “in tocnoyo”. So that phase isn‘t technically adverbial, it‘s an object. John On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" wrote: > OMG > > Lightbulb moment. > > THANK YOU > > Tlazohcamati huel miac. > > > On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of money can‘t be an object of the verb. >> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- > John F. Schwaller > President > SUNY Potsdam > 44 Pierrepont Ave. > Potsdam, NY 13676 > > schwallr at potsdam.edu > > tel: 315-267-2100 > fax 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 21:58:26 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:58:26 -0600 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I just finished working with a student via Skype on a 1677 document from Western Mexico (near Colotlán, Jalisco), and found two more examples of the dangling (adverbial?) noun on one page. 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "Él me regalará mi sepultura.” He will have mercy on me (regarding my burial). Tlaocolia only takes one object. 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, “May he forgive my sins.” This verb is normally from the reduplicated form of poloa, “to destroy s.t.” So if poloa takes one object, and polhuia takes two, both of these are spoken for by the tla- and the nech-, leaving notlahtlacol just hanging out there. So again, it would seem that the idea would be “to pardon s.o., with respect to their sins.” John On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Jesse Lovegren wrote: > Hi John > Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!) > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Hi Jess, > In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, “to ask for a woman‘s hand in marriage.” In all other cases we have: > 1. Nitlahtlani, “I ask (a question) or I make a request.” > 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, “I ask you a question or I make you a request.” > 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” > 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” > 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” > 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” > I all of the 3s, the “external object” is not supported by the verb. > One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to “in tocnoyo”. So that phase isn‘t technically adverbial, it‘s an object. > John > > On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" wrote: > >> OMG >> >> Lightbulb moment. >> >> THANK YOU >> >> Tlazohcamati huel miac. >> >> >> On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of money can‘t be an object of the verb. >>> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> -- >> John F. Schwaller >> President >> SUNY Potsdam >> 44 Pierrepont Ave. >> Potsdam, NY 13676 >> >> schwallr at potsdam.edu >> >> tel: 315-267-2100 >> fax 315-267-2496 > > > > > -- > Jesse Lovegren > University at Buffalo > Department of Linguistics > 625 Baldy Hall > office +1 716 645 0114 > cell +1 716 352 3643 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lovegren at buffalo.edu Fri Nov 2 21:47:46 2012 From: lovegren at buffalo.edu (Jesse Lovegren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:47:46 -0400 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: <32585899-AA3C-47BD-B98F-073484A4E304@me.com> Message-ID: Hi John Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!) On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Hi Jess, > In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is > similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate > applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with > a specific object meaning, “to ask for a woman‘s hand in marriage.” In all > other cases we have: > 1. Nitlahtlani, “I ask (a question) or I make a request.” > 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, “I ask you a question or I make > you a request.” > 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” > 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” > 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” > 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” > I all of the 3s, the “external object” is not supported by the verb. > One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example > it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but > that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally > and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and > the other to “in tocnoyo”. So that phase isn‘t technically adverbial, it‘s > an object. > John > > On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" > wrote: > > OMG > > Lightbulb moment. > > THANK YOU > > Tlazohcamati huel miac. > > > On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of money can‘t be an object of the verb. > So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. > John > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing listNahuatl at lists.famsi.orghttp://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > -- > John F. Schwaller > President > SUNY Potsdam > 44 Pierrepont Ave. > Potsdam, NY 13676 > schwallr at potsdam.edu > > tel: 315-267-2100 > fax 315-267-2496 > > > -- Jesse Lovegren University at Buffalo Department of Linguistics 625 Baldy Hall office +1 716 645 0114 cell +1 716 352 3643 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From joostkremers at fastmail.fm Mon Nov 5 15:45:12 2012 From: joostkremers at fastmail.fm (Joost Kremers) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:45:12 +0100 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: <6F22E137-B279-429F-83E9-A1DB228AF71D@me.com> Message-ID: Hi all, of course, nouns being used as adverbs is nothing strange or exceptional. Lots of languages do that. In English, for example, temporal adverbials don't always need a preposition or something similar. "This week", "last month", "next year" are examples. In "two days from now", "two days" is a noun phrase modifying "from". Or take an example such as "he returned the winner" or "he left a desolate man" (well, in that case, "the winner"/"a desolate man" is a secondary predicate, not an adverbial, but it's similarly not licensed by the verb). In case-marking languages, such nouns are often in accusative case (although sometimes different cases appear). So in German, you say "letzt-en Monat" 'last-ACC month' and "dies-en Donnerstag" 'this-ACC Thursday'. And regarding money, in English there is the wondrous phrase "I'll bet you five bucks he won't go". Now, normally, English verbs allow one, two or three arguments, but not more. This example, however, seems to have four: "I", "you", "five bucks" and "he won't go". But if "five bucks" isn't actually an argument but an adverbial, the problem goes away... Best, Joost On Fri, Nov 02 2012, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I just finished working with a student via Skype on a 1677 document from Western Mexico (near Colotlán, Jalisco), and found two more examples of the dangling (adverbial?) noun on one page. > 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "Él me regalará mi sepultura.” He will have mercy on me (regarding my burial). Tlaocolia only takes one object. > 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, “May he forgive my sins.” This verb is normally from the reduplicated form of poloa, “to destroy s.t.” So if poloa takes one object, and polhuia takes two, both of these are spoken for by the tla- and the nech-, leaving notlahtlacol just hanging out there. So again, it would seem that the idea would be “to pardon s.o., with respect to their sins.” > John > On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Jesse Lovegren wrote: > >> Hi John >> Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!) >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >> Hi Jess, >> In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, “to ask for a woman‘s hand in marriage.” In all other cases we have: >> 1. Nitlahtlani, “I ask (a question) or I make a request.” >> 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, “I ask you a question or I make you a request.” >> 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” >> 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” >> 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” >> 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” >> I all of the 3s, the “external object” is not supported by the verb. >> One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to “in tocnoyo”. So that phase isn‘t technically adverbial, it‘s an object. >> John >> >> On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" wrote: >> >>> OMG >>> >>> Lightbulb moment. >>> >>> THANK YOU >>> >>> Tlazohcamati huel miac. >>> >>> >>> On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of money can‘t be an object of the verb. >>>> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >>>> John >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >>> -- >>> John F. Schwaller >>> President >>> SUNY Potsdam >>> 44 Pierrepont Ave. >>> Potsdam, NY 13676 >>> >>> schwallr at potsdam.edu >>> >>> tel: 315-267-2100 >>> fax 315-267-2496 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jesse Lovegren >> University at Buffalo >> Department of Linguistics >> 625 Baldy Hall >> office +1 716 645 0114 >> cell +1 716 352 3643 > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 18:37:18 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:37:18 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 278, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Listeros In most of the examples you give of "adverbial nouns" the noun is not an adverb but simply a secondary/indirect object which is not marked on the verb because of the fact that Nahuatl verbs can only mark one object with an explicit/definite referent and one with an indefinite or unreferenceable object. In those cases the traditional analyses simply analyses the suppressed argument as being marked with a zero morpheme. This is exactly the phenomenon I presented on at Yale two years ago. Nouns may be used adverbially in classical Nahuatl through the use of the "ic" particle and through the locative endings and as an incorporated modifier but I would be very reluctant to propose the analyses that you are arguing here without having first taken into account the details of the traditional analyses of Nahuatl transitivity. As I also argued two years ago at Yale, many modern Nahuatl varieties use the Spanish loan particle "* de*" (or *tlen *in La Huasteca) to adjoin oblique arguments in this way. Hill & Hill 1986 argued that the phrases beginning with "de" were advberbial, but in 95% of the examples I have seen the verb does not in fact license a second argument and that analysis fails. best, -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Nov 1 18:22:10 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:22:10 -0600 Subject: unified grammatical categories Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, IDIEZ is going to be working for the next five years with the U of Warsaw and the U of Sevilla on a project to document language change in Nahuatl from the contact to the present (no big deal!). Anyway, since we are going to use a unified database to record material for many variants across space and time, I find myself in the position of having to decide on a single set of grammatical categories for the language as a whole. And I figured there might be one or two people on the list that might have something to say about this. Personally, I don't have trouble with the categories of verb (tlachihualiztlahtolli) or relational word (tlapantiliztlahtolli). Everything else is kind of a haze. Perhaps I'll start with nouns. There are two kinds of nouns that pop into my head. Those that have an absolutive suffix (cihuatl, pahtli, macehualli, michin, chichi [Ø]; and those that are formed from verbs and pretty much conserve their verbal form (tlahcuiloh, tecuani, topileh, tequihuah, xochiyoh, -chicahuaca, etc.). Some people say that in Nahuatl all of these are nouns. But actually they can take on multiple functions. "Cuauhtli" can work as a noun, an adjective "cuauhpilli", or an adverb, "cuauhtemoc". Now I'm going to make up some words, and I hope they are acceptable. "Teopixqui", "priest" (not made up), could also be an adjective "teopixcatequitl" or an adverb, "teopixcanehnemi". And then, in Huastecan Nahuatl, "teopixqui" would be "teopixquetl". This is also hypothetical, since "priest" in the Huasteca es "totahtzin". But the principle of taking these agentive nouns and adding the absolutive suffix is standard practice. What I am thinking now is that there is a category of words that can function as nouns, adjectives and adverbs, depending mostly on predictable variations in their endings (presence or absence of the absolutive suffix; cycling between -ca, -que, -qui, -c, -Ø, etc.). For this reason it doesn't make much sense to me to talk about separate categories of noun, adjective, adverb. Or is it possible to combine these three functions into one? I sure would like to come up with something rational,( i.e., that doesn't haphazardly combine criteria of form and function), that would aid native speakers (and especially young students) in understanding how their language works. And we still have "particles" to discuss. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Nov 1 18:35:58 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:35:58 -0600 Subject: yolic, tetic Message-ID: And I forgot to mention all the words that, at least in Modern Huastecan, are used almost exclusively as adjectives and adverbs: yolic/yoliqueh, "a slow entity", yolic, "slowly"; tetic/tetiqueh, "a strong or hard entity". But even in Modern Huastecan, "Xinechmaca ce chichic," "Give me a sour one (a beer)" Or "ce cecec", "a cold one (a beer)." _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lovegren at buffalo.edu Fri Nov 2 18:41:14 2012 From: lovegren at buffalo.edu (Jesse Lovegren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for raising this interesting question. It seems that Nahuatl is very flexible in allowing nouns which are not indexed on the verbal word to be interpreted as adjuncts in some suitable context. A favorite example from the Florentine codex is as follows. xi-tech-[hu]al-mo-lnamiqui-li-li in to-cno-yo opt-1pl-vent-2sg.refl-remember-appl-appl art 1pl.poss-orphan-yo "remember us in our misery" What is interesting about ixtlahua is that it seems to refer to an event type which inherently involves more arguments than can be encoded by the morphology. I wonder if other such verbs can be found. Here is an example from the Florentine codex where the thing paid is encoded as an incorporated noun: mo-cuitlaxcoli-xtlahua-ya "...they paid with their entrails..." On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan > Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay > two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which > won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, > “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome > pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of > money can‘t be an object of the verb. > So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the > beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like > flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the > two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. > John > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- Jesse Lovegren University at Buffalo Department of Linguistics 625 Baldy Hall office +1 716 645 0114 cell +1 716 352 3643 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 6 01:01:07 2012 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:01:07 -0500 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Jesse Lovegren : > Thanks for raising this interesting question. It seems that Nahuatl is very > flexible in allowing nouns which are not indexed on the verbal word to be > interpreted as adjuncts in some suitable context. A favorite example from > the Florentine codex is as follows. > > xi-tech-[hu]al-mo-lnamiqui-li-li in to-cno-yo > opt-1pl-vent-2sg.refl-remember-appl-appl art 1pl.poss-orphan-yo > "remember us in our misery" > Nice. Thanks. Your example, Jesse, relates to my original question for John when he first mentioned this type of construction--I asked if modern Nahuatl puts an "in" before what you're referring to as an "adjunct". Got no response on that question, but your example here goes toward answering it. My sense is that this is less an adjunct than a complete statement that describes the idea being referenced by the verb. Michael > What is interesting about ixtlahua is that it seems to refer to an event > type which inherently involves more arguments than can be encoded by the > morphology. I wonder if other such verbs can be found. > > Here is an example from the Florentine codex where the thing paid is > encoded as an incorporated noun: > > mo-cuitlaxcoli-xtlahua-ya > "...they paid with their entrails..." > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan >> Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay >> two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which >> won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, >> ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome >> pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of >> money can?t be an object of the verb. >> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the >> beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like >> flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the >> two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> > > > -- > Jesse Lovegren > University at Buffalo > Department of Linguistics > 625 Baldy Hall > office +1 716 645 0114 > cell +1 716 352 3643 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From magnuspharao at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 20:19:17 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:19:17 -0500 Subject: Nouns as adverbs Message-ID: In response to the recent post by Jesse Lovegren: Your first example: xi-tech-[hu]al-mo-lnamiqui-li-li in to-cno-yo opt-1pl-vent-2sg.refl-remember-appl-appl art 1pl.poss-orphan-yo "remember us in our misery" Is also a case of possessor raising, where the congruence between the object and the possessor of the noun licenses the noun - to show this it could be translated as "remember our misery (for us)" mo-cuitlaxcoli-xtlahua-ya "...they paid with their entrails..." Here you hit the nail on the head - incorporation of nouns is exactly the only way in which a second definite object can be overtly marked on bi, tri or tetravalent verbs. But yes, the supporession of the second object happens with all ditransitives. Launey describes the rules according to which this is done very lucidly in his grammar. Nahuatl gramarians generally agree that Nahuatl is anything but "very flexible" in the way in which handles transitivity - this rigidity is the basic grammatical glue of Nahuatl syntax. Exceptions happen but they are never general, and always occur only in specific contexts and constructions where syntactica cohesion can be maintained without the explicit marking of agreement. best, M -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 14:50:44 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:50:44 -0500 Subject: nouns as adverbs Message-ID: Dear Listeros I've been mulling over the adverb question, and I continue to be skeptical. Primarily because if we were to argue that in Nahuatl it is generally possible to use nouns adverbially with no overt marking that would tear apart everything we know about Nahuatl syntax, which is exactly that it requires overt marking of the grammatical relations of the relations between freestanding nouns and predicates. Here I send my analyses of the examples and my arguments why they are not freestanding nouns being used as adverbs. *John Sullivan's examples with ihtlani and its derivatives:* 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.” 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.” In the two first examples the object is the entire phrase ""queniuhqui motocah" and it is fully licensed. First of all nimitztlatlanilia takes to objects, but only one can be overtly expressed and it always has to be the one with higher topicality i.e. the second person. The second object marker is suppressed, but it is still indexed by the applicative ending. So no transitivity problem here. This also accounts for the lack of overt agreement with the "ce peso" in the latter two examples Secondly the adjoined phrase is preceded by *queniuhqui,* which marks the following as not being an argument to the verb but an adverbial relative clause. The problem is the translation which masks the fact that the construction is "I ask *how *your name is/how you name yourself" (i.e. the phrase in question is a an adverbial relative clause and not a direct object) and not "I ask *what *your name is" in which case it would have required an extra object. The reason this construction has motocah which seems to be a noun instead of a verb can be one of two : it is probably a short form of timotoca (the formal form used in many dialects). *Jesse Lovegren's examples * 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "Él me regalará mi sepultura.” 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, “May he forgive my sins.” In both of these examples the seemingly unlicensed noun is possessed by the first person who is also the object of the verb. This means that this is a case of possessor raising where the first person possessor of the object is promoted to being the object. This is similar to when in Spanish we say "me cortó el brazo" instead of "corto mi brazo". The freestanding noun is licensed by virtue of being the possession of the indexed object. *Andrews' example:* 1. “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” Andrews does not say that in general it is possible to use nouns as adverbs, he gives for examples of a very specific construction obviously form a poetic register, in which a noun immediately preceding the verb can have a comparative adverbial function with the meaning "like a". This is obviously a very restricted function, and basically it could be interpreted as an elliptical construction leaving out the "quenin" or "iuhqui" that normally introduces comparative phrases. In short: I don't think that any of these examples are new constructions, but rather have been fully accounted for in the grammars. And also i don't think that they show that nouns can be used as adverbs for the reasons i have given. Now I wil proceed to complicate the matter: cualli titlatlahtoa "you speak well" cualli is by now an adjective or adverb for all purposes - but it clearly is historically a noun as it carries the absolutive suffix, and is liked derived through a passive form of *kwa "eat" with the original meaning "edible". So this means that at least one noun has passed entirely from being a noun to being only a modifier of other nouns or verbs. That means that this particular noun must have been used as a freestanding unlicensed noun in the past causing its use to gradually shift towards that of a modifier. best, M -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 00:27:58 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:27:58 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear John and listeros I'm responding to the inquiry about Nahuatl word classes, I am a little worried that your approach to grammatical analysis is not the most useful for the project you are undertaking. I think the best thing you can do is to base those analytical choices on research done by the many excellent linguists who have worked on Nahuatl. Personally, I think you should adopt either Andrews or Launey's analysis - and I recommend Launey's because it is more compatible with standard linguistic terminology. If you don't want to do this I think you would need to go back a few steps to make some tough decisions about how to approach grammar at a theoretical level. And here for the sake of the utility of the database you want to build I think the best choice would be to assure that it is compatible with what is by now called "basic linguistic theory" which is used for all kinds of linguistic typology and almost all langauge documentation. A good example of this theoretical perspective is Thomas Payne's "describing Morphosyntax" which gives the basics of how to do a typologically based language description that can be used for cross-linguistic comparison. Subsequently some more typologically oriented literature such as the series of mongraphs by Dixon and Aikhenvald might be a useful read. What makes me say this is that in your question you are unclear on several key grammatical distinctions which I think stems from a lack of a decision about what grammar is and how you want to describe it, this leads you to mix up formal (syntactic) and functional (grammatical and semantic) criteria of "wordness". For example you conflate the notions of "word", "root", "part of speech/word class", "morpheme", "semantic function" and "grammatical function". The way you use the concepts are not in synch with how they are used in descriptive linguistics, you can of course choose to adopt a new theoretical framework, but that would seem to require a good reason. In linguistics a word class, also called "part of speech" is traditionally syntactically defined. A group of words form a word class if they can be seen to have complementary distribution to other such classes and to be characterized by a shared underlying syntactic/grammatical function (e.g. that of forming predicates or arguments). In language's such as Nahuatl that have a very loose word orde and a complex morphology, the main criteria for describing a word as belonging to one class or the other tends to be morphological. Verbs is any word that can take verbal morphology, and a noun is any root that can take nominal morphology. The criteria are not fully waterproof since certain morphologicaol categories are shared (e.g. the subject marking morphemes), but nonetheless with careful analysis it is almost always possible to discern differences. (e.g. verbs never take possessive morphemes and nouns never take object morphemes (except in Oapan Nahuatl where kinship nouns do!) or tense/aspect/mood related morphology). Now for adjectives and adverbs this is much more complicated, because there are no completely clear definitions of these categories, accepted by all linguists. I think that consensus in linguistics currently is that not all languages have adverbs and adjectives, and that only those languages have these word classes where these categories have specific morphological or syntactic patterns of distribution. In Nahuatl there is a small class of words that can be considered adjectives or adverbs, but it is a small and ambiguous class of words that are neither fully nouns nor fully verbs but which can form predicates (I consider them to be "statives" and some of them may be considered adjectives (e.g. hueyi, istac, yancuic, cualli) or adverbs (e.g. yolic, huilihui). because this class of words is small and closed instead the aspects of meaning that are carried out by adjectives and adverbs in English, in Nahuatl are carried out by either nouns, verbs. But none of these classes correspond directly to what we would call adjectives or adverbs in English, since both nouns and verbs can carry out the functions carried out by adverbs and adjectives in English. In a conventional analysis this does not mean that these words become adjectives or adverbs, it just means that in this language those semantic functions are also fulfilled by other wordclasses. The confusion of these categories is evident for example in your examples of *cuauhtli*. I.e. /kwaw/ is a morpheme, not a word - it doesn't belong to any wordclass even though it clearly is nominal in its semantics and is clearly most often used to create nouns. When constructed with the absolutive, c*uauhtli *is a noun because it can function as an argument of a predicate, and stand as a free word in argument position in the sentence, and because it takes the absolutive ending, and because it can be possessed and pluralized. In *cuauhpillli *it is still a noun root, it has just been incorporated into another noun - which is what Nahuatl does most of the time when it wants to modify nouns. That does not make it an adjective though, because "adjective" is usually defined as a syntactic category with the main function of modifying nouns (in Nahuatl the only ones are kwalli, weyi and perhaps a few others). I.e. /kwaw/ is a noun without regards to the semantic function it carries out in a given context, because in all the cases it functions exactly as all other nouns, and in opposition to either verbs, particles and adjectives. In the same way teopixcatequitl is also a noun that is made by combining two nouns one of which modifies the other - teopixquetl/teopixqui does not become an adjective because it is used in this way. It is simply not the case that in Nahuatl there is a category of words that can randomly function as nouns, adjectives or adverbs - this idea goes against everything we know about Nahuatl grammar. The fact is that Nahuatl has a class of nouns and that that class of nouns can be combined in ways that convey the meanings of English adjectives and adverbs - but which are still nouns syntactically and grammatically. You may wish to to take a look at my short article on the question of Nahuatl Adjectives in Kansas Working Papers in linguistics ) to see a little bit about how complicated it is to define wordclasses other than "verb", "noun" and "particle" in Nahuatl grammar (even your proposed "relational word" I wouldn't consider a valid word class since they are all either nouns, affixes (i.e. morphemes not words) or particles - most of them are nouns marked for relationality with wifferent combinations of possession and suffixes). I end the article with my analysis of wordclasses in Nahuatl, which is basically the same as Launey''s and Andrews'. http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/8101/1/KWPL-32-PharaoHansen2.pdf It is not a great piece of work, but it is an exercise inthe kind of grammatical reasoning that must go before making any decision about analyzing word classes in Nahuatl. I think that the thing to do is to take the time to do a thorough survey comparing analyses in the major grammatical works and seeing how they divide up word classes and analyze their functions. This is a huge task that will take many hundred hours of study and a really good familiarity with linguistic theory, and how linguists make analytical choices based on different theoretical perspectives and on analysis of evidence. I don't think it is enough to be very good at Nahuatl, this tasks requires intimate familiarity with linguistic theory and Nahuatl scholarship. For this reason I don't see why anyone would undertake this endeavor from scratch since so many eminent grammarians of Nahuatl have already done it for us, e.g. Carochi, Launey, Andrews, Canger, Lockhart, Lastra or Dakin. I don't understand why you'd want to reinvent the wheel on this, and if you go with an analysis that is too idiosyncratic you risk that the entire documentation project will be of little use to others in the discipline, especially if the the data format is not based on a full systemic analysis of the language but rather on scattered observations and gut feelings. best regards, -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From tom_grigsby at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 14:58:58 2012 From: tom_grigsby at yahoo.com (grigsby tom) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:58:58 -0800 Subject: Return of the Dead Message-ID: Listeros, Could someone please give me a gloss of oquimaya? It’s a term used to refer to “los matados,” the first of the dead to return to their homes on October 28 in the Tepoztlán municipio.   Sincerely, Tom Grigsby _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx Tue Nov 20 14:36:22 2012 From: cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx (Ignacio Silva) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 06:36:22 -0800 Subject: Curso de n=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E1huatl.?= Message-ID: Tocniuhtzitzihuan: Curso de lengua náhuatl para principiantesLos días Lunes de 11:00 a 13:00 hrsen el Centro Comunitario "Sembrando Libertad"Domicilio: Francisco Sarabia esquina Almapica.Col. Plan de Iguala.Iztapalapa. A una cuadra del metro Cerro de la Estrella. Los esperamos. _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Sat Nov 24 04:07:03 2012 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:07:03 -0500 Subject: itlatla Message-ID: Nocnihuan, I'm hoping for a helping hand with a Nahuatl word: itlatla. As you can see in the examples from the Florentine Codex included below, it seems to mean, "similar to it" or "its imitation". Assuming that the initial 'i' might be a possessive prefix, I have searched for "notlatla", "motlatla", "intlatla", etc. without success. I would appreciate any comments about its derivation or relationships. Tlazohcamati de antemano, Joe itlatla 1. huel iuhquin ayecotli. quitoa: quil *itlatla* in ayecotli. [its seed] is just like fat beans; they say that it is some sort of fat bean. (b.11 f.13 p.132). 2. quil *itlatla* in lechugas: they say it is some form of lettuce. (b.11 f.14 p.139). 3. quil *itlatla* in xonacatl. they say it is some kind of onion. (b.11 f.14 p.139). 4. *itlatla* in tonacayotl, huel iuhqui in toctli: it is similar to the maize: just like the maize stalk. (b.11 f.19 p.187). 5. quitoa, *itlatla* in yiauhtli. they say it resembles yiauhtli. (b.11 f.19 p.197). 6. xihuitl, ihyac, huelic, ahuiac, ahuixtic, poyomatic, *itlatla* in poyomatli. it is an herb, aromatic, of pleasing odor, fragrant; pleasing, like the poyomatli, something like the potli. (b.11 f.21 p.212). 7. auh in cualli quetzalitztli, in amo zan *itlatla*, in nelli huel yehhuatl: mitoniani, tlaihiyoanani; in mochichiqui: and the good emerald-green jade -- not the imitation -- the genuine [jade] attracts moisture; it attracts things when rubbed. (b.11 f.22 p.222). _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jdanahuatl at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 06:47:21 2012 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:47:21 -0500 Subject: itlatla In-Reply-To: <20121123230703.c4lrrsqxww00wsgs@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Joe, In central Balsas, Guerrero: i:tlahtla:k. In Cuetzalan, Puebla, itahta:y. I believe it is also found in Chicontepec, Veracruz, but I don't remember the final consonant, I think /h/. I once thought that it might be related to a reduplicated form of tla:ki 'to bear fruit'. It is only used with 3rdSg possessors and only, in my experience, in reference to plants (unless metaphorically extended). A similar word is found in Yoloxochitl Mixtec: my notes: \lx ta1ni1 \lx_alt nda3-ta1ni1 \lx_cita ta1ni1 \ref 1494 \glosa compañero \catgr Sust \sig (poseído : ta1ni1=an4) novio (de una soltera); amante (de una mujer casada o no) (lo básico es que no es su esposo) \col ta1ni1 [nombre de planta] : ta1ni1 yu3ba2 a1xin4 | parecida a (una planta a otra, p. ej., el ta1ni1 yu3ba2 a1xin4 es una Crotalaria sp. que se asemeja en apariencia a las Crotalaria comestibles \raiz ta1ni1 \nsem La glosa 'compañero' es solamente una aproximación al significado que abarca los dos usos aquí documentados. El cuanto al uso de esta palabra para 'amante', está cayéndose en desuso. En cuanto a su uso en las plantas parece que hay dos formas de usarla. Primero, existen nombres de plantas lexicalizadas que utilizan este término para indicar que la planta designada con ta1ni1 se parece a otra que tiene el nombre básico (sin ta1ni1). Por otro lado los hablantes del mixteco de Yoloxóchitl pueden usar ta1ni1 idiosincráticamente para comunicar su observación que una planta parece a otra. En este caso no se considera el nombre propio de esta planta sino más bien un comentario sobre su morfología. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Campbell, R. Joe wrote: > Nocnihuan, > > I'm hoping for a helping hand with a Nahuatl word: itlatla. As you can > see in the examples from the Florentine Codex included below, it seems to > mean, "similar to it" or "its imitation". Assuming that the initial 'i' > might be a possessive prefix, I have searched for "notlatla", "motlatla", > "intlatla", etc. without success. I would appreciate any comments about > its derivation or relationships. > > Tlazohcamati de antemano, > > Joe > > > > itlatla > > 1. huel iuhquin ayecotli. quitoa: quil *itlatla* in ayecotli. > [its seed] is just like fat beans; they say that it is some sort > of fat bean. (b.11 f.13 p.132). > > 2. quil *itlatla* in lechugas: > they say it is some form of lettuce. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 3. quil *itlatla* in xonacatl. > they say it is some kind of onion. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 4. *itlatla* in tonacayotl, huel iuhqui in toctli: > it is similar to the maize: just like the maize stalk. (b.11 > f.19 p.187). > > 5. quitoa, *itlatla* in yiauhtli. > they say it resembles yiauhtli. (b.11 f.19 p.197). > > 6. xihuitl, ihyac, huelic, ahuiac, ahuixtic, poyomatic, *itlatla* in > poyomatli. > it is an herb, aromatic, of pleasing odor, fragrant; pleasing, > like the poyomatli, something like the potli. (b.11 f.21 > p.212). > > 7. auh in cualli quetzalitztli, in amo zan *itlatla*, in nelli huel > yehhuatl: mitoniani, tlaihiyoanani; in mochichiqui: > and the good emerald-green jade -- not the imitation -- the > genuine [jade] attracts moisture; it attracts things when > rubbed. (b.11 f.22 p.222). > > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > 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 From t_amaya at megared.net.mx Sun Nov 25 02:59:38 2012 From: t_amaya at megared.net.mx (Tomas Amando Amaya Aquino) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:59:38 -0600 Subject: itlatla In-Reply-To: <20121123230703.c4lrrsqxww00wsgs@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Mah xiyolpacto, John The word used in Cuetzalan is *tatai (tlatlai*). It means "similar to" (in Spanish: "parecido a"). E.g.: *Yn Xiuan nel in itatai ýn notatzin -->* Juan de veras se parece a mi papá / John is really similar to my father. Other example:* Nipitzotic ýn neh, nitahuanque ýn neh, nitatziuh ýn neh, huan yn notelpoch Tomas yoolic huan yoolic mochihua notatai, huan ahmo ýn nic-huelitta* --> I am ugly, a drunkard, a lazy one and I see that Thomas, my son, little by little becomes like me and I do not like it. Another example:* Yn ilhuicahtahtocayot yeh in itatai ýn cé-in mostaza-xinachti ce tacat quicuic huan quitoocac ýn italpan*. Translation: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man took and planted in his field" (Matthew 13:31, Bible, International Standard Version, 2008). The similarity is not only related to the aspect, but rather to the "being" (*iyeliz*) of the thing/person, hence the example of the Bible. If you want to underline the aspect of the thing/person you have to use ixihcui (ixyuhqui in NC) when the resemblance is related to the face, and * ihcui* (yuhqui NC) if the resemblance relates to the whole body, (external) aspect. E.g. 1) *Yn noconetzin Uliel, noixihcui* --> Uriel, my son, looks like me (in relation to our faces) 2) Y*n "Monna Lisa nel in iihcui ýn Tonantzin Conchita* --> The Monna Lisa looks like the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception (named Conchita in Cuetzalan). NImitzyoltapalohua Tomas Amaya 2012/11/23 Campbell, R. Joe > Nocnihuan, > > I'm hoping for a helping hand with a Nahuatl word: itlatla. As you can > see in the examples from the Florentine Codex included below, it seems to > mean, "similar to it" or "its imitation". Assuming that the initial 'i' > might be a possessive prefix, I have searched for "notlatla", "motlatla", > "intlatla", etc. without success. I would appreciate any comments about > its derivation or relationships. > > Tlazohcamati de antemano, > > Joe > > > > itlatla > > 1. huel iuhquin ayecotli. quitoa: quil *itlatla* in ayecotli. > [its seed] is just like fat beans; they say that it is some sort > of fat bean. (b.11 f.13 p.132). > > 2. quil *itlatla* in lechugas: > they say it is some form of lettuce. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 3. quil *itlatla* in xonacatl. > they say it is some kind of onion. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 4. *itlatla* in tonacayotl, huel iuhqui in toctli: > it is similar to the maize: just like the maize stalk. (b.11 > f.19 p.187). > > 5. quitoa, *itlatla* in yiauhtli. > they say it resembles yiauhtli. (b.11 f.19 p.197). > > 6. xihuitl, ihyac, huelic, ahuiac, ahuixtic, poyomatic, *itlatla* in > poyomatli. > it is an herb, aromatic, of pleasing odor, fragrant; pleasing, > like the poyomatli, something like the potli. (b.11 f.21 > p.212). > > 7. auh in cualli quetzalitztli, in amo zan *itlatla*, in nelli huel > yehhuatl: mitoniani, tlaihiyoanani; in mochichiqui: > and the good emerald-green jade -- not the imitation -- the > genuine [jade] attracts moisture; it attracts things when > rubbed. (b.11 f.22 p.222). > > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > 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 From lahunik.62 at skynet.be Sun Nov 25 21:04:15 2012 From: lahunik.62 at skynet.be (lahunik.62 at skynet.be) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:04:15 +0100 Subject: Itlatla Message-ID: Vol 280 Issue2 Message 1 Itlatla Or could it be itlah, something. Itlahti, to become something, R.Andrews 446 Tlahtlani, v.tr. Nitlahtlani, I demand something, R.Andrews 443. Tetlahtlania, Asking something of someone. Baert Georges Flanders Fields _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Nov 30 23:02:24 2012 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:02:24 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl on the radio Message-ID: There was a report on NPR's "All Things Considered" this evening (11/30/12) about the teaching/learning of Nahuatl among Mexican Americans. Michael _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 17:35:27 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:35:27 -0600 Subject: noun as adverb Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the verb. So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 01:06:05 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:06:05 -0600 Subject: 3rd mail on nouns, adj and adverbs Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I see that my first two mails haven?t been posted, so I?m assuming this is due to the effects of the hurricane, and I hope everyone is ok. I am thinking that in Nahuatl, all nouns, regardless of the process of their formation (cihuatl, tetic, cuahuitl ihuehueyaca, tecuani, tlaxcalli, topileh, tizayoh, etc.) refer to an entity, but by extension, they can refer to the characteristics of that entity. 1. So for example if I juxtapose noun2 to noun1 or tack noun2 on to noun 1, noun 2 can lend noun1 its (noun2?s) characteristics: in other words, noun2 takes on an adjectival function. Huehueyac huapalli, ?It is a long board.? Cihuatequitl, ?It is woman?s work.? Chipahuacatl, ?It is pure water.? 2. On the other hand, if I juxtapose a noun to a verb or incorporate a noun into verb that already has all of its object spaces filled up, the noun can lend the verb its characteristics. In other words, the verb is performed with the characteristics of that entity. Chipahuacanemi, ?He/she lives chastly.? Or Chipahuaca nemi, ?He/she lives chastly.? Huehuexcatlahtoa, ?He/she curses.? Moquichihtoa, ?He boasts of his manly deeds (Se cree muy hombre).? I think perhaps that a noun is a noun in Nahuatl, whether it points directly to an entity, or loans its characteristics to another noun or an action. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Nov 2 18:03:03 2012 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:03:03 -0400 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nice, John. I would agree. Or perhaps ome pesoh is an independent statement. Can 'in' be said before "ome pesoh," for example? Michael Quoting John Sullivan : > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan > Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going > to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? > object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the > applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or > ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? > But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the > verb. > So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the > beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded > like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So > perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking > about HOW I paid you. > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From schwallr at potsdam.edu Fri Nov 2 18:13:35 2012 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:13:35 -0400 Subject: Outages Message-ID: Colleagues, Our famsi server was attacked a few weeks ago by spammers, and we have had a very difficult time getting it up and running. Our list admin, Sandy Mielke, has done yoeman effort in setting things aright. If there were messages which you sent in the last couple of weeks which never appeared, please resubmit. We are still having trouble with some subscriptions, because larger providers like msn and hotmail automatically reject postings from us because of these attacks. We are working to "clear our name." Fritz -- John F. Schwaller President SUNY Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 schwallr at potsdam.edu tel: 315-267-2100 fax 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 19:54:10 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:54:10 -0600 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: <50940640.7020703@potsdam.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jess, In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, ?to ask for a woman?s hand in marriage.? In all other cases we have: 1. Nitlahtlani, ?I ask (a question) or I make a request.? 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, ?I ask you a question or I make you a request.? 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? I all of the 3s, the ?external object? is not supported by the verb. One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to ?in tocnoyo?. So that phase isn?t technically adverbial, it?s an object. John On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" wrote: > OMG > > Lightbulb moment. > > THANK YOU > > Tlazohcamati huel miac. > > > On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the verb. >> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- > John F. Schwaller > President > SUNY Potsdam > 44 Pierrepont Ave. > Potsdam, NY 13676 > > schwallr at potsdam.edu > > tel: 315-267-2100 > fax 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Nov 2 21:58:26 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:58:26 -0600 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I just finished working with a student via Skype on a 1677 document from Western Mexico (near Colotl?n, Jalisco), and found two more examples of the dangling (adverbial?) noun on one page. 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "?l me regalar? mi sepultura.? He will have mercy on me (regarding my burial). Tlaocolia only takes one object. 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, ?May he forgive my sins.? This verb is normally from the reduplicated form of poloa, ?to destroy s.t.? So if poloa takes one object, and polhuia takes two, both of these are spoken for by the tla- and the nech-, leaving notlahtlacol just hanging out there. So again, it would seem that the idea would be ?to pardon s.o., with respect to their sins.? John On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Jesse Lovegren wrote: > Hi John > Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!) > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Hi Jess, > In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, ?to ask for a woman?s hand in marriage.? In all other cases we have: > 1. Nitlahtlani, ?I ask (a question) or I make a request.? > 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, ?I ask you a question or I make you a request.? > 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? > 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? > 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? > 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? > I all of the 3s, the ?external object? is not supported by the verb. > One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to ?in tocnoyo?. So that phase isn?t technically adverbial, it?s an object. > John > > On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" wrote: > >> OMG >> >> Lightbulb moment. >> >> THANK YOU >> >> Tlazohcamati huel miac. >> >> >> On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the verb. >>> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> -- >> John F. Schwaller >> President >> SUNY Potsdam >> 44 Pierrepont Ave. >> Potsdam, NY 13676 >> >> schwallr at potsdam.edu >> >> tel: 315-267-2100 >> fax 315-267-2496 > > > > > -- > Jesse Lovegren > University at Buffalo > Department of Linguistics > 625 Baldy Hall > office +1 716 645 0114 > cell +1 716 352 3643 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lovegren at buffalo.edu Fri Nov 2 21:47:46 2012 From: lovegren at buffalo.edu (Jesse Lovegren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:47:46 -0400 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: <32585899-AA3C-47BD-B98F-073484A4E304@me.com> Message-ID: Hi John Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!) On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Hi Jess, > In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is > similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate > applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with > a specific object meaning, ?to ask for a woman?s hand in marriage.? In all > other cases we have: > 1. Nitlahtlani, ?I ask (a question) or I make a request.? > 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, ?I ask you a question or I make > you a request.? > 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? > 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? > 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? > 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? > I all of the 3s, the ?external object? is not supported by the verb. > One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example > it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but > that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally > and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and > the other to ?in tocnoyo?. So that phase isn?t technically adverbial, it?s > an object. > John > > On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" > wrote: > > OMG > > Lightbulb moment. > > THANK YOU > > Tlazohcamati huel miac. > > > On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the verb. > So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. > John > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing listNahuatl at lists.famsi.orghttp://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > -- > John F. Schwaller > President > SUNY Potsdam > 44 Pierrepont Ave. > Potsdam, NY 13676 > schwallr at potsdam.edu > > tel: 315-267-2100 > fax 315-267-2496 > > > -- Jesse Lovegren University at Buffalo Department of Linguistics 625 Baldy Hall office +1 716 645 0114 cell +1 716 352 3643 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From joostkremers at fastmail.fm Mon Nov 5 15:45:12 2012 From: joostkremers at fastmail.fm (Joost Kremers) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:45:12 +0100 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: <6F22E137-B279-429F-83E9-A1DB228AF71D@me.com> Message-ID: Hi all, of course, nouns being used as adverbs is nothing strange or exceptional. Lots of languages do that. In English, for example, temporal adverbials don't always need a preposition or something similar. "This week", "last month", "next year" are examples. In "two days from now", "two days" is a noun phrase modifying "from". Or take an example such as "he returned the winner" or "he left a desolate man" (well, in that case, "the winner"/"a desolate man" is a secondary predicate, not an adverbial, but it's similarly not licensed by the verb). In case-marking languages, such nouns are often in accusative case (although sometimes different cases appear). So in German, you say "letzt-en Monat" 'last-ACC month' and "dies-en Donnerstag" 'this-ACC Thursday'. And regarding money, in English there is the wondrous phrase "I'll bet you five bucks he won't go". Now, normally, English verbs allow one, two or three arguments, but not more. This example, however, seems to have four: "I", "you", "five bucks" and "he won't go". But if "five bucks" isn't actually an argument but an adverbial, the problem goes away... Best, Joost On Fri, Nov 02 2012, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I just finished working with a student via Skype on a 1677 document from Western Mexico (near Colotl?n, Jalisco), and found two more examples of the dangling (adverbial?) noun on one page. > 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "?l me regalar? mi sepultura.? He will have mercy on me (regarding my burial). Tlaocolia only takes one object. > 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, ?May he forgive my sins.? This verb is normally from the reduplicated form of poloa, ?to destroy s.t.? So if poloa takes one object, and polhuia takes two, both of these are spoken for by the tla- and the nech-, leaving notlahtlacol just hanging out there. So again, it would seem that the idea would be ?to pardon s.o., with respect to their sins.? > John > On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Jesse Lovegren wrote: > >> Hi John >> Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!) >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >> Hi Jess, >> In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, ?to ask for a woman?s hand in marriage.? In all other cases we have: >> 1. Nitlahtlani, ?I ask (a question) or I make a request.? >> 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, ?I ask you a question or I make you a request.? >> 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? >> 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? >> 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? >> 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? >> I all of the 3s, the ?external object? is not supported by the verb. >> One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to ?in tocnoyo?. So that phase isn?t technically adverbial, it?s an object. >> John >> >> On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" wrote: >> >>> OMG >>> >>> Lightbulb moment. >>> >>> THANK YOU >>> >>> Tlazohcamati huel miac. >>> >>> >>> On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of money can?t be an object of the verb. >>>> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >>>> John >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >>> -- >>> John F. Schwaller >>> President >>> SUNY Potsdam >>> 44 Pierrepont Ave. >>> Potsdam, NY 13676 >>> >>> schwallr at potsdam.edu >>> >>> tel: 315-267-2100 >>> fax 315-267-2496 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jesse Lovegren >> University at Buffalo >> Department of Linguistics >> 625 Baldy Hall >> office +1 716 645 0114 >> cell +1 716 352 3643 > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 18:37:18 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:37:18 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 278, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Listeros In most of the examples you give of "adverbial nouns" the noun is not an adverb but simply a secondary/indirect object which is not marked on the verb because of the fact that Nahuatl verbs can only mark one object with an explicit/definite referent and one with an indefinite or unreferenceable object. In those cases the traditional analyses simply analyses the suppressed argument as being marked with a zero morpheme. This is exactly the phenomenon I presented on at Yale two years ago. Nouns may be used adverbially in classical Nahuatl through the use of the "ic" particle and through the locative endings and as an incorporated modifier but I would be very reluctant to propose the analyses that you are arguing here without having first taken into account the details of the traditional analyses of Nahuatl transitivity. As I also argued two years ago at Yale, many modern Nahuatl varieties use the Spanish loan particle "* de*" (or *tlen *in La Huasteca) to adjoin oblique arguments in this way. Hill & Hill 1986 argued that the phrases beginning with "de" were advberbial, but in 95% of the examples I have seen the verb does not in fact license a second argument and that analysis fails. best, -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Nov 1 18:22:10 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:22:10 -0600 Subject: unified grammatical categories Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, IDIEZ is going to be working for the next five years with the U of Warsaw and the U of Sevilla on a project to document language change in Nahuatl from the contact to the present (no big deal!). Anyway, since we are going to use a unified database to record material for many variants across space and time, I find myself in the position of having to decide on a single set of grammatical categories for the language as a whole. And I figured there might be one or two people on the list that might have something to say about this. Personally, I don't have trouble with the categories of verb (tlachihualiztlahtolli) or relational word (tlapantiliztlahtolli). Everything else is kind of a haze. Perhaps I'll start with nouns. There are two kinds of nouns that pop into my head. Those that have an absolutive suffix (cihuatl, pahtli, macehualli, michin, chichi [?]; and those that are formed from verbs and pretty much conserve their verbal form (tlahcuiloh, tecuani, topileh, tequihuah, xochiyoh, -chicahuaca, etc.). Some people say that in Nahuatl all of these are nouns. But actually they can take on multiple functions. "Cuauhtli" can work as a noun, an adjective "cuauhpilli", or an adverb, "cuauhtemoc". Now I'm going to make up some words, and I hope they are acceptable. "Teopixqui", "priest" (not made up), could also be an adjective "teopixcatequitl" or an adverb, "teopixcanehnemi". And then, in Huastecan Nahuatl, "teopixqui" would be "teopixquetl". This is also hypothetical, since "priest" in the Huasteca es "totahtzin". But the principle of taking these agentive nouns and adding the absolutive suffix is standard practice. What I am thinking now is that there is a category of words that can function as nouns, adjectives and adverbs, depending mostly on predictable variations in their endings (presence or absence of the absolutive suffix; cycling between -ca, -que, -qui, -c, -?, etc.). For this reason it doesn't make much sense to me to talk about separate categories of noun, adjective, adverb. Or is it possible to combine these three functions into one? I sure would like to come up with something rational,( i.e., that doesn't haphazardly combine criteria of form and function), that would aid native speakers (and especially young students) in understanding how their language works. And we still have "particles" to discuss. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Nov 1 18:35:58 2012 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:35:58 -0600 Subject: yolic, tetic Message-ID: And I forgot to mention all the words that, at least in Modern Huastecan, are used almost exclusively as adjectives and adverbs: yolic/yoliqueh, "a slow entity", yolic, "slowly"; tetic/tetiqueh, "a strong or hard entity". But even in Modern Huastecan, "Xinechmaca ce chichic," "Give me a sour one (a beer)" Or "ce cecec", "a cold one (a beer)." _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lovegren at buffalo.edu Fri Nov 2 18:41:14 2012 From: lovegren at buffalo.edu (Jesse Lovegren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for raising this interesting question. It seems that Nahuatl is very flexible in allowing nouns which are not indexed on the verbal word to be interpreted as adjuncts in some suitable context. A favorite example from the Florentine codex is as follows. xi-tech-[hu]al-mo-lnamiqui-li-li in to-cno-yo opt-1pl-vent-2sg.refl-remember-appl-appl art 1pl.poss-orphan-yo "remember us in our misery" What is interesting about ixtlahua is that it seems to refer to an event type which inherently involves more arguments than can be encoded by the morphology. I wonder if other such verbs can be found. Here is an example from the Florentine codex where the thing paid is encoded as an incorporated noun: mo-cuitlaxcoli-xtlahua-ya "...they paid with their entrails..." On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan > Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay > two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which > won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, > ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome > pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of > money can?t be an object of the verb. > So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the > beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like > flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the > two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. > John > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- Jesse Lovegren University at Buffalo Department of Linguistics 625 Baldy Hall office +1 716 645 0114 cell +1 716 352 3643 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 6 01:01:07 2012 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:01:07 -0500 Subject: noun as adverb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Jesse Lovegren : > Thanks for raising this interesting question. It seems that Nahuatl is very > flexible in allowing nouns which are not indexed on the verbal word to be > interpreted as adjuncts in some suitable context. A favorite example from > the Florentine codex is as follows. > > xi-tech-[hu]al-mo-lnamiqui-li-li in to-cno-yo > opt-1pl-vent-2sg.refl-remember-appl-appl art 1pl.poss-orphan-yo > "remember us in our misery" > Nice. Thanks. Your example, Jesse, relates to my original question for John when he first mentioned this type of construction--I asked if modern Nahuatl puts an "in" before what you're referring to as an "adjunct". Got no response on that question, but your example here goes toward answering it. My sense is that this is less an adjunct than a complete statement that describes the idea being referenced by the verb. Michael > What is interesting about ixtlahua is that it seems to refer to an event > type which inherently involves more arguments than can be encoded by the > morphology. I wonder if other such verbs can be found. > > Here is an example from the Florentine codex where the thing paid is > encoded as an incorporated noun: > > mo-cuitlaxcoli-xtlahua-ya > "...they paid with their entrails..." > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan >> Nahuatl such as the following, ?Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay >> two pesos.? The verb ?ixtlahua? can only take the ?tla-? object, which >> won?t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, >> ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.? ?I?m going to pay you.? Or ?Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome >> pesoh.? ?I?m going to pay you two pesos.? But again, the specific amount of >> money can?t be an object of the verb. >> So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the >> beginning of Lesson 49, ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like >> flowers.? So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the >> two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you. >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> > > > -- > Jesse Lovegren > University at Buffalo > Department of Linguistics > 625 Baldy Hall > office +1 716 645 0114 > cell +1 716 352 3643 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From magnuspharao at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 20:19:17 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:19:17 -0500 Subject: Nouns as adverbs Message-ID: In response to the recent post by Jesse Lovegren: Your first example: xi-tech-[hu]al-mo-lnamiqui-li-li in to-cno-yo opt-1pl-vent-2sg.refl-remember-appl-appl art 1pl.poss-orphan-yo "remember us in our misery" Is also a case of possessor raising, where the congruence between the object and the possessor of the noun licenses the noun - to show this it could be translated as "remember our misery (for us)" mo-cuitlaxcoli-xtlahua-ya "...they paid with their entrails..." Here you hit the nail on the head - incorporation of nouns is exactly the only way in which a second definite object can be overtly marked on bi, tri or tetravalent verbs. But yes, the supporession of the second object happens with all ditransitives. Launey describes the rules according to which this is done very lucidly in his grammar. Nahuatl gramarians generally agree that Nahuatl is anything but "very flexible" in the way in which handles transitivity - this rigidity is the basic grammatical glue of Nahuatl syntax. Exceptions happen but they are never general, and always occur only in specific contexts and constructions where syntactica cohesion can be maintained without the explicit marking of agreement. best, M -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 14:50:44 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:50:44 -0500 Subject: nouns as adverbs Message-ID: Dear Listeros I've been mulling over the adverb question, and I continue to be skeptical. Primarily because if we were to argue that in Nahuatl it is generally possible to use nouns adverbially with no overt marking that would tear apart everything we know about Nahuatl syntax, which is exactly that it requires overt marking of the grammatical relations of the relations between freestanding nouns and predicates. Here I send my analyses of the examples and my arguments why they are not freestanding nouns being used as adverbs. *John Sullivan's examples with ihtlani and its derivatives:* 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, ?I ask you what your name is.? 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, ?I ask you for a peso.? In the two first examples the object is the entire phrase ""queniuhqui motocah" and it is fully licensed. First of all nimitztlatlanilia takes to objects, but only one can be overtly expressed and it always has to be the one with higher topicality i.e. the second person. The second object marker is suppressed, but it is still indexed by the applicative ending. So no transitivity problem here. This also accounts for the lack of overt agreement with the "ce peso" in the latter two examples Secondly the adjoined phrase is preceded by *queniuhqui,* which marks the following as not being an argument to the verb but an adverbial relative clause. The problem is the translation which masks the fact that the construction is "I ask *how *your name is/how you name yourself" (i.e. the phrase in question is a an adverbial relative clause and not a direct object) and not "I ask *what *your name is" in which case it would have required an extra object. The reason this construction has motocah which seems to be a noun instead of a verb can be one of two : it is probably a short form of timotoca (the formal form used in many dialects). *Jesse Lovegren's examples * 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "?l me regalar? mi sepultura.? 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, ?May he forgive my sins.? In both of these examples the seemingly unlicensed noun is possessed by the first person who is also the object of the verb. This means that this is a case of possessor raising where the first person possessor of the object is promoted to being the object. This is similar to when in Spanish we say "me cort? el brazo" instead of "corto mi brazo". The freestanding noun is licensed by virtue of being the possession of the indexed object. *Andrews' example:* 1. ?Xochitl ancueponqueh.? ?You(pl.) have budded like flowers.? Andrews does not say that in general it is possible to use nouns as adverbs, he gives for examples of a very specific construction obviously form a poetic register, in which a noun immediately preceding the verb can have a comparative adverbial function with the meaning "like a". This is obviously a very restricted function, and basically it could be interpreted as an elliptical construction leaving out the "quenin" or "iuhqui" that normally introduces comparative phrases. In short: I don't think that any of these examples are new constructions, but rather have been fully accounted for in the grammars. And also i don't think that they show that nouns can be used as adverbs for the reasons i have given. Now I wil proceed to complicate the matter: cualli titlatlahtoa "you speak well" cualli is by now an adjective or adverb for all purposes - but it clearly is historically a noun as it carries the absolutive suffix, and is liked derived through a passive form of *kwa "eat" with the original meaning "edible". So this means that at least one noun has passed entirely from being a noun to being only a modifier of other nouns or verbs. That means that this particular noun must have been used as a freestanding unlicensed noun in the past causing its use to gradually shift towards that of a modifier. best, M -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 00:27:58 2012 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:27:58 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear John and listeros I'm responding to the inquiry about Nahuatl word classes, I am a little worried that your approach to grammatical analysis is not the most useful for the project you are undertaking. I think the best thing you can do is to base those analytical choices on research done by the many excellent linguists who have worked on Nahuatl. Personally, I think you should adopt either Andrews or Launey's analysis - and I recommend Launey's because it is more compatible with standard linguistic terminology. If you don't want to do this I think you would need to go back a few steps to make some tough decisions about how to approach grammar at a theoretical level. And here for the sake of the utility of the database you want to build I think the best choice would be to assure that it is compatible with what is by now called "basic linguistic theory" which is used for all kinds of linguistic typology and almost all langauge documentation. A good example of this theoretical perspective is Thomas Payne's "describing Morphosyntax" which gives the basics of how to do a typologically based language description that can be used for cross-linguistic comparison. Subsequently some more typologically oriented literature such as the series of mongraphs by Dixon and Aikhenvald might be a useful read. What makes me say this is that in your question you are unclear on several key grammatical distinctions which I think stems from a lack of a decision about what grammar is and how you want to describe it, this leads you to mix up formal (syntactic) and functional (grammatical and semantic) criteria of "wordness". For example you conflate the notions of "word", "root", "part of speech/word class", "morpheme", "semantic function" and "grammatical function". The way you use the concepts are not in synch with how they are used in descriptive linguistics, you can of course choose to adopt a new theoretical framework, but that would seem to require a good reason. In linguistics a word class, also called "part of speech" is traditionally syntactically defined. A group of words form a word class if they can be seen to have complementary distribution to other such classes and to be characterized by a shared underlying syntactic/grammatical function (e.g. that of forming predicates or arguments). In language's such as Nahuatl that have a very loose word orde and a complex morphology, the main criteria for describing a word as belonging to one class or the other tends to be morphological. Verbs is any word that can take verbal morphology, and a noun is any root that can take nominal morphology. The criteria are not fully waterproof since certain morphologicaol categories are shared (e.g. the subject marking morphemes), but nonetheless with careful analysis it is almost always possible to discern differences. (e.g. verbs never take possessive morphemes and nouns never take object morphemes (except in Oapan Nahuatl where kinship nouns do!) or tense/aspect/mood related morphology). Now for adjectives and adverbs this is much more complicated, because there are no completely clear definitions of these categories, accepted by all linguists. I think that consensus in linguistics currently is that not all languages have adverbs and adjectives, and that only those languages have these word classes where these categories have specific morphological or syntactic patterns of distribution. In Nahuatl there is a small class of words that can be considered adjectives or adverbs, but it is a small and ambiguous class of words that are neither fully nouns nor fully verbs but which can form predicates (I consider them to be "statives" and some of them may be considered adjectives (e.g. hueyi, istac, yancuic, cualli) or adverbs (e.g. yolic, huilihui). because this class of words is small and closed instead the aspects of meaning that are carried out by adjectives and adverbs in English, in Nahuatl are carried out by either nouns, verbs. But none of these classes correspond directly to what we would call adjectives or adverbs in English, since both nouns and verbs can carry out the functions carried out by adverbs and adjectives in English. In a conventional analysis this does not mean that these words become adjectives or adverbs, it just means that in this language those semantic functions are also fulfilled by other wordclasses. The confusion of these categories is evident for example in your examples of *cuauhtli*. I.e. /kwaw/ is a morpheme, not a word - it doesn't belong to any wordclass even though it clearly is nominal in its semantics and is clearly most often used to create nouns. When constructed with the absolutive, c*uauhtli *is a noun because it can function as an argument of a predicate, and stand as a free word in argument position in the sentence, and because it takes the absolutive ending, and because it can be possessed and pluralized. In *cuauhpillli *it is still a noun root, it has just been incorporated into another noun - which is what Nahuatl does most of the time when it wants to modify nouns. That does not make it an adjective though, because "adjective" is usually defined as a syntactic category with the main function of modifying nouns (in Nahuatl the only ones are kwalli, weyi and perhaps a few others). I.e. /kwaw/ is a noun without regards to the semantic function it carries out in a given context, because in all the cases it functions exactly as all other nouns, and in opposition to either verbs, particles and adjectives. In the same way teopixcatequitl is also a noun that is made by combining two nouns one of which modifies the other - teopixquetl/teopixqui does not become an adjective because it is used in this way. It is simply not the case that in Nahuatl there is a category of words that can randomly function as nouns, adjectives or adverbs - this idea goes against everything we know about Nahuatl grammar. The fact is that Nahuatl has a class of nouns and that that class of nouns can be combined in ways that convey the meanings of English adjectives and adverbs - but which are still nouns syntactically and grammatically. You may wish to to take a look at my short article on the question of Nahuatl Adjectives in Kansas Working Papers in linguistics ) to see a little bit about how complicated it is to define wordclasses other than "verb", "noun" and "particle" in Nahuatl grammar (even your proposed "relational word" I wouldn't consider a valid word class since they are all either nouns, affixes (i.e. morphemes not words) or particles - most of them are nouns marked for relationality with wifferent combinations of possession and suffixes). I end the article with my analysis of wordclasses in Nahuatl, which is basically the same as Launey''s and Andrews'. http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/8101/1/KWPL-32-PharaoHansen2.pdf It is not a great piece of work, but it is an exercise inthe kind of grammatical reasoning that must go before making any decision about analyzing word classes in Nahuatl. I think that the thing to do is to take the time to do a thorough survey comparing analyses in the major grammatical works and seeing how they divide up word classes and analyze their functions. This is a huge task that will take many hundred hours of study and a really good familiarity with linguistic theory, and how linguists make analytical choices based on different theoretical perspectives and on analysis of evidence. I don't think it is enough to be very good at Nahuatl, this tasks requires intimate familiarity with linguistic theory and Nahuatl scholarship. For this reason I don't see why anyone would undertake this endeavor from scratch since so many eminent grammarians of Nahuatl have already done it for us, e.g. Carochi, Launey, Andrews, Canger, Lockhart, Lastra or Dakin. I don't understand why you'd want to reinvent the wheel on this, and if you go with an analysis that is too idiosyncratic you risk that the entire documentation project will be of little use to others in the discipline, especially if the the data format is not based on a full systemic analysis of the language but rather on scattered observations and gut feelings. best regards, -- Magnus Pharao Hansen PhD. student Department of Anthropology Brown University 128 Hope St. Providence, RI 02906 *magnus_pharao_hansen at brown.edu* US: 001 401 651 8413 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From tom_grigsby at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 14:58:58 2012 From: tom_grigsby at yahoo.com (grigsby tom) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:58:58 -0800 Subject: Return of the Dead Message-ID: Listeros, Could someone please give me a gloss of oquimaya? It?s a term used to refer to ?los matados,? the first of the dead to return to their homes on October 28 in the Tepoztl?n municipio. ? Sincerely, Tom Grigsby _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx Tue Nov 20 14:36:22 2012 From: cipactonal at yahoo.com.mx (Ignacio Silva) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 06:36:22 -0800 Subject: Curso de n=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E1huatl.?= Message-ID: Tocniuhtzitzihuan: Curso de lengua n?huatl para principiantesLos d?as Lunes de 11:00 a 13:00 hrsen el Centro Comunitario "Sembrando Libertad"Domicilio: Francisco Sarabia esquina Almapica.Col. Plan de Iguala.Iztapalapa. A una cuadra del metro Cerro de la Estrella. Los esperamos. _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Sat Nov 24 04:07:03 2012 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:07:03 -0500 Subject: itlatla Message-ID: Nocnihuan, I'm hoping for a helping hand with a Nahuatl word: itlatla. As you can see in the examples from the Florentine Codex included below, it seems to mean, "similar to it" or "its imitation". Assuming that the initial 'i' might be a possessive prefix, I have searched for "notlatla", "motlatla", "intlatla", etc. without success. I would appreciate any comments about its derivation or relationships. Tlazohcamati de antemano, Joe itlatla 1. huel iuhquin ayecotli. quitoa: quil *itlatla* in ayecotli. [its seed] is just like fat beans; they say that it is some sort of fat bean. (b.11 f.13 p.132). 2. quil *itlatla* in lechugas: they say it is some form of lettuce. (b.11 f.14 p.139). 3. quil *itlatla* in xonacatl. they say it is some kind of onion. (b.11 f.14 p.139). 4. *itlatla* in tonacayotl, huel iuhqui in toctli: it is similar to the maize: just like the maize stalk. (b.11 f.19 p.187). 5. quitoa, *itlatla* in yiauhtli. they say it resembles yiauhtli. (b.11 f.19 p.197). 6. xihuitl, ihyac, huelic, ahuiac, ahuixtic, poyomatic, *itlatla* in poyomatli. it is an herb, aromatic, of pleasing odor, fragrant; pleasing, like the poyomatli, something like the potli. (b.11 f.21 p.212). 7. auh in cualli quetzalitztli, in amo zan *itlatla*, in nelli huel yehhuatl: mitoniani, tlaihiyoanani; in mochichiqui: and the good emerald-green jade -- not the imitation -- the genuine [jade] attracts moisture; it attracts things when rubbed. (b.11 f.22 p.222). _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jdanahuatl at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 06:47:21 2012 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:47:21 -0500 Subject: itlatla In-Reply-To: <20121123230703.c4lrrsqxww00wsgs@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Joe, In central Balsas, Guerrero: i:tlahtla:k. In Cuetzalan, Puebla, itahta:y. I believe it is also found in Chicontepec, Veracruz, but I don't remember the final consonant, I think /h/. I once thought that it might be related to a reduplicated form of tla:ki 'to bear fruit'. It is only used with 3rdSg possessors and only, in my experience, in reference to plants (unless metaphorically extended). A similar word is found in Yoloxochitl Mixtec: my notes: \lx ta1ni1 \lx_alt nda3-ta1ni1 \lx_cita ta1ni1 \ref 1494 \glosa compa?ero \catgr Sust \sig (pose?do : ta1ni1=an4) novio (de una soltera); amante (de una mujer casada o no) (lo b?sico es que no es su esposo) \col ta1ni1 [nombre de planta] : ta1ni1 yu3ba2 a1xin4 | parecida a (una planta a otra, p. ej., el ta1ni1 yu3ba2 a1xin4 es una Crotalaria sp. que se asemeja en apariencia a las Crotalaria comestibles \raiz ta1ni1 \nsem La glosa 'compa?ero' es solamente una aproximaci?n al significado que abarca los dos usos aqu? documentados. El cuanto al uso de esta palabra para 'amante', est? cay?ndose en desuso. En cuanto a su uso en las plantas parece que hay dos formas de usarla. Primero, existen nombres de plantas lexicalizadas que utilizan este t?rmino para indicar que la planta designada con ta1ni1 se parece a otra que tiene el nombre b?sico (sin ta1ni1). Por otro lado los hablantes del mixteco de Yolox?chitl pueden usar ta1ni1 idiosincr?ticamente para comunicar su observaci?n que una planta parece a otra. En este caso no se considera el nombre propio de esta planta sino m?s bien un comentario sobre su morfolog?a. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Campbell, R. Joe wrote: > Nocnihuan, > > I'm hoping for a helping hand with a Nahuatl word: itlatla. As you can > see in the examples from the Florentine Codex included below, it seems to > mean, "similar to it" or "its imitation". Assuming that the initial 'i' > might be a possessive prefix, I have searched for "notlatla", "motlatla", > "intlatla", etc. without success. I would appreciate any comments about > its derivation or relationships. > > Tlazohcamati de antemano, > > Joe > > > > itlatla > > 1. huel iuhquin ayecotli. quitoa: quil *itlatla* in ayecotli. > [its seed] is just like fat beans; they say that it is some sort > of fat bean. (b.11 f.13 p.132). > > 2. quil *itlatla* in lechugas: > they say it is some form of lettuce. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 3. quil *itlatla* in xonacatl. > they say it is some kind of onion. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 4. *itlatla* in tonacayotl, huel iuhqui in toctli: > it is similar to the maize: just like the maize stalk. (b.11 > f.19 p.187). > > 5. quitoa, *itlatla* in yiauhtli. > they say it resembles yiauhtli. (b.11 f.19 p.197). > > 6. xihuitl, ihyac, huelic, ahuiac, ahuixtic, poyomatic, *itlatla* in > poyomatli. > it is an herb, aromatic, of pleasing odor, fragrant; pleasing, > like the poyomatli, something like the potli. (b.11 f.21 > p.212). > > 7. auh in cualli quetzalitztli, in amo zan *itlatla*, in nelli huel > yehhuatl: mitoniani, tlaihiyoanani; in mochichiqui: > and the good emerald-green jade -- not the imitation -- the > genuine [jade] attracts moisture; it attracts things when > rubbed. (b.11 f.22 p.222). > > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > 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 From t_amaya at megared.net.mx Sun Nov 25 02:59:38 2012 From: t_amaya at megared.net.mx (Tomas Amando Amaya Aquino) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:59:38 -0600 Subject: itlatla In-Reply-To: <20121123230703.c4lrrsqxww00wsgs@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Mah xiyolpacto, John The word used in Cuetzalan is *tatai (tlatlai*). It means "similar to" (in Spanish: "parecido a"). E.g.: *Yn Xiuan nel in itatai ?n notatzin -->* Juan de veras se parece a mi pap? / John is really similar to my father. Other example:* Nipitzotic ?n neh, nitahuanque ?n neh, nitatziuh ?n neh, huan yn notelpoch Tomas yoolic huan yoolic mochihua notatai, huan ahmo ?n nic-huelitta* --> I am ugly, a drunkard, a lazy one and I see that Thomas, my son, little by little becomes like me and I do not like it. Another example:* Yn ilhuicahtahtocayot yeh in itatai ?n c?-in mostaza-xinachti ce tacat quicuic huan quitoocac ?n italpan*. Translation: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man took and planted in his field" (Matthew 13:31, Bible, International Standard Version, 2008). The similarity is not only related to the aspect, but rather to the "being" (*iyeliz*) of the thing/person, hence the example of the Bible. If you want to underline the aspect of the thing/person you have to use ixihcui (ixyuhqui in NC) when the resemblance is related to the face, and * ihcui* (yuhqui NC) if the resemblance relates to the whole body, (external) aspect. E.g. 1) *Yn noconetzin Uliel, noixihcui* --> Uriel, my son, looks like me (in relation to our faces) 2) Y*n "Monna Lisa nel in iihcui ?n Tonantzin Conchita* --> The Monna Lisa looks like the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception (named Conchita in Cuetzalan). NImitzyoltapalohua Tomas Amaya 2012/11/23 Campbell, R. Joe > Nocnihuan, > > I'm hoping for a helping hand with a Nahuatl word: itlatla. As you can > see in the examples from the Florentine Codex included below, it seems to > mean, "similar to it" or "its imitation". Assuming that the initial 'i' > might be a possessive prefix, I have searched for "notlatla", "motlatla", > "intlatla", etc. without success. I would appreciate any comments about > its derivation or relationships. > > Tlazohcamati de antemano, > > Joe > > > > itlatla > > 1. huel iuhquin ayecotli. quitoa: quil *itlatla* in ayecotli. > [its seed] is just like fat beans; they say that it is some sort > of fat bean. (b.11 f.13 p.132). > > 2. quil *itlatla* in lechugas: > they say it is some form of lettuce. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 3. quil *itlatla* in xonacatl. > they say it is some kind of onion. (b.11 f.14 p.139). > > 4. *itlatla* in tonacayotl, huel iuhqui in toctli: > it is similar to the maize: just like the maize stalk. (b.11 > f.19 p.187). > > 5. quitoa, *itlatla* in yiauhtli. > they say it resembles yiauhtli. (b.11 f.19 p.197). > > 6. xihuitl, ihyac, huelic, ahuiac, ahuixtic, poyomatic, *itlatla* in > poyomatli. > it is an herb, aromatic, of pleasing odor, fragrant; pleasing, > like the poyomatli, something like the potli. (b.11 f.21 > p.212). > > 7. auh in cualli quetzalitztli, in amo zan *itlatla*, in nelli huel > yehhuatl: mitoniani, tlaihiyoanani; in mochichiqui: > and the good emerald-green jade -- not the imitation -- the > genuine [jade] attracts moisture; it attracts things when > rubbed. (b.11 f.22 p.222). > > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > 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 From lahunik.62 at skynet.be Sun Nov 25 21:04:15 2012 From: lahunik.62 at skynet.be (lahunik.62 at skynet.be) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:04:15 +0100 Subject: Itlatla Message-ID: Vol 280 Issue2 Message 1 Itlatla Or could it be itlah, something. Itlahti, to become something, R.Andrews 446 Tlahtlani, v.tr. Nitlahtlani, I demand something, R.Andrews 443. Tetlahtlania, Asking something of someone. Baert Georges Flanders Fields _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Nov 30 23:02:24 2012 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:02:24 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl on the radio Message-ID: There was a report on NPR's "All Things Considered" this evening (11/30/12) about the teaching/learning of Nahuatl among Mexican Americans. Michael _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl