From idiez at me.com Tue Jan 1 21:59:59 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:59:59 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for dictionary entries we will be working with: 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects (at least in the variants I work with). 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to work out. 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these are actually two different morphemes. 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking makes perfect. Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history (so far). Best, John On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Wed Jan 2 00:17:44 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:17:44 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wasn't referring to Carochi. Sent from my iPad On Jan 1, 2013, at 16:19, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John > > My point was not that word classes should be based on form instead of function, but that they should be based on syntactic function instead of semantic function. > > I also don't think that I said that linguistic training is necessary to be allowed to work with language, I certainly believe it is possible to make oneself acquainted with linguistics without having a degree, and one of the best Nahuatl linguists I've known was a 17 year old boy with no college degree. But I think that it is a lack of respect for those who have spent their lives describing the Nahuatl language (including Carochi to whom you allude) to pretend that one can do a better job than them without first taking the time to read and understand their work. That is not an academic sacred cow, that is just about intellectual ethics, and about realizing that making a contribution to any discipline is a lot easier when one has knowledge of previous contributions. > > best, > M > > On 1 January 2013 16:59, John Sullivan wrote: >> Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, >> I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for dictionary entries we will be working with: >> 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" >> 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" >> 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects (at least in the variants I work with). >> 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to work out. >> 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" >> 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these are actually two different morphemes. >> 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" >> Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking makes perfect. >> Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. >> And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history (so far). >> Best, >> John >> >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: >> >> > > -- > 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 Jan 1 22:19:02 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 17:19:02 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <3CFB0913-9E0F-46AA-A872-128F6AF9C3EA@me.com> Message-ID: Dear John My point was not that word classes should be based on form instead of function, but that they should be based on syntactic function instead of semantic function. I also don't think that I said that linguistic training is necessary to be allowed to work with language, I certainly believe it is possible to make oneself acquainted with linguistics without having a degree, and one of the best Nahuatl linguists I've known was a 17 year old boy with no college degree. But I think that it is a lack of respect for those who have spent their lives describing the Nahuatl language (including Carochi to whom you allude) to pretend that one can do a better job than them without first taking the time to read and understand their work. That is not an academic sacred cow, that is just about intellectual ethics, and about realizing that making a contribution to any discipline is a lot easier when one has knowledge of previous contributions. best, M On 1 January 2013 16:59, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, > I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you > it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the > other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most > important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was > confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I > came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in > Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the > word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and > not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of > the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for > dictionary entries we will be working with: > 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" > 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" > 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people > have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root > of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them > can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that > these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but > now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would > used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects > (at least in the variants I work with). > 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single > morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have > become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to > work out. > 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" > 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" > ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a > verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present > (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these > are actually two different morphemes. > 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" > Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking > makes perfect. > Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the > process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to > work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if > not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I > took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time > ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that > formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the > work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most > immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. > It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the > history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to > disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just > that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for > ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has > always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a > Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating > oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this > is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the > big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are > friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, > and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. > And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of > Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history > (so far). > Best, > John > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen > wrote: > > > > -- 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 Jan 2 01:34:08 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 20:34:08 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <3CFB0913-9E0F-46AA-A872-128F6AF9C3EA@me.com> Message-ID: Dear John Offering some thoughts about your proposed Nahuatl word classes: 1. *tlatocaxtiliztli *- where does the x come from? It would seem out of place in the dialects I know (assuming that the root is tlatocayotia "to name something"). Perhaps *tlatocayotiliztlahtolli*? 2. *tlachihualiztli *- as far as I know this word already has the meaning of "an action" wouldn't it be useful to terminologically distinguish between the verb and what it denotes? Perhaps *tlachihualiztlahtolli?* 3. *pil*- using pil as a prefix in my experience almost always refer to the meaning "prince/child" whereas the meaning "small/appendage" seems to be more frequently associated with the use as a suffix i.e. tlahtolpiltzin and tlahcuilolpiltzin. In some varieties a diminutive could be made with reduplication *tla:tlahcuiloltzin* and* tla:tlahtoltzin*. You don't seem to have a category for property words such as "chichiltic" "hueyi", "yolic", "cualli" since these are neither really nouns nor verbs, but have qualities of the syntactic behavior of both. Just some suggestions. best, Magnus 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 Wed Jan 2 03:29:52 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:29:52 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magnus, 1. The complete forms for each of the first three categories actually are tlatocaxtiliztlahtolli, tlachihualiztlahtolli and tlapantiliztlahtolli. We abbreviate them when working in class (for obvious reasons). I should have put the full names in the list. 2. In some variants you get maitl>nomah, tocaitl>notocah, and in others you get nomax and notocax. Sometimes both forms are used, one for the possessed noun and another for the combining form of the noun. In our variant, tocax- is the combining form of the noun that is used for suffixing the ti verber meaning "to have s.t.". Then the causative -a suffix is added. Tocayotia would not be recognized by a native speaker in the Huasteca. However, as we continue to sponsor interdialectical meetings of native speakers, we may put the variations of this terminology to a vote in order to arrive at a standardized forms that can be used across variants. 3. In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl, the pil with a short "i" is suffixed in words such as (-)oquichpil, (-)cihuapil, -mahpil, with the meaning of child/appendage. It only appears as an absolutive noun in one form, pipilmeh. The pil with a long "i" is always suffixed to a noun, in combination with the suffix -tzin, and has the meaning of small and/or reverential. Here is an example of absolutive, possessive, singular, plural: pilconetzin, pilconetzitzin, nopilconeuh, nopilconehuan. Now the interesting thing is that the native speakers at IDIEZ have found two mechanisms for creating subcategories in general. One consists of adding the prefix achi- to a noun, and another consists of adding the dimmunitive/reverential mechanism (pil-, -tzin) to a noun. So for example, our word for "uttered word" is "tencaquiliztli"; syllable is "achtencaquiliztli" (a division of an uttered word); and phoneme is "pilachitencaquiliztzin". 4. I'm not ready to accept your explanation of how words like "chichiltic" and "yolic" are formed. I consider them to be the preterit of class 1 verbs that now function as nouns. The only verbal remanents they possess are the singular (-c-Ø) and plural (-que-h) forms. When the -c/-que reverts to its older form -ca:, these words can take many of the suffixes associated with nouns (-uh/-huan, -tzin) and can even be incorporated on to a noun or a verb, just like a regular noun can. So I classify these words as nouns. 5. Can you give me an example of how cualli works like a verb? 6. I consider (at this point) that hueyi and miac are nouns. Both work as nouns when going through the sequence: hueyi>hueyiya>hueyilia; miac>miaquiya>miaquilia. (Joe has postulated a bridging "i" that is used between some noun roots and verbing suffixes). We are still mapping out and trying to explain in a unified manner the other forms of these words, such as miac>miaquin/miaquih, hueyi>hueyin/hueyih, hueyi>huextic, etc. And to finish, whenever I send these things to the list, it is always in the hope that the listeros will respond with criticisms and comments. John On Jan 1, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John > > Offering some thoughts about your proposed Nahuatl word classes: > > 1. tlatocaxtiliztli - where does the x come from? It would seem out of place in the dialects I know (assuming that the root is tlatocayotia "to name something"). Perhaps tlatocayotiliztlahtolli? > 2. tlachihualiztli - as far as I know this word already has the meaning of "an action" wouldn't it be useful to terminologically distinguish between the verb and what it denotes? Perhaps tlachihualiztlahtolli? > 3. pil- using pil as a prefix in my experience almost always refer to the meaning "prince/child" whereas the meaning "small/appendage" seems to be more frequently associated with the use as a suffix i.e. tlahtolpiltzin and tlahcuilolpiltzin. In some varieties a diminutive could be made with reduplication tla:tlahcuiloltzin and tla:tlahtoltzin. > > You don't seem to have a category for property words such as "chichiltic" "hueyi", "yolic", "cualli" since these are neither really nouns nor verbs, but have qualities of the syntactic behavior of both. > > Just some suggestions. > > best, > Magnus > > 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 Wed Jan 2 03:33:41 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:33:41 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Listeros, xinechtlapopolhuican: A portion of item 3 should read, "The pil with a long "i" is always PREFIXED to a noun..." John On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:29 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Magnus, > 1. The complete forms for each of the first three categories actually are tlatocaxtiliztlahtolli, tlachihualiztlahtolli and tlapantiliztlahtolli. We abbreviate them when working in class (for obvious reasons). I should have put the full names in the list. > 2. In some variants you get maitl>nomah, tocaitl>notocah, and in others you get nomax and notocax. Sometimes both forms are used, one for the possessed noun and another for the combining form of the noun. In our variant, tocax- is the combining form of the noun that is used for suffixing the ti verber meaning "to have s.t.". Then the causative -a suffix is added. Tocayotia would not be recognized by a native speaker in the Huasteca. However, as we continue to sponsor interdialectical meetings of native speakers, we may put the variations of this terminology to a vote in order to arrive at a standardized forms that can be used across variants. > 3. In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl, the pil with a short "i" is suffixed in words such as (-)oquichpil, (-)cihuapil, -mahpil, with the meaning of child/appendage. It only appears as an absolutive noun in one form, pipilmeh. The pil with a long "i" is always suffixed to a noun, in combination with the suffix -tzin, and has the meaning of small and/or reverential. Here is an example of absolutive, possessive, singular, plural: pilconetzin, pilconetzitzin, nopilconeuh, nopilconehuan. Now the interesting thing is that the native speakers at IDIEZ have found two mechanisms for creating subcategories in general. One consists of adding the prefix achi- to a noun, and another consists of adding the dimmunitive/reverential mechanism (pil-, -tzin) to a noun. So for example, our word for "uttered word" is "tencaquiliztli"; syllable is "achtencaquiliztli" (a division of an uttered word); and phoneme is "pilachitencaquiliztzin". > 4. I'm not ready to accept your explanation of how words like "chichiltic" and "yolic" are formed. I consider them to be the preterit of class 1 verbs that now function as nouns. The only verbal remanents they possess are the singular (-c-Ø) and plural (-que-h) forms. When the -c/-que reverts to its older form -ca:, these words can take many of the suffixes associated with nouns (-uh/-huan, -tzin) and can even be incorporated on to a noun or a verb, just like a regular noun can. So I classify these words as nouns. > 5. Can you give me an example of how cualli works like a verb? > 6. I consider (at this point) that hueyi and miac are nouns. Both work as nouns when going through the sequence: hueyi>hueyiya>hueyilia; miac>miaquiya>miaquilia. (Joe has postulated a bridging "i" that is used between some noun roots and verbing suffixes). We are still mapping out and trying to explain in a unified manner the other forms of these words, such as miac>miaquin/miaquih, hueyi>hueyin/hueyih, hueyi>huextic, etc. > And to finish, whenever I send these things to the list, it is always in the hope that the listeros will respond with criticisms and comments. > John > > > On Jan 1, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > >> Dear John >> >> Offering some thoughts about your proposed Nahuatl word classes: >> >> 1. tlatocaxtiliztli - where does the x come from? It would seem out of place in the dialects I know (assuming that the root is tlatocayotia "to name something"). Perhaps tlatocayotiliztlahtolli? >> 2. tlachihualiztli - as far as I know this word already has the meaning of "an action" wouldn't it be useful to terminologically distinguish between the verb and what it denotes? Perhaps tlachihualiztlahtolli? >> 3. pil- using pil as a prefix in my experience almost always refer to the meaning "prince/child" whereas the meaning "small/appendage" seems to be more frequently associated with the use as a suffix i.e. tlahtolpiltzin and tlahcuilolpiltzin. In some varieties a diminutive could be made with reduplication tla:tlahcuiloltzin and tla:tlahtoltzin. >> >> You don't seem to have a category for property words such as "chichiltic" "hueyi", "yolic", "cualli" since these are neither really nouns nor verbs, but have qualities of the syntactic behavior of both. >> >> Just some suggestions. >> >> best, >> Magnus >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 03:49:14 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:49:14 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear John and listeros Thanks for the explanations. some responses: 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words that form stative predicates. 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of a verb as nouns prototypically do. best, M _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Jan 3 00:00:14 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:00:14 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the following alternate forms exist: 1. arm/hand a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" 2. name a). noto:cah, "my name" b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. John On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > 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 idiez at me.com Thu Jan 3 00:29:02 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:29:02 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Are you sure "notoca" is working as a verb here? If the "i" of n(i) elides, why is that first "o" there? I know that in colonial Western Nahuatl, under the influence of Spanish, tocaitl gets reinterpreted as a verb (nimotoca Juan, "I call myself Juan"), but I haven't seen very many examples of that. John On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an underlying -yi- in those two words. I don't know the form "notocah" "my name" from any dialects - I only know "notocayoh" "my name" (formed with the -yo- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb notoca "I call myself" (with the ni- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for "name" is tocaitl (which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a and i), but the possessed form is notocayoh. > > best, > M > > On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, > I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the following alternate forms exist: > 1. arm/hand > a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. > b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" > > 2. name > a). noto:cah, "my name" > b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." > c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" > > I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. > John > > On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > > Dear John and listeros > > > > Thanks for the explanations. > > > > some responses: > > > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). > > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words > > that form stative predicates. > > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form > > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of > > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > > > best, > > M > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > -- > 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 brokaw at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 2 16:38:52 2013 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:38:52 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Magnus, I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought your original point was that grammatical categories should be based on form and formal behavior rather than semantic function. And I wholeheartedly agreed with that. I had the same concern, and we have had discussions on the list about this issue before. Now that I've gone back and reread your original response, I see that you do refer to syntactical function, but you then immediately explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in Nahuatl based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were defining syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure exactly how syntactical function differs from form and whether or not you can divorce it from form or from semantics either, and that seems to cause problems. I agreed with what I understood you to be saying, that grammatical categories should be based on their formal properties and behavior rather than their semantic function. I think this is so in part because "semantic function" always has formal implications that are not necessarily universal. For example, if a particular language uses verbs exclusively to describe nouns, then it is difficult for us to talk about the semantics of this phenomenon without recourse to the grammatical category "adjective." But this does not mean that such verbs have an adjectival function. In the hypothetical language to which I am referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have a verbal function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to languages that have adjectives. This is only indirectly related to my question about "cualli." I think the issue here is a little different. So to get back to the case of "cualli," and at the risk of revealing my profound ignorance, can I ask how the usage of "kwalli" is different from other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your examples, but don't other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah titlakati" too, right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a verb. If that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate nominatives and direct objects function like verbs when the verb is omitted? It sounds like you are saying something similar to the idea that because a verb is not necessary, therefore nouns work like verbs in Nahuatl. But just because the verb can be omitted doesn't mean that the noun takes on a verbal function. It seems to me that this confuses pragmatics with formal categories and structures of syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it behaves irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, but rather merely because it is commonly used without a verb. But it seems to me that such usage has more to do with pragmatic function than it does syntactic function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an actual verb in a complete and acceptable utterance (which could be expressed as a complete grammatical sentence with a verb). Of course, I think this is true of all languages. Galen On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > 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 brokaw at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 2 18:51:26 2013 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:51:26 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Magnus, I have no problems with the morphological criteria for classifying words in Nahuatl. So no problems there. But... I mispoke/miswrote in my example. I didn't mean to say that the language would use verbs exclusively to describe nouns, which I know is what I wrote. I meant that in describing nouns, the language used verbs rather than something else. In other words, the hypothetical language doesn't have adjectives; it uses verbs rather than adjectives to convey the qualities of nouns in addition to the other things that verbs do. Of course, the idea is informed by the way Nahuatl uses verb forms in contexts in which English and Spanish would use adjectives. The point was that in such a case it is misleading to talk about verbs fulfilling an adjectival function as if "adjective" were some kind of universal category. I know you weren't doing this with "kwalli," but it seems to me a similar problem. You seem to want to attribute verb-like qualities to a noun based on what seems to me the pragmatic usage of nouns to convey an idea that could be more fully elaborated into a more "complete" grammatical utterance. I don't see the formal basis for making this argument, and if I understand the issue (which I admit, I may not), then pragmatics provides an explanation for the positive evidence that you give of how "kwalli" actually does behave. The only formal basis for this argument is the negative evidence that "kwalli" doesn't do all the things other nouns do. The fact that a particular word like "kwalli" doesn't exhibit ALL of the same morphological behavior as other nouns doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't belong to the same category. There are certain expressions in English, and I assume all languages, that while formally grammatical, are not acceptable based on usage because they are semantically strange or illogical given the way the word is culturally defined. So just because you couldn't or wouldn't say it, doesn't mean that it is not formally grammatical. So when you say that you "cannot say 'nokwal,'" I take your word for it. But does this mean that it is merely an expression that is not used for semantic, cultural, and/or logical reasons or does it mean that it violates the in/formal, abstract rules implicit in the speakers' mental grammar. If I understand correctly, all the examples that you give in both posts are negative ones: they are things that "kwalli" doesn't do that other nouns do. But what about what it does? Doesn't the positive evidence that you cite (i.e., what "kwalli" actually does formally) conform to the expectations of nouns? Does it do anything in formal terms that other nouns don't? If "kwalli" behaves formally in ways that other nouns don't, then that kind of evidence might be a more compelling basis for qualifying its classification or for classifying it differently. But if there is no doubt about the fact that "cualli" is a noun historically and it doesn't behave formally in ways that other nouns don't (by which I mean what it actually does rather than what it doesn't do), then I don't see on what basis you would need to call it something other than a noun. So if this is the case, I don't see why the perfect solution for "kwalli" wouldn't be to just call it a noun. Galen On 1/2/2013 12:42 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Hi Galen > > The form/function issue comes from the fact that Nahuatl is > polysynthetic, which means that most of its syntax is carried out by > means of morphology, and that syntactic functions are marked through > morphology. I.e. when I argue for the use of formal morphological > criteria for determining word class membership in nahuatl it is > because they are the best diagnostic tools for determining the > syntactic functions of words. I.e. a word that takes nominal > morphology also tends to have particular syntactic functions. > > I don't understand your example of a language that uses verbs > exclusively to describe nouns - I don't think such a language is > possible since verbs are generally understood to be words that have > the primary function of forming predicates. Any wordclass that has > the primary function of describing nouns would be a class of > adjectives not verbs - unless there is another reason to consider them > a subclass of verbs. > > Regarding kwalli I don't have a perfect solution, it is obviously > historically and morphologically a noun - no doubt about that. But you > cannot in contemporary Nahuatl say "nokwal" or "kwalko" or "ipan > kwalli" or pluralize it to kwalmeh or kwaltin (except in agreement > with the noun it modifies). You also never use kwalli as the argument > of a verb "se kwalli" or "in kwalli" (unless followed by a head noun > that is being modified by kwalli). In all of these ways it doesn't > behave like a noun. Yes it is true that all nouns in Nahuatl can form > predicates, like titlacatl, but for most nouns this is not the primary > use, for kwalli it is. I am currently thinking that kwalli, hueyi, > chichiltik and other of these words are best characterized as > statives, that form intransitive predicates. > > You can read a more complete exposition of my thoughts on Nahuatl word > classes here: > http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/8101/1/KWPL-32-PharaoHansen2.pdf > > > best regards, > M > > On 2 January 2013 11:38, Galen Brokaw > wrote: > > > Hi Magnus, > > I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought your > original point was that grammatical categories should be based on > form and formal behavior rather than semantic function. And I > wholeheartedly agreed with that. I had the same concern, and we > have had discussions on the list about this issue before. Now that > I've gone back and reread your original response, I see that you > do refer to syntactical function, but you then immediately > explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in Nahuatl > based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were > defining syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure > exactly how syntactical function differs from form and whether or > not you can divorce it from form or from semantics either, and > that seems to cause problems. I agreed with what I understood you > to be saying, that grammatical categories should be based on their > formal properties and behavior rather than their semantic > function. I think this is so in part because "semantic function" > always has formal implications that are not necessarily universal. > For example, if a particular language uses verbs exclusively to > describe nouns, then it is difficult for us to talk about the > semantics of this phenomenon without recourse to the grammatical > category "adjective." But this does not mean that such verbs have > an adjectival function. In the hypothetical language to which I am > referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have a verbal > function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to > languages that have adjectives. > > This is only indirectly related to my question about "cualli." I > think the issue here is a little different. So to get back to the > case of "cualli," and at the risk of revealing my profound > ignorance, can I ask how the usage of "kwalli" is different from > other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your examples, but don't > other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah titlakati" too, > right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a verb. If > that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate nominatives and > direct objects function like verbs when the verb is omitted? It > sounds like you are saying something similar to the idea that > because a verb is not necessary, therefore nouns work like verbs > in Nahuatl. But just because the verb can be omitted doesn't mean > that the noun takes on a verbal function. It seems to me that this > confuses pragmatics with formal categories and structures of > syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are > hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it behaves > irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, but rather > merely because it is commonly used without a verb. But it seems to > me that such usage has more to do with pragmatic function than it > does syntactic function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an > actual verb in a complete and acceptable utterance (which could be > expressed as a complete grammatical sentence with a verb). Of > course, I think this is true of all languages. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means > that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ > and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, > they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like > property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic > function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not > very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it > neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the > argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > > > > -- > 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 Thu Jan 3 00:20:52 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:20:52 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an underlying -*yi*- in those two words. I don't know the form "*notocah*" "my name" from any dialects - I only know "*notocayoh*" "my name" (formed with the -*yo*- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb *notoca *"I call myself" (with the *ni*- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for "name" is *tocaitl *(which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a and i), but the possessed form is *notocayoh*. best, M On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, > I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the > following alternate forms exist: > 1. arm/hand > a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. > b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" > > 2. name > a). noto:cah, "my name" > b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." > c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" > > I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms > (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you > mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never > seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in > Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in > a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. > John > > On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen > wrote: > > > Dear John and listeros > > > > Thanks for the explanations. > > > > some responses: > > > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and > /ma:yitl/). > > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property > words > > that form stative predicates. > > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to > form > > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument > of > > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > > > best, > > M > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- 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 mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Jan 3 00:40:57 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:40:57 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: notoca is (ni)notoca Quoting Magnus Pharao Hansen : > I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an > underlying -*yi*- in those two words. I don't know the form "*notocah*" "my > name" from any dialects - I only know "*notocayoh*" "my name" (formed with > the -*yo*- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb *notoca *"I call > myself" (with the *ni*- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in > Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for > "name" is *tocaitl *(which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a > and i), but the possessed form is *notocayoh*. > > best, > M > > On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, >> I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the >> following alternate forms exist: >> 1. arm/hand >> a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. >> b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" >> >> 2. name >> a). noto:cah, "my name" >> b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." >> c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" >> >> I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms >> (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you >> mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never >> seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in >> Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in >> a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. >> John >> >> On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen >> wrote: >> >> > Dear John and listeros >> > >> > Thanks for the explanations. >> > >> > some responses: >> > >> > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La >> > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and >> /ma:yitl/). >> > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. >> > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are >> > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property >> words >> > that form stative predicates. >> > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to >> form >> > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny >> > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts >> > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument >> of >> > a verb as nouns prototypically do. >> > >> > best, >> > M >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Nahuatl mailing list >> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Jan 3 01:46:25 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:46:25 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <20130102194057.w1ot9pja9r4kkwkc@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Quoting Michael McCafferty : > > notoca is (ni)notoca > > > maybe > Quoting Magnus Pharao Hansen : > >> I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an >> underlying -*yi*- in those two words. I don't know the form "*notocah*" "my >> name" from any dialects - I only know "*notocayoh*" "my name" (formed with >> the -*yo*- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb *notoca *"I call >> myself" (with the *ni*- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in >> Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for >> "name" is *tocaitl *(which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a >> and i), but the possessed form is *notocayoh*. >> >> best, >> M >> >> On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: >> >>> Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, >>> I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the >>> following alternate forms exist: >>> 1. arm/hand >>> a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. >>> b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" >>> >>> 2. name >>> a). noto:cah, "my name" >>> b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." >>> c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" >>> >>> I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms >>> (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you >>> mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never >>> seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in >>> Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in >>> a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. >>> John >>> >>> On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear John and listeros >>> > >>> > Thanks for the explanations. >>> > >>> > some responses: >>> > >>> > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La >>> > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and >>> /ma:yitl/). >>> > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. >>> > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are >>> > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property >>> words >>> > that form stative predicates. >>> > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to >>> form >>> > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny >>> > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts >>> > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument >>> of >>> > a verb as nouns prototypically do. >>> > >>> > best, >>> > M >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Nahuatl mailing list >>> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jdanahuatl at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 06:16:34 2013 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:16:34 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <50E4629C.9060306@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Hi listeros, I am on a computer in a cybercafe with a bad keyboard, so this might be shorter than otherwise. In my experience there are many nominal ¨forms¨ that do not function as prototypical nouns (arguments) but rather are limited to a predicate position. Think of "ablaze" in English and the limits to its syntactic function. For Launey, if I understand his omnipredicativity argument, everything (except a few things like vocatives, eg.) are predicates so I am not sure how he would distinguish kwalli, tlapa:ktli, etc. from other nouns. But my experience is that these are only predicates and hence the difference. Many speakers consider tlapa:ktli as an adjective if asked, but this is because of its syntactic limitations. However, one wants to resolve the problem there are differences in the syntactic functions of different nouns and one solution might be to divide them on a type of squish in Ross´s terminology, again if I remember correctly. Similar problems exist with "adjectives" and "adverbs" and one solution is to look at predicate modifiers as a class. Cf. yo:li:k, chika:wak, etc. for which I am not quite sure what the best part of speech solution would be, but whatever one chooses it should be noted that the modification can often be of nouns or verbs, etc. best, jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Galen Brokaw wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought your original > point was that grammatical categories should be based on form and formal > behavior rather than semantic function. And I wholeheartedly agreed with > that. I had the same concern, and we have had discussions on the list about > this issue before. Now that I've gone back and reread your original > response, I see that you do refer to syntactical function, but you then > immediately explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in > Nahuatl based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were defining > syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure exactly how > syntactical function differs from form and whether or not you can divorce > it from form or from semantics either, and that seems to cause problems. I > agreed with what I understood you to be saying, that grammatical categories > should be based on their formal properties and behavior rather than their > semantic function. I think this is so in part because "semantic function" > always has formal implications that are not necessarily universal. For > example, if a particular language uses verbs exclusively to describe nouns, > then it is difficult for us to talk about the semantics of this phenomenon > without recourse to the grammatical category "adjective." But this does not > mean that such verbs have an adjectival function. In the hypothetical > language to which I am referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have > a verbal function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to > languages that have adjectives. > > This is only indirectly related to my question about "cualli." I think the > issue here is a little different. So to get back to the case of "cualli," > and at the risk of revealing my profound ignorance, can I ask how the usage > of "kwalli" is different from other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your > examples, but don't other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah > titlakati" too, right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a > verb. If that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate nominatives and > direct objects function like verbs when the verb is omitted? It sounds like > you are saying something similar to the idea that because a verb is not > necessary, therefore nouns work like verbs in Nahuatl. But just because the > verb can be omitted doesn't mean that the noun takes on a verbal function. > It seems to me that this confuses pragmatics with formal categories and > structures of syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you > are hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it behaves > irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, but rather merely > because it is commonly used without a verb. But it seems to me that such > usage has more to do with pragmatic function than it does syntactic > function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an actual verb in a complete > and acceptable utterance (which could be expressed as a complete > grammatical sentence with a verb). Of course, I think this is true of all > languages. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > >> Dear John and listeros >> >> Thanks for the explanations. >> >> some responses: >> >> 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La >> Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and >> /ma:yitl/). >> This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. >> 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are >> clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words >> that form stative predicates. >> 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to >> form >> predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny >> ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts >> plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of >> a verb as nouns prototypically do. >> >> best, >> M >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/**listinfo/nahuatl >> >> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/**listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Thu Jan 3 04:53:40 2013 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:53:40 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It is only misleading if you assume that formal properties are always consistent indicators of usage. But that isn't the case. There are always irregularities in language usage that are not predictable based merely on formal criteria. So you always have to explain the peculiarities of usage in all languages. And based on the examples you gave, it didn't sound like "kwalli" was used in a way that is exactly the same as property words like chichiltic, iztac, etc. Do these other property words take the -tin ending in agreement with the nouns that they describe? I would also say that in Classical Nahuatl, at least, I'm pretty sure that you do actually find "ipan cualli" meaning "in goodness." And "cualli" appears as an imbedded noun in verbs such as "ninocualtoca" [I consider myself good]. But even if this is not the case in a particular dialect of Nahuatl, what you claim are differences in the properties of "kwalli" in relation to other nouns is explainable as a difference in usage rather than a real difference in properties. It seems to me that this is a valid distinction to make. For example, even in English, some nouns don't take plural endings. And "kwalli" is a good example. We wouldn't say "goodnesses" either, but that doesn't mean that "goodness" is not a noun. Based merely on formal rules, you can produce "goodnesses," and it is clear what is being done. But it doesn't make any sense in our culturally determined conceptual paradigm, so we don't produce that form. So, again, the fact that a word doesn't exhibit all of the same behaviors as other words of the same class doesn't really justify creating a new class for it or putting it in a different class. So for that reason, the argument that "kwalli" is a stative rather than a noun based on formal properties doesn't make sense to me. Even if you give weight to the fact that in Hueyapan Nahuatl, "kwalli" does not exhibit all of the properties evident in other nouns, you would still have to demonstrate that it exhibits formal properties of some other class that other nouns do not. The classification of "kwalli" as a stative is not based solely on the formal argument. It also has to be based on the semantic determination that it conveys a stative meaning. And your stative category is based on semantics rather than form. "kwalli" is certainly stative insofar as it refers to a persistent condition, but all nouns do that. There is certainly a qualitative distinction that can be drawn between the condition of being "kwalli" and the condition of being "tlakatl," but I'm not sure that this is necessarily a universal difference (i.e., that speakers of all languages would necessarily conceptualize "kwalli" and "tlakatl" as qualitatively different) or that it is all that significant for the determination of formal word classes. It may be true that the "stative" is a useful and necessary word class in Nahuatl. I don't know. I'm only commenting on "kwalli," and I'm not convinced that "kwalli" justifies such a word class for the reasons that I've explained. And what you are saying doesn't respond to those reasons. It sounds like you want the syntactical categories to do all the work of accounting for usage. But in order to do that, you have to abandon formal criteria in favor of semantic criteria. And I don't see the advantage or the logic in doing that. To me it would make more sense to use "stative" as a sub-class rather than a class of its own. Thus you could have stative verbs like "chichiltic" and perhaps stative nouns like "kwalli." That way you wouldn't have to abandon formal criteria for determining the larger word classes. And the semantics of the word, cultural logic, conventions of usage, and so forth would account for the variations and anomalies in usage. Yes, that would have to be explained, but it has to be explained anyway. On 1/2/2013 5:41 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Many languages use only verbs to describe nouns, and depending on the > exact details of analysis and the definition of the word class > adjectives they may or may not be said to have adjectives. If for > example those verbs that describe properties of nouns behave > syntactically different from other verbs, then it can be said that the > language has adjectives, but that adjectives are a subclass of nouns. > Or it can be said that the language has no adjectives, and that the > adjectival function is fulfilled by verbs. This decision depends on > theoretical concerns about what how one understand and describes > grammar and different linguists do either of the two - some linguists > do consider the adjectival function to be universal, others don't. > > The reason I think it doesn't make sense to just say that kwalli is a > noun is that it shares virtually none of the properties of other > nouns, except the fact that it can make predicates. To say that it is > a noun is misleading because in order to explain the words usage we'd > have to explain that it is a special noun that is used in a way that > is exactly the same as property words like hueyi, iztac, chichiltic, > etc, and entirely unlike all other nouns. Therefore I think it makes > more sense to say that in Nahuatl there is a class of words that have > the primary function of creating stative predicates and that some of > those words are deived from nouns and others from verbs. > > My Nahuatl wordclasses are as follows: > > Predicators > -Verbs > -Nouns > -Statives > > Non-Predicators > -Particles > > > > > On 2 January 2013 13:51, Galen Brokaw > wrote: > > Hey Magnus, > > I have no problems with the morphological criteria for classifying > words in Nahuatl. So no problems there. But... > I mispoke/miswrote in my example. I didn't mean to say that the > language would use verbs exclusively to describe nouns, which I > know is what I wrote. I meant that in describing nouns, the > language used verbs rather than something else. In other words, > the hypothetical language doesn't have adjectives; it uses verbs > rather than adjectives to convey the qualities of nouns in > addition to the other things that verbs do. Of course, the idea is > informed by the way Nahuatl uses verb forms in contexts in which > English and Spanish would use adjectives. The point was that in > such a case it is misleading to talk about verbs fulfilling an > adjectival function as if "adjective" were some kind of universal > category. I know you weren't doing this with "kwalli," but it > seems to me a similar problem. You seem to want to attribute > verb-like qualities to a noun based on what seems to me the > pragmatic usage of nouns to convey an idea that could be more > fully elaborated into a more "complete" grammatical utterance. I > don't see the formal basis for making this argument, and if I > understand the issue (which I admit, I may not), then pragmatics > provides an explanation for the positive evidence that you give of > how "kwalli" actually does behave. The only formal basis for this > argument is the negative evidence that "kwalli" doesn't do all the > things other nouns do. > The fact that a particular word like "kwalli" doesn't exhibit ALL > of the same morphological behavior as other nouns doesn't > necessarily mean that it doesn't belong to the same category. > There are certain expressions in English, and I assume all > languages, that while formally grammatical, are not acceptable > based on usage because they are semantically strange or illogical > given the way the word is culturally defined. So just because you > couldn't or wouldn't say it, doesn't mean that it is not formally > grammatical. So when you say that you "cannot say 'nokwal,'" I > take your word for it. But does this mean that it is merely an > expression that is not used for semantic, cultural, and/or logical > reasons or does it mean that it violates the in/formal, abstract > rules implicit in the speakers' mental grammar. If I understand > correctly, all the examples that you give in both posts are > negative ones: they are things that "kwalli" doesn't do that other > nouns do. But what about what it does? Doesn't the positive > evidence that you cite (i.e., what "kwalli" actually does > formally) conform to the expectations of nouns? Does it do > anything in formal terms that other nouns don't? If "kwalli" > behaves formally in ways that other nouns don't, then that kind of > evidence might be a more compelling basis for qualifying its > classification or for classifying it differently. But if there is > no doubt about the fact that "cualli" is a noun historically and > it doesn't behave formally in ways that other nouns don't (by > which I mean what it actually does rather than what it doesn't > do), then I don't see on what basis you would need to call it > something other than a noun. So if this is the case, I don't see > why the perfect solution for "kwalli" wouldn't be to just call it > a noun. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/2/2013 12:42 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > Hi Galen > > The form/function issue comes from the fact that Nahuatl is > polysynthetic, which means that most of its syntax is carried > out by means of morphology, and that syntactic functions are > marked through morphology. I.e. when I argue for the use of > formal morphological criteria for determining word class > membership in nahuatl it is because they are the best > diagnostic tools for determining the syntactic functions of > words. I.e. a word that takes nominal morphology also tends to > have particular syntactic functions. > > I don't understand your example of a language that uses verbs > exclusively to describe nouns - I don't think such a language > is possible since verbs are generally understood to be words > that have the primary function of forming predicates. Any > wordclass that has the primary function of describing nouns > would be a class of adjectives not verbs - unless there is > another reason to consider them a subclass of verbs. > > Regarding kwalli I don't have a perfect solution, it is > obviously historically and morphologically a noun - no doubt > about that. But you cannot in contemporary Nahuatl say > "nokwal" or "kwalko" or "ipan kwalli" or pluralize it to > kwalmeh or kwaltin (except in agreement with the noun it > modifies). You also never use kwalli as the argument of a verb > "se kwalli" or "in kwalli" (unless followed by a head noun > that is being modified by kwalli). In all of these ways it > doesn't behave like a noun. Yes it is true that all nouns in > Nahuatl can form predicates, like titlacatl, but for most > nouns this is not the primary use, for kwalli it is. I am > currently thinking that kwalli, hueyi, chichiltik and other of > these words are best characterized as statives, that form > intransitive predicates. > > You can read a more complete exposition of my thoughts on > Nahuatl word classes here: > http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/8101/1/KWPL-32-PharaoHansen2.pdf > > > best regards, > M > > On 2 January 2013 11:38, Galen Brokaw >> wrote: > > > Hi Magnus, > > I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought > your > original point was that grammatical categories should be > based on > form and formal behavior rather than semantic function. And I > wholeheartedly agreed with that. I had the same concern, > and we > have had discussions on the list about this issue before. > Now that > I've gone back and reread your original response, I see > that you > do refer to syntactical function, but you then immediately > explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in > Nahuatl > based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were > defining syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure > exactly how syntactical function differs from form and > whether or > not you can divorce it from form or from semantics either, and > that seems to cause problems. I agreed with what I > understood you > to be saying, that grammatical categories should be based > on their > formal properties and behavior rather than their semantic > function. I think this is so in part because "semantic > function" > always has formal implications that are not necessarily > universal. > For example, if a particular language uses verbs > exclusively to > describe nouns, then it is difficult for us to talk about the > semantics of this phenomenon without recourse to the > grammatical > category "adjective." But this does not mean that such > verbs have > an adjectival function. In the hypothetical language to > which I am > referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have a verbal > function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to > languages that have adjectives. > > This is only indirectly related to my question about > "cualli." I > think the issue here is a little different. So to get back > to the > case of "cualli," and at the risk of revealing my profound > ignorance, can I ask how the usage of "kwalli" is > different from > other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your examples, but don't > other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah > titlakati" too, > right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a > verb. If > that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate > nominatives and > direct objects function like verbs when the verb is > omitted? It > sounds like you are saying something similar to the idea that > because a verb is not necessary, therefore nouns work like > verbs > in Nahuatl. But just because the verb can be omitted > doesn't mean > that the noun takes on a verbal function. It seems to me > that this > confuses pragmatics with formal categories and structures of > syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like > you are > hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it > behaves > irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, > but rather > merely because it is commonly used without a verb. But it > seems to > me that such usage has more to do with pragmatic function > than it > does syntactic function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an > actual verb in a complete and acceptable utterance (which > could be > expressed as a complete grammatical sentence with a verb). Of > course, I think this is true of all languages. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending > (this means > that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly > /tokayitl/ > and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central > dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are > formed, > they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function > like > property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic > function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it > is not > very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it > neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever > occurs as the > argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > > > > -- > 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 kasiamikulska at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 22:23:33 2013 From: kasiamikulska at hotmail.com (Katarzyna Mikulska) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:23:33 +0000 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <3CFB0913-9E0F-46AA-A872-128F6AF9C3EA@me.com> Message-ID: Piyali John huan nochin listeros, I would suggest not to use the category of "letter", but instead sth like "phoneme" or any other category which refer to the sounds of the linguistic system itself. "Letter" is just a graphic form, from other system (even if it is supposed to reflect a phoneme), and it is a question of graphic convention if we write the sound /k/ as "c", "qu" or "k". Consequently, in Nahuatl I think it shouldn't be named on base of icuiloa, but on sth based on "sound". Best regards from Warsaw and happy 2013, Kasia (Katarzyna Mikulska) > From: idiez at me.com > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:59:59 -0600 > To: magnuspharao at gmail.com > CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes > > Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, > I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for dictionary entries we will be working with: > 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" > 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" > 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects (at least in the variants I work with). > 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to work out. > 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" > 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these are actually two different morphemes. > 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" > Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking makes perfect. > Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. > And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history (so far). > Best, > John > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 idiez at me.com Fri Jan 4 19:36:22 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:36:22 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali listeros, I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and refers to the result of an action. 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not in a certain state. 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he stands up and has rested in that state." 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally "He sits down and has rested in that state." John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Jan 4 20:01:55 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:01:55 -0600 Subject: tematlachtli Message-ID: Piyali Innochimeh, Has anyone every seen (or heard) the word "tematlachtli"? John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 21:52:42 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 16:52:42 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 283, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am using the term statives as a shorthand for "stative verbs", a term sometimes used for a subclass of verbs that describe states or properties. I don't want to call them stative verbs in Nahuatl because I don't think they are a subclass of verbs (they don't take verbal morphology such as tense/aspect/mood), but rather one of three subclasses of predicate forming words, the two other subclasses being nouns and verbs.The usage is perhaps confusing because of the existence of a stative aspect which is something else. In my analysis statives are different from Nouns and verbs in that they take none of the special morphology of either of those classes (tense/aspect/mood/transitivity for verbs and possession/pluralization/locative for nouns). -- 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 Mon Jan 14 19:10:58 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <87wqvqqzg5.fsf@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: Piyali Joost, But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for example doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I walk" you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" and ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. Best, John On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers wrote: > Hi John, > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the same > verb form, then the verb form is stative. > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep > event. > > HTH > > Joost > > > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: >> Piyali listeros, >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and refers to the result of an action. >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not in a certain state. >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he stands up and has rested in that state." >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally "He sits down and has rested in that state." >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Jan 15 18:43:03 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:43:03 -0500 Subject: statives Message-ID: But Joost and John That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding and describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like "kwalli", "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. The specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a reduplicated form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to form the frequentative aspect. best, M On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: John Sullivan > To: Joost Kremers > Cc: nahuatl discussion list > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes > Piyali Joost, > But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan > Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for example > doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I walk" > you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk > everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" and > ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. > Best, > John > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers > wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is > > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is > > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific > > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into > > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the same > > verb form, then the verb form is stative. > > > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say > > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you > > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, > > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 > > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep > > event. > > > > HTH > > > > Joost > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Piyali listeros, > >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in > linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? > >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". > Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and > refers to the result of an action. > >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means > "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship > of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not > in a certain state. > >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he > stands up and has rested in that state." > >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally > "He sits down and has rested in that state." > >> John > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > -- 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 Tue Jan 15 22:52:15 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:52:15 -0600 Subject: statives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, What I said about nehnemi is a bit tangent to this discussion, but it goes for most verbs in present tense, whether or not they are reduplicated. Here are some examples. Nitlacua, "I am eating." Mohmoztlah nitlacua, "I eat everyday." Nicpohua ce amoxtli, "I'm reading a book." Axquemman nicpohua amoxtli, "I never read books." I asked the macehualmeh what the difference was between the "present" tense (nitlacua) and the present progressive (nitlacuahticah) and they have a hard time distinguishing them. The provisional idea to describe the progressive is that of "cenyahtoc", a verb placed before another verb to emphasize that the second action is happenning in an intense and uninterrupted fashion. So, using the example of a video we just made, Molini atl, "the water is boiling". Cenyahtoc molini atl, or, Molinticah atl, "The water is boiling (in an intense and uninterrupted fashion?)". Whenever I come across these kinds of things, I wonder if the classical (and some of the more recent) grammarians were perhaps oversimplifying some of their descriptions, due to comparisons with models based on European languages. Or perhaps, in some variants (past and present), for example, Nitlacua does mean just "I eat." And Nitlacuahticah means "I am eating." John On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > But Joost and John > > That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a > semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several > Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been > analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave > morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to > include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my > analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding and > describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like "kwalli", > "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". > > Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same > as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. The > specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I > would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a reduplicated > form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to > form the frequentative aspect. > > best, > M > > > > On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: > >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: John Sullivan >> To: Joost Kremers >> Cc: nahuatl discussion list >> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes >> Piyali Joost, >> But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan >> Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for example >> doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I walk" >> you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk >> everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" and >> ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. >> Best, >> John >> >> On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers >> wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is >>> a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is >>> stative if it describes a situation or property without specific >>> duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into >>> smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the same >>> verb form, then the verb form is stative. >>> >>> So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say >>> eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you >>> can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, >>> "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 >>> minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep >>> event. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Joost >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: >>>> Piyali listeros, >>>> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in >> linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? >>>> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". >> Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and >> refers to the result of an action. >>>> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means >> "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship >> of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not >> in a certain state. >>>> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he >> stands up and has rested in that state." >>>> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally >> "He sits down and has rested in that state." >>>> John >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Tue Jan 15 23:07:32 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:07:32 -0600 Subject: consortium building for Nahuatl Message-ID: Piyali listeros, I am currently interested in promoting "shared" Nahuatl instruction within two organizations: 1. the Big Ten schools, through their academic consortium "Committee on Institutional Cooperation"; and 2. the PAC 12 schools, who also have an academic consortium. If you are a member of an institutions in either of these consortiums and are interested in participating in this project, please contact me. The next step would be a similar project for schools on the East Coast, and we can discuss this at the Yale Nahuatl Conference in May. Finally, if there are members of other academic consortiums (founded on Sports Conferences......) that would like to look into this option for Nahuatl instruction, please contact me. John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Research Scholar in Nahuatl Studies and Academic Director of the Yale-IDIEZ Nahuatl Language Institute, Yale University; Visiting scholar, Department of Liberal Arts University of Warsaw; Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Director, Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 43 Centro Histórico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile (Mexico): +52 1 (492) 103-0195 Mobile (US): (615) 649-2790 idiez at me.com www.macehualli.org _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jdanahuatl at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 15:13:40 2013 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:13:40 -0600 Subject: statives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that one must analyze any meaning/use of a verb with a specific context of utterance (both the words surrounding it and the actual situation in which something is said). For me, certain verbs can be used in the present indicative to indicate an ongoing action: cho:ka mokone:w 'Your child is crying' (said by one person to another upon hearing a child cry in the other room; I would find it unusual, though not wrong, to say cho:katok mokone:w, at least in Balsas and Sierra Nororiental) ?miki mokone:w ? for me not a felicitous statement. I would say, in Balsas i (or ye) miktok mokone:w 'Your child is dying' o:mik mokone:w 'Your child is dead', 'Your child has died' koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is snapped' (i.e., is in the state that results from it having snapped in two, cut in two) i koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is on the verge of snapping' (i.e., it is being frayed against something as it about to snap apart) It is a matter for empirical analysis to determine which verbs belong in which paradigm (frame, or whatever). The process of research should be similar to that undertaken by Beth Levin for English verb classes. The result would be a sort of cline in which certain verbs ("cho:ka" verbs) would use the present indicative as a progressive and the durative (-tok, -tikah) would be a sort of more emphatic statement of progressivity. A second set of verbs (e.g. "miki" verbs) would use the perfective as a stative/resultative. Finally, a third set would use the durative marker (-tok, -tikah) as a resultative and would mark the progressive with "ye". The last two categories come somewhat together with some internal variation, e.g., miki. Cf. also poliwi. I would find it more usual to say 'o:poliw X' than 'poliwtok X' to indicate 'X is lost' 'o:poliw notomi:n' 'My money is lost' 'My money got lost' And cf. 'i polihtok' 'It is starting to get out of sight'. But with wa:htlapolihtok there is a progressive sense that doesn't require "ye" and with the sense of a countryside becoming obscured as a rain and mist are approaching. Note that in N. Veracruz, and somewhat in N. Puebla (though less so) -tok can have a sort of perfect meaning nitakwahtok a in N. Puebla 'I've already eaten'. Basically, then, verb classes are a matter for empirical investigation in the context of use and, significantly, can be used as diagnostics for classes of verbs. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen < magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote: > But Joost and John > > That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a > semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several > Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been > analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave > morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to > include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my > analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding and > describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like "kwalli", > "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". > > Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same > as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. The > specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I > would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a reduplicated > form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to > form the frequentative aspect. > > best, > M > > > > On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: > > > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: John Sullivan > > To: Joost Kremers > > Cc: nahuatl discussion list > > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 > > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes > > Piyali Joost, > > But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan > > Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for > example > > doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I > walk" > > you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk > > everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" > and > > ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. > > Best, > > John > > > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers > > wrote: > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is > > > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is > > > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific > > > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into > > > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the > same > > > verb form, then the verb form is stative. > > > > > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say > > > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you > > > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, > > > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 > > > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep > > > event. > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > Joost > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: > > >> Piyali listeros, > > >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in > > linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? > > >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". > > Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and > > refers to the result of an action. > > >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means > > "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the > relationship > > of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is > not > > in a certain state. > > >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he > > stands up and has rested in that state." > > >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally > > "He sits down and has rested in that state." > > >> John > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > > > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jdanahuatl at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 16:22:01 2013 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:22:01 -0600 Subject: statives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Magnus, Your work sounds fascinating. Someone recommended the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary ( http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/talk) as a model for lexicography of Indigenous languages, and although English works like this are thousands of man/woman hours in the making I think there is a lesson on the importance of diagnostics and subdivisions in classes. After the works of scholars starting with Ross, perhaps, on squishes or clines, or on unergative/unaccusative verbs, etc. there is a clear idea that word class categories such as Noun, Verb, etc. are not really adequate: they are prototypical categories with some more representative than others and with non-discrete boundaries, etc. Cf. ablaze in the Oxford dictionary where it is stated to be an adjective "but not before nouns". It seems that this could be expressed just as well by dividing the adjective class into predicates and modifying/attributive and creating two classes. Or one can do what Levin did with English verbs and create subclasses (e.g., 'wave verbs' vs. 'crook verbs', if I remember correctly, with the former being able to delete the body part and the second not: I waved my hand goodbye/I waved goodbye cf. I crooked by neck to see/I crooked to see. While these might be morphosyntactic classes, there are also semantic groups as well as something like frame semantics might be worth looking. Cf. poliwi poliwi in the context of V N and the present indicative usually has the meaning of 'to be lacking' poliwi mokone:w 'Your child is missing (e.g., hasn't arrived) But in the perfective it would mean 'to get lost' o:poliw mokone:w 'You child got lost' One cannot use, I don't think poliwi (present) NP to mean 'gets lost' except with certain adverbial modifiers Mohmo:stla poliwi mokone:w ('Every day your child gets lost' although one could also interpret this as 'Every day your child is late/lacking') Best, jonathan On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Amith wrote: > I think that one must analyze any meaning/use of a verb with a specific > context of utterance (both the words surrounding it and the actual > situation in which something is said). For me, certain verbs can be used in > the present indicative to indicate an ongoing action: > > cho:ka mokone:w 'Your child is crying' (said by one person to another > upon hearing a child cry in the other room; I would find it unusual, though > not wrong, to say cho:katok mokone:w, at least in Balsas and Sierra > Nororiental) > > ?miki mokone:w ? for me not a felicitous statement. I would say, in > Balsas i (or ye) miktok mokone:w 'Your child is dying' > > o:mik mokone:w 'Your child is dead', 'Your child has died' > > koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is snapped' (i.e., is in the state that > results from it having snapped in two, cut in two) > > i koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is on the verge of snapping' (i.e., it is > being frayed against something as it about to snap apart) > > It is a matter for empirical analysis to determine which verbs belong in > which paradigm (frame, or whatever). The process of research should be > similar to that undertaken by Beth Levin for English verb classes. The > result would be a sort of cline in which certain verbs ("cho:ka" verbs) > would use the present indicative as a progressive and the durative (-tok, > -tikah) would be a sort of more emphatic statement of progressivity. A > second set of verbs (e.g. "miki" verbs) would use the perfective as a > stative/resultative. Finally, a third set would use the durative marker > (-tok, -tikah) as a resultative and would mark the progressive with "ye". > The last two categories come somewhat together with some internal > variation, e.g., miki. Cf. also poliwi. I would find it more usual to say > 'o:poliw X' than 'poliwtok X' to indicate 'X is lost' 'o:poliw notomi:n' > 'My money is lost' 'My money got lost' And cf. 'i polihtok' 'It is starting > to get out of sight'. But with wa:htlapolihtok there is a progressive sense > that doesn't require "ye" and with the sense of a countryside becoming > obscured as a rain and mist are approaching. > > Note that in N. Veracruz, and somewhat in N. Puebla (though less so) -tok > can have a sort of perfect meaning > > nitakwahtok a in N. Puebla 'I've already eaten'. > > Basically, then, verb classes are a matter for empirical investigation in > the context of use and, significantly, can be used as diagnostics for > classes of verbs. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen < > magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote: > >> But Joost and John >> >> That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a >> semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several >> Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been >> analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave >> morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to >> include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my >> analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding >> and >> describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like >> "kwalli", >> "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". >> >> Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same >> as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. >> The >> specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I >> would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a >> reduplicated >> form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to >> form the frequentative aspect. >> >> best, >> M >> >> >> >> On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: >> >> > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> > >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> > >> > You can reach the person managing the list at >> > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> > >> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> > >> > Today's Topics: >> > >> > 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: John Sullivan >> > To: Joost Kremers >> > Cc: nahuatl discussion list >> > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 >> > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes >> > Piyali Joost, >> > But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan >> > Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for >> example >> > doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I >> walk" >> > you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk >> > everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" >> and >> > ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. >> > Best, >> > John >> > >> > On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi John, >> > > >> > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there >> is >> > > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb >> is >> > > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific >> > > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into >> > > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the >> same >> > > verb form, then the verb form is stative. >> > > >> > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say >> > > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, >> you >> > > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, >> > > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes >> 10 >> > > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep >> > > event. >> > > >> > > HTH >> > > >> > > Joost >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: >> > >> Piyali listeros, >> > >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in >> > linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? >> > >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". >> > Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and >> > refers to the result of an action. >> > >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally >> means >> > "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the >> relationship >> > of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is >> not >> > in a certain state. >> > >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he >> > stands up and has rested in that state." >> > >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally >> > "He sits down and has rested in that state." >> > >> John >> > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Jan 18 23:23:05 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 Subject: temo, temoa Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: nitemoc (pret) nitemoa (pres.) nitemoz (fut.) What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Jan 19 00:08:09 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 Subject: temo, temoa In-Reply-To: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often written for -ohua. Interesting. Always a surprise. We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before it was lost. Michael Quoting Michael McCafferty : > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > > > > > Quoting John Sullivan : > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >> "c". >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >> is a better explanation here. >> 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 mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Jan 18 23:50:19 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 Subject: temo, temoa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? Quoting John Sullivan : > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > nitemoc (pret) > nitemoa (pres.) > nitemoz (fut.) > What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > "c". > I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > is a better explanation here. > 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 tekuani at hotmail.es Sat Jan 26 03:44:38 2013 From: tekuani at hotmail.es (Jacinto Acatecatl) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:44:38 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). > From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 > > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list atN > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) > 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 > From: John Sullivan > To: nahuatl discussion list > Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > nitemoc (pret) > nitemoa (pres.) > nitemoz (fut.) > What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". > I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. > John > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 > From: Michael McCafferty > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > > Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the > classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often > written for -ohua. > > Interesting. Always a surprise. > > We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a > pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian > language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders > who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, > and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before > it was lost. > > Michael > > Quoting Michael McCafferty : > > > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > > > > > > > > > > Quoting John Sullivan : > > > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > >> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > >> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > >> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >> nitemoc (pret) > >> nitemoa (pres.) > >> nitemoz (fut.) > >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > >> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > >> "c". > >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > >> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > >> is a better explanation here. > >> John > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nahuatl mailing list > >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 > From: Michael McCafferty > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > > > > > Quoting John Sullivan : > > > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > > I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > > there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > > descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > > nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > > nitemoc (pret) > > nitemoa (pres.) > > nitemoz (fut.) > > What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > > double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > > "c". > > I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > > on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > > is a better explanation here. > > 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 > > > End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Sat Jan 26 18:13:38 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:13:38 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca su blusa." Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé." "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >> >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list atN >> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >> From: John Sullivan >> To: nahuatl discussion list >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >> >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >> >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >> written for -ohua. >> >> Interesting. Always a surprise. >> >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >> it was lost. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >> >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >> >> >> >> >> Quoting John Sullivan : >> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>> "c". >>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> 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 >> >> >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> *************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 idiez at me.com Sat Jan 26 19:55:48 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:55:48 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <1359228271.88482.YahooMailClassic@web142402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael, En las atestaciones más antiguas de la escritura alfabética durante la Colonia, los nahuas escribían la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us". 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relación antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us". 3. Como partícula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". "he/she did it for us". Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opción. También desapareció la función antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que podía utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirtió en marcador del pretérito exclusivamente. Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como preclítico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo. Nosotros aquí en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminología: tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo" tlatzinpihuililli, "preclítico" tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional" tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo" tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado" tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root" tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo" tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional" tlatzonpihuililli, "posclítico" Un abrazo, John On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: > > Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. > > John, ¿cuál es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un clítico como ma? > > > --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: > > From: John Sullivan > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" > Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM > > Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca su blusa." > Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé." > "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > > > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). > > > > > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 > >> > >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > >> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list atN > >> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) > >> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > >> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 > >> From: John Sullivan > >> To: nahuatl discussion list > >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > >> Message-ID: > >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > >> > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >> nitemoc (pret) > >> nitemoa (pres.) > >> nitemoz (fut.) > >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". > >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. > >> John > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 > >> From: Michael McCafferty > >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > >> > >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the > >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often > >> written for -ohua. > >> > >> Interesting. Always a surprise. > >> > >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a > >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian > >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders > >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, > >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before > >> it was lost. > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : > >> > >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting John Sullivan : > >>> > >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >>>> nitemoc (pret) > >>>> nitemoa (pres.) > >>>> nitemoz (fut.) > >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > >>>> "c". > >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > >>>> is a better explanation here. > >>>> John > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Nahuatl mailing list > >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 3 > >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 > >> From: Michael McCafferty > >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > >> > >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting John Sullivan : > >> > >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >>> nitemoc (pret) > >>> nitemoa (pres.) > >>> nitemoz (fut.) > >>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > >>> "c". > >>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > >>> is a better explanation here. > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > >> *************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Jan 26 19:05:49 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:49 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I found Mr. Acatecatl's past tense prefix o- written separate from the verb as native speaker's predilection, so to speak, since that o- can have intermittent quanta before the appearance of the verb stem, as for example, in "ohuel mic" rather than the equally workable "huel omic". I'm not sure why we write the possessive suffixes attached to the nouns. They seem to *work* unattached. Mr. Acatecatl, how would you write "I saw him" using the verb "itta"? Michael Quoting John Sullivan : > Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca > su blusa." > Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé." > "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > >> >> >> >> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), María ki temohua i koton (Maria >> busca su atuendo/vestimenta). >> >> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). >> >> >> >>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >>> >>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >>> From: John Sullivan >>> To: nahuatl discussion list >>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >>> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, >>> and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is >>> a "c". >>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> John >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >>> From: Michael McCafferty >>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>> >>> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >>> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >>> written for -ohua. >>> >>> Interesting. Always a surprise. >>> >>> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >>> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >>> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >>> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >>> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >>> it was lost. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >>> >>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>> >>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>> "c". >>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>> John >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >>> From: Michael McCafferty >>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>> *************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 19:24:31 2013 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:24:31 -0800 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. John, ¿cuál es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un clítico como ma? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca su blusa." Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé."     "qui-",  "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona),  María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >> >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>     nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>     http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>     nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>     nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>   1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>   2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>   3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >> From: John Sullivan >> To: nahuatl discussion list >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >> >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>     I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >>     What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >>     I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=ISO-8859-1;    format="flowed" >> >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >> written for -ohua. >> >> Interesting. Always a surprise. >> >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >> it was lost. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>     I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>     What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>>     I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=ISO-8859-1;    format="flowed" >> >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >> >> >> >> >> Quoting John Sullivan : >> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>     I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>     What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>> "c". >>>     I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> 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 >> >> >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> *************************************** >                           > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Sat Jan 26 20:09:06 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:09:06 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan. Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, when the scribe's quill ran out of ink. John On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:55 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Michael, > En las atestaciones más antiguas de la escritura alfabética durante la Colonia, los nahuas escribían la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. > 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us". > 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relación antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us". > 3. Como partícula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". "he/she did it for us". > Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opción. También desapareció la función antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que podía utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirtió en marcador del pretérito exclusivamente. > Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como preclítico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo. > Nosotros aquí en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminología: > tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo" > tlatzinpihuililli, "preclítico" > tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional" > tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo" > tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado" > tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root" > tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo" > tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional" > tlatzonpihuililli, "posclítico" > Un abrazo, > John > On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: > >> >> Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. >> >> John, ¿cuál es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un clítico como ma? >> >> >> --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: >> >> From: John Sullivan >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" >> Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM >> >> Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca su blusa." >> Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé." >> "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes >> >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). >>> >>> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >>>> >>>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>>> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>>> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>>> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >>>> From: John Sullivan >>>> To: nahuatl discussion list >>>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >>>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >>>> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >>>> written for -ohua. >>>> >>>> Interesting. Always a surprise. >>>> >>>> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >>>> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >>>> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >>>> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >>>> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >>>> it was lost. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >>>> >>>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>>> >>>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>>> "c". >>>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>>> John >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>> >>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>> "c". >>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>> *************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Jan 26 20:15:19 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <2CF1FD64-0C93-433E-A485-57E184E077FA@me.com> Message-ID: Of course! But what I'm getting is, what is going in the native speaker's mind. Quoting John Sullivan : > But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers > during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the > noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate > element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan. > Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document > in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, > when the scribe's quill ran out of ink. > John > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:55 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Michael, >> En las atestaciones más antiguas de la escritura alfabética durante >> la Colonia, los nahuas escribían la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. >> 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did >> it for us". >> 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relación antes del verbo. >> "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us". >> 3. Como partícula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". >> "he/she did it for us". >> Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opción. También >> desapareció la función antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que podía >> utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se >> convirtió en marcador del pretérito exclusivamente. >> Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe >> verse como preclítico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del >> verbo. >> Nosotros aquí en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminología: >> tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo" >> tlatzinpihuililli, "preclítico" >> tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional" >> tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo" >> tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado" >> tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root" >> tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo" >> tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional" >> tlatzonpihuililli, "posclítico" >> Un abrazo, >> John >> On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: >> >>> >>> Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. >>> >>> John, ¿cuál es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un clítico como ma? >>> >>> >>> --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: >>> >>> From: John Sullivan >>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>> To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" >>> Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM >>> >>> Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca >>> su blusa." >>> Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé." >>> "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes >>> >>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), María ki temohua i koton (Maria >>>> busca su atuendo/vestimenta). >>>> >>>> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >>>>> >>>>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>>>> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>>>> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>>>> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>>> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >>>>> From: John Sullivan >>>>> To: nahuatl discussion list >>>>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >>>>> >>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for >>>>> publication, and there is something I can't explain. The >>>>> intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic >>>>> should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), >>>>> actually works like this: >>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really >>>>> is a "c". >>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes >>>>> depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't >>>>> know if there is a better explanation here. >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 2 >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >>>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>>> >>>>> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >>>>> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >>>>> written for -ohua. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. Always a surprise. >>>>> >>>>> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >>>>> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >>>>> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >>>>> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >>>>> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >>>>> it was lost. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >>>>> >>>>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>>>> "c". >>>>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 3 >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >>>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>>> >>>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>>> >>>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>>> "c". >>>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>>> *************************************** >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 20:28:20 2013 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:28:20 -0800 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, entonces tu afirmación se trata de una prescripción ortográfica y no un argumento lingüístico, ¿no? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 To: "Michael Swanton" Cc: "Jacinto Acatecatl" , nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 2:55 PM Michael, En las atestaciones más antiguas de la escritura alfabética durante la Colonia, los nahuas escribían la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us".2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relación antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us".3. Como partícula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". "he/she did it for us". Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opción. También desapareció la función antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que podía utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirtió en marcador del pretérito exclusivamente.  Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como preclítico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo. Nosotros aquí en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminología:tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo"tlatzinpihuililli, "preclítico"tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional"tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo"tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado"tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root"tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo"tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional"tlatzonpihuililli, "posclítico" Un abrazo,JohnOn Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos.John, ¿cuál es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un clítico como ma? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca su blusa." Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé."     "qui-",  "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona),  María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje). > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >> >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>     nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>     http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>     nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>     nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>   1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>   2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>   3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >> From: John Sullivan >> To: nahuatl discussion list >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >> >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>     I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >>     What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >>     I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=ISO-8859-1;    format="flowed" >> >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >> written for -ohua. >> >> Interesting. Always a surprise. >> >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >> it was lost. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>     I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>     What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>>     I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=ISO-8859-1;    format="flowed" >> >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >> >> >> >> >> Quoting John Sullivan : >> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>     I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>     What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>> "c". >>>     I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> 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 >> >> >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> *************************************** >                           > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Sun Jan 27 04:08:43 2013 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:08:43 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <2CF1FD64-0C93-433E-A485-57E184E077FA@me.com> Message-ID: John, ome Michaels, and all, Sometime during my first semester of graduate school, my professor was discussing an issue of linguistics and he abruptly interrupted his discourse and opened his eyes wide and looked at us. Of course, we already knew his lecturing rhythm -- after the pause, he was going to tell us "One of the Big Truths". Henry Kahane had studied with some of the most important philologists of Europe. In the late '30s he fled Hitler and ended up at the University of Illinois, teaching both philology and American Structuralism. He was ready to tell us the First of his Rules about analyzing a language with input from a native speaker: "Zee native speaker is never wrong." --The native speaker is the source of data for the linguist who seeks to describe his language. And then Kahane smiled and said, "And zee second Rule is that you must never trust the zee native speaker as a linguist... that is, he is not trained in analysis, but he is the ultimate source of the data." So when I started learning Nahuatl in Tepoztlan in the Summer of 1962, it would never have occurred to me to ask don Juanito if the sequence "oten" ('it filled up') was one word or two ("oten" or "o ten"). I assumed that the logical structure of the language would soon reveal the answer and it soon did. It turned out that all nouns, verbs, and other major word classes, have penultimate stress, and since in the sequence [o..t..e..n..], the [o] is stressed and the [e] is without stress, it must be one word, not two. How else could I account for a stressless word ("ten")? The same logic leads one to assume that "nocal" is one word, not two. Back to the two Rules -- a little reflection leads you to the conclusion that ideal linguist is the Native Speaker who has learned the logic of linguistic analysis! Joe Quoting John Sullivan : > But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers > during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the > noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate > element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan. > Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document > in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, > when the scribe's quill ran out of ink. > John > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Tue Jan 1 21:59:59 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:59:59 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for dictionary entries we will be working with: 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects (at least in the variants I work with). 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to work out. 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these are actually two different morphemes. 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking makes perfect. Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history (so far). Best, John On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Wed Jan 2 00:17:44 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:17:44 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wasn't referring to Carochi. Sent from my iPad On Jan 1, 2013, at 16:19, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John > > My point was not that word classes should be based on form instead of function, but that they should be based on syntactic function instead of semantic function. > > I also don't think that I said that linguistic training is necessary to be allowed to work with language, I certainly believe it is possible to make oneself acquainted with linguistics without having a degree, and one of the best Nahuatl linguists I've known was a 17 year old boy with no college degree. But I think that it is a lack of respect for those who have spent their lives describing the Nahuatl language (including Carochi to whom you allude) to pretend that one can do a better job than them without first taking the time to read and understand their work. That is not an academic sacred cow, that is just about intellectual ethics, and about realizing that making a contribution to any discipline is a lot easier when one has knowledge of previous contributions. > > best, > M > > On 1 January 2013 16:59, John Sullivan wrote: >> Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, >> I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for dictionary entries we will be working with: >> 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" >> 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" >> 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects (at least in the variants I work with). >> 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to work out. >> 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" >> 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these are actually two different morphemes. >> 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" >> Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking makes perfect. >> Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. >> And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history (so far). >> Best, >> John >> >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: >> >> > > -- > 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 Jan 1 22:19:02 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 17:19:02 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <3CFB0913-9E0F-46AA-A872-128F6AF9C3EA@me.com> Message-ID: Dear John My point was not that word classes should be based on form instead of function, but that they should be based on syntactic function instead of semantic function. I also don't think that I said that linguistic training is necessary to be allowed to work with language, I certainly believe it is possible to make oneself acquainted with linguistics without having a degree, and one of the best Nahuatl linguists I've known was a 17 year old boy with no college degree. But I think that it is a lack of respect for those who have spent their lives describing the Nahuatl language (including Carochi to whom you allude) to pretend that one can do a better job than them without first taking the time to read and understand their work. That is not an academic sacred cow, that is just about intellectual ethics, and about realizing that making a contribution to any discipline is a lot easier when one has knowledge of previous contributions. best, M On 1 January 2013 16:59, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, > I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you > it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the > other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most > important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was > confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I > came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in > Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the > word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and > not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of > the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for > dictionary entries we will be working with: > 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" > 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" > 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people > have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root > of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them > can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that > these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but > now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would > used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects > (at least in the variants I work with). > 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single > morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have > become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to > work out. > 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" > 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" > ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a > verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present > (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these > are actually two different morphemes. > 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" > Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking > makes perfect. > Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the > process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to > work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if > not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I > took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time > ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that > formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the > work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most > immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. > It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the > history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to > disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just > that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for > ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has > always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a > Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating > oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this > is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the > big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are > friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, > and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. > And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of > Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history > (so far). > Best, > John > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen > wrote: > > > > -- 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 Jan 2 01:34:08 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 20:34:08 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <3CFB0913-9E0F-46AA-A872-128F6AF9C3EA@me.com> Message-ID: Dear John Offering some thoughts about your proposed Nahuatl word classes: 1. *tlatocaxtiliztli *- where does the x come from? It would seem out of place in the dialects I know (assuming that the root is tlatocayotia "to name something"). Perhaps *tlatocayotiliztlahtolli*? 2. *tlachihualiztli *- as far as I know this word already has the meaning of "an action" wouldn't it be useful to terminologically distinguish between the verb and what it denotes? Perhaps *tlachihualiztlahtolli?* 3. *pil*- using pil as a prefix in my experience almost always refer to the meaning "prince/child" whereas the meaning "small/appendage" seems to be more frequently associated with the use as a suffix i.e. tlahtolpiltzin and tlahcuilolpiltzin. In some varieties a diminutive could be made with reduplication *tla:tlahcuiloltzin* and* tla:tlahtoltzin*. You don't seem to have a category for property words such as "chichiltic" "hueyi", "yolic", "cualli" since these are neither really nouns nor verbs, but have qualities of the syntactic behavior of both. Just some suggestions. best, Magnus 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 Wed Jan 2 03:29:52 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:29:52 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magnus, 1. The complete forms for each of the first three categories actually are tlatocaxtiliztlahtolli, tlachihualiztlahtolli and tlapantiliztlahtolli. We abbreviate them when working in class (for obvious reasons). I should have put the full names in the list. 2. In some variants you get maitl>nomah, tocaitl>notocah, and in others you get nomax and notocax. Sometimes both forms are used, one for the possessed noun and another for the combining form of the noun. In our variant, tocax- is the combining form of the noun that is used for suffixing the ti verber meaning "to have s.t.". Then the causative -a suffix is added. Tocayotia would not be recognized by a native speaker in the Huasteca. However, as we continue to sponsor interdialectical meetings of native speakers, we may put the variations of this terminology to a vote in order to arrive at a standardized forms that can be used across variants. 3. In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl, the pil with a short "i" is suffixed in words such as (-)oquichpil, (-)cihuapil, -mahpil, with the meaning of child/appendage. It only appears as an absolutive noun in one form, pipilmeh. The pil with a long "i" is always suffixed to a noun, in combination with the suffix -tzin, and has the meaning of small and/or reverential. Here is an example of absolutive, possessive, singular, plural: pilconetzin, pilconetzitzin, nopilconeuh, nopilconehuan. Now the interesting thing is that the native speakers at IDIEZ have found two mechanisms for creating subcategories in general. One consists of adding the prefix achi- to a noun, and another consists of adding the dimmunitive/reverential mechanism (pil-, -tzin) to a noun. So for example, our word for "uttered word" is "tencaquiliztli"; syllable is "achtencaquiliztli" (a division of an uttered word); and phoneme is "pilachitencaquiliztzin". 4. I'm not ready to accept your explanation of how words like "chichiltic" and "yolic" are formed. I consider them to be the preterit of class 1 verbs that now function as nouns. The only verbal remanents they possess are the singular (-c-?) and plural (-que-h) forms. When the -c/-que reverts to its older form -ca:, these words can take many of the suffixes associated with nouns (-uh/-huan, -tzin) and can even be incorporated on to a noun or a verb, just like a regular noun can. So I classify these words as nouns. 5. Can you give me an example of how cualli works like a verb? 6. I consider (at this point) that hueyi and miac are nouns. Both work as nouns when going through the sequence: hueyi>hueyiya>hueyilia; miac>miaquiya>miaquilia. (Joe has postulated a bridging "i" that is used between some noun roots and verbing suffixes). We are still mapping out and trying to explain in a unified manner the other forms of these words, such as miac>miaquin/miaquih, hueyi>hueyin/hueyih, hueyi>huextic, etc. And to finish, whenever I send these things to the list, it is always in the hope that the listeros will respond with criticisms and comments. John On Jan 1, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John > > Offering some thoughts about your proposed Nahuatl word classes: > > 1. tlatocaxtiliztli - where does the x come from? It would seem out of place in the dialects I know (assuming that the root is tlatocayotia "to name something"). Perhaps tlatocayotiliztlahtolli? > 2. tlachihualiztli - as far as I know this word already has the meaning of "an action" wouldn't it be useful to terminologically distinguish between the verb and what it denotes? Perhaps tlachihualiztlahtolli? > 3. pil- using pil as a prefix in my experience almost always refer to the meaning "prince/child" whereas the meaning "small/appendage" seems to be more frequently associated with the use as a suffix i.e. tlahtolpiltzin and tlahcuilolpiltzin. In some varieties a diminutive could be made with reduplication tla:tlahcuiloltzin and tla:tlahtoltzin. > > You don't seem to have a category for property words such as "chichiltic" "hueyi", "yolic", "cualli" since these are neither really nouns nor verbs, but have qualities of the syntactic behavior of both. > > Just some suggestions. > > best, > Magnus > > 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 Wed Jan 2 03:33:41 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:33:41 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Listeros, xinechtlapopolhuican: A portion of item 3 should read, "The pil with a long "i" is always PREFIXED to a noun..." John On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:29 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Magnus, > 1. The complete forms for each of the first three categories actually are tlatocaxtiliztlahtolli, tlachihualiztlahtolli and tlapantiliztlahtolli. We abbreviate them when working in class (for obvious reasons). I should have put the full names in the list. > 2. In some variants you get maitl>nomah, tocaitl>notocah, and in others you get nomax and notocax. Sometimes both forms are used, one for the possessed noun and another for the combining form of the noun. In our variant, tocax- is the combining form of the noun that is used for suffixing the ti verber meaning "to have s.t.". Then the causative -a suffix is added. Tocayotia would not be recognized by a native speaker in the Huasteca. However, as we continue to sponsor interdialectical meetings of native speakers, we may put the variations of this terminology to a vote in order to arrive at a standardized forms that can be used across variants. > 3. In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl, the pil with a short "i" is suffixed in words such as (-)oquichpil, (-)cihuapil, -mahpil, with the meaning of child/appendage. It only appears as an absolutive noun in one form, pipilmeh. The pil with a long "i" is always suffixed to a noun, in combination with the suffix -tzin, and has the meaning of small and/or reverential. Here is an example of absolutive, possessive, singular, plural: pilconetzin, pilconetzitzin, nopilconeuh, nopilconehuan. Now the interesting thing is that the native speakers at IDIEZ have found two mechanisms for creating subcategories in general. One consists of adding the prefix achi- to a noun, and another consists of adding the dimmunitive/reverential mechanism (pil-, -tzin) to a noun. So for example, our word for "uttered word" is "tencaquiliztli"; syllable is "achtencaquiliztli" (a division of an uttered word); and phoneme is "pilachitencaquiliztzin". > 4. I'm not ready to accept your explanation of how words like "chichiltic" and "yolic" are formed. I consider them to be the preterit of class 1 verbs that now function as nouns. The only verbal remanents they possess are the singular (-c-?) and plural (-que-h) forms. When the -c/-que reverts to its older form -ca:, these words can take many of the suffixes associated with nouns (-uh/-huan, -tzin) and can even be incorporated on to a noun or a verb, just like a regular noun can. So I classify these words as nouns. > 5. Can you give me an example of how cualli works like a verb? > 6. I consider (at this point) that hueyi and miac are nouns. Both work as nouns when going through the sequence: hueyi>hueyiya>hueyilia; miac>miaquiya>miaquilia. (Joe has postulated a bridging "i" that is used between some noun roots and verbing suffixes). We are still mapping out and trying to explain in a unified manner the other forms of these words, such as miac>miaquin/miaquih, hueyi>hueyin/hueyih, hueyi>huextic, etc. > And to finish, whenever I send these things to the list, it is always in the hope that the listeros will respond with criticisms and comments. > John > > > On Jan 1, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > >> Dear John >> >> Offering some thoughts about your proposed Nahuatl word classes: >> >> 1. tlatocaxtiliztli - where does the x come from? It would seem out of place in the dialects I know (assuming that the root is tlatocayotia "to name something"). Perhaps tlatocayotiliztlahtolli? >> 2. tlachihualiztli - as far as I know this word already has the meaning of "an action" wouldn't it be useful to terminologically distinguish between the verb and what it denotes? Perhaps tlachihualiztlahtolli? >> 3. pil- using pil as a prefix in my experience almost always refer to the meaning "prince/child" whereas the meaning "small/appendage" seems to be more frequently associated with the use as a suffix i.e. tlahtolpiltzin and tlahcuilolpiltzin. In some varieties a diminutive could be made with reduplication tla:tlahcuiloltzin and tla:tlahtoltzin. >> >> You don't seem to have a category for property words such as "chichiltic" "hueyi", "yolic", "cualli" since these are neither really nouns nor verbs, but have qualities of the syntactic behavior of both. >> >> Just some suggestions. >> >> best, >> Magnus >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 03:49:14 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:49:14 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear John and listeros Thanks for the explanations. some responses: 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words that form stative predicates. 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of a verb as nouns prototypically do. best, M _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Thu Jan 3 00:00:14 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:00:14 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the following alternate forms exist: 1. arm/hand a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" 2. name a). noto:cah, "my name" b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. John On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > 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 idiez at me.com Thu Jan 3 00:29:02 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:29:02 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Are you sure "notoca" is working as a verb here? If the "i" of n(i) elides, why is that first "o" there? I know that in colonial Western Nahuatl, under the influence of Spanish, tocaitl gets reinterpreted as a verb (nimotoca Juan, "I call myself Juan"), but I haven't seen very many examples of that. John On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an underlying -yi- in those two words. I don't know the form "notocah" "my name" from any dialects - I only know "notocayoh" "my name" (formed with the -yo- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb notoca "I call myself" (with the ni- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for "name" is tocaitl (which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a and i), but the possessed form is notocayoh. > > best, > M > > On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, > I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the following alternate forms exist: > 1. arm/hand > a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. > b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" > > 2. name > a). noto:cah, "my name" > b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." > c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" > > I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. > John > > On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > > Dear John and listeros > > > > Thanks for the explanations. > > > > some responses: > > > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). > > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words > > that form stative predicates. > > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form > > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of > > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > > > best, > > M > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > -- > 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 brokaw at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 2 16:38:52 2013 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:38:52 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Magnus, I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought your original point was that grammatical categories should be based on form and formal behavior rather than semantic function. And I wholeheartedly agreed with that. I had the same concern, and we have had discussions on the list about this issue before. Now that I've gone back and reread your original response, I see that you do refer to syntactical function, but you then immediately explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in Nahuatl based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were defining syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure exactly how syntactical function differs from form and whether or not you can divorce it from form or from semantics either, and that seems to cause problems. I agreed with what I understood you to be saying, that grammatical categories should be based on their formal properties and behavior rather than their semantic function. I think this is so in part because "semantic function" always has formal implications that are not necessarily universal. For example, if a particular language uses verbs exclusively to describe nouns, then it is difficult for us to talk about the semantics of this phenomenon without recourse to the grammatical category "adjective." But this does not mean that such verbs have an adjectival function. In the hypothetical language to which I am referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have a verbal function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to languages that have adjectives. This is only indirectly related to my question about "cualli." I think the issue here is a little different. So to get back to the case of "cualli," and at the risk of revealing my profound ignorance, can I ask how the usage of "kwalli" is different from other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your examples, but don't other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah titlakati" too, right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a verb. If that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate nominatives and direct objects function like verbs when the verb is omitted? It sounds like you are saying something similar to the idea that because a verb is not necessary, therefore nouns work like verbs in Nahuatl. But just because the verb can be omitted doesn't mean that the noun takes on a verbal function. It seems to me that this confuses pragmatics with formal categories and structures of syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it behaves irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, but rather merely because it is commonly used without a verb. But it seems to me that such usage has more to do with pragmatic function than it does syntactic function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an actual verb in a complete and acceptable utterance (which could be expressed as a complete grammatical sentence with a verb). Of course, I think this is true of all languages. Galen On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > 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 brokaw at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 2 18:51:26 2013 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:51:26 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Magnus, I have no problems with the morphological criteria for classifying words in Nahuatl. So no problems there. But... I mispoke/miswrote in my example. I didn't mean to say that the language would use verbs exclusively to describe nouns, which I know is what I wrote. I meant that in describing nouns, the language used verbs rather than something else. In other words, the hypothetical language doesn't have adjectives; it uses verbs rather than adjectives to convey the qualities of nouns in addition to the other things that verbs do. Of course, the idea is informed by the way Nahuatl uses verb forms in contexts in which English and Spanish would use adjectives. The point was that in such a case it is misleading to talk about verbs fulfilling an adjectival function as if "adjective" were some kind of universal category. I know you weren't doing this with "kwalli," but it seems to me a similar problem. You seem to want to attribute verb-like qualities to a noun based on what seems to me the pragmatic usage of nouns to convey an idea that could be more fully elaborated into a more "complete" grammatical utterance. I don't see the formal basis for making this argument, and if I understand the issue (which I admit, I may not), then pragmatics provides an explanation for the positive evidence that you give of how "kwalli" actually does behave. The only formal basis for this argument is the negative evidence that "kwalli" doesn't do all the things other nouns do. The fact that a particular word like "kwalli" doesn't exhibit ALL of the same morphological behavior as other nouns doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't belong to the same category. There are certain expressions in English, and I assume all languages, that while formally grammatical, are not acceptable based on usage because they are semantically strange or illogical given the way the word is culturally defined. So just because you couldn't or wouldn't say it, doesn't mean that it is not formally grammatical. So when you say that you "cannot say 'nokwal,'" I take your word for it. But does this mean that it is merely an expression that is not used for semantic, cultural, and/or logical reasons or does it mean that it violates the in/formal, abstract rules implicit in the speakers' mental grammar. If I understand correctly, all the examples that you give in both posts are negative ones: they are things that "kwalli" doesn't do that other nouns do. But what about what it does? Doesn't the positive evidence that you cite (i.e., what "kwalli" actually does formally) conform to the expectations of nouns? Does it do anything in formal terms that other nouns don't? If "kwalli" behaves formally in ways that other nouns don't, then that kind of evidence might be a more compelling basis for qualifying its classification or for classifying it differently. But if there is no doubt about the fact that "cualli" is a noun historically and it doesn't behave formally in ways that other nouns don't (by which I mean what it actually does rather than what it doesn't do), then I don't see on what basis you would need to call it something other than a noun. So if this is the case, I don't see why the perfect solution for "kwalli" wouldn't be to just call it a noun. Galen On 1/2/2013 12:42 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Hi Galen > > The form/function issue comes from the fact that Nahuatl is > polysynthetic, which means that most of its syntax is carried out by > means of morphology, and that syntactic functions are marked through > morphology. I.e. when I argue for the use of formal morphological > criteria for determining word class membership in nahuatl it is > because they are the best diagnostic tools for determining the > syntactic functions of words. I.e. a word that takes nominal > morphology also tends to have particular syntactic functions. > > I don't understand your example of a language that uses verbs > exclusively to describe nouns - I don't think such a language is > possible since verbs are generally understood to be words that have > the primary function of forming predicates. Any wordclass that has > the primary function of describing nouns would be a class of > adjectives not verbs - unless there is another reason to consider them > a subclass of verbs. > > Regarding kwalli I don't have a perfect solution, it is obviously > historically and morphologically a noun - no doubt about that. But you > cannot in contemporary Nahuatl say "nokwal" or "kwalko" or "ipan > kwalli" or pluralize it to kwalmeh or kwaltin (except in agreement > with the noun it modifies). You also never use kwalli as the argument > of a verb "se kwalli" or "in kwalli" (unless followed by a head noun > that is being modified by kwalli). In all of these ways it doesn't > behave like a noun. Yes it is true that all nouns in Nahuatl can form > predicates, like titlacatl, but for most nouns this is not the primary > use, for kwalli it is. I am currently thinking that kwalli, hueyi, > chichiltik and other of these words are best characterized as > statives, that form intransitive predicates. > > You can read a more complete exposition of my thoughts on Nahuatl word > classes here: > http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/8101/1/KWPL-32-PharaoHansen2.pdf > > > best regards, > M > > On 2 January 2013 11:38, Galen Brokaw > wrote: > > > Hi Magnus, > > I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought your > original point was that grammatical categories should be based on > form and formal behavior rather than semantic function. And I > wholeheartedly agreed with that. I had the same concern, and we > have had discussions on the list about this issue before. Now that > I've gone back and reread your original response, I see that you > do refer to syntactical function, but you then immediately > explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in Nahuatl > based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were > defining syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure > exactly how syntactical function differs from form and whether or > not you can divorce it from form or from semantics either, and > that seems to cause problems. I agreed with what I understood you > to be saying, that grammatical categories should be based on their > formal properties and behavior rather than their semantic > function. I think this is so in part because "semantic function" > always has formal implications that are not necessarily universal. > For example, if a particular language uses verbs exclusively to > describe nouns, then it is difficult for us to talk about the > semantics of this phenomenon without recourse to the grammatical > category "adjective." But this does not mean that such verbs have > an adjectival function. In the hypothetical language to which I am > referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have a verbal > function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to > languages that have adjectives. > > This is only indirectly related to my question about "cualli." I > think the issue here is a little different. So to get back to the > case of "cualli," and at the risk of revealing my profound > ignorance, can I ask how the usage of "kwalli" is different from > other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your examples, but don't > other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah titlakati" too, > right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a verb. If > that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate nominatives and > direct objects function like verbs when the verb is omitted? It > sounds like you are saying something similar to the idea that > because a verb is not necessary, therefore nouns work like verbs > in Nahuatl. But just because the verb can be omitted doesn't mean > that the noun takes on a verbal function. It seems to me that this > confuses pragmatics with formal categories and structures of > syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are > hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it behaves > irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, but rather > merely because it is commonly used without a verb. But it seems to > me that such usage has more to do with pragmatic function than it > does syntactic function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an > actual verb in a complete and acceptable utterance (which could be > expressed as a complete grammatical sentence with a verb). Of > course, I think this is true of all languages. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means > that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ > and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, > they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like > property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic > function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not > very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it > neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the > argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > > > > -- > 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 Thu Jan 3 00:20:52 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:20:52 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an underlying -*yi*- in those two words. I don't know the form "*notocah*" "my name" from any dialects - I only know "*notocayoh*" "my name" (formed with the -*yo*- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb *notoca *"I call myself" (with the *ni*- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for "name" is *tocaitl *(which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a and i), but the possessed form is *notocayoh*. best, M On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: > Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, > I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the > following alternate forms exist: > 1. arm/hand > a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. > b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" > > 2. name > a). noto:cah, "my name" > b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." > c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" > > I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms > (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you > mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never > seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in > Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in > a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. > John > > On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen > wrote: > > > Dear John and listeros > > > > Thanks for the explanations. > > > > some responses: > > > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La > > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and > /ma:yitl/). > > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. > > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are > > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property > words > > that form stative predicates. > > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to > form > > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny > > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts > > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument > of > > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > > > best, > > M > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- 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 mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Jan 3 00:40:57 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:40:57 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: notoca is (ni)notoca Quoting Magnus Pharao Hansen : > I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an > underlying -*yi*- in those two words. I don't know the form "*notocah*" "my > name" from any dialects - I only know "*notocayoh*" "my name" (formed with > the -*yo*- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb *notoca *"I call > myself" (with the *ni*- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in > Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for > "name" is *tocaitl *(which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a > and i), but the possessed form is *notocayoh*. > > best, > M > > On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, >> I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the >> following alternate forms exist: >> 1. arm/hand >> a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. >> b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" >> >> 2. name >> a). noto:cah, "my name" >> b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." >> c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" >> >> I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms >> (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you >> mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never >> seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in >> Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in >> a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. >> John >> >> On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen >> wrote: >> >> > Dear John and listeros >> > >> > Thanks for the explanations. >> > >> > some responses: >> > >> > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La >> > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and >> /ma:yitl/). >> > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. >> > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are >> > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property >> words >> > that form stative predicates. >> > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to >> form >> > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny >> > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts >> > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument >> of >> > a verb as nouns prototypically do. >> > >> > best, >> > M >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Nahuatl mailing list >> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Jan 3 01:46:25 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 20:46:25 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <20130102194057.w1ot9pja9r4kkwkc@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Quoting Michael McCafferty : > > notoca is (ni)notoca > > > maybe > Quoting Magnus Pharao Hansen : > >> I believe both Launey and Dakin write about the possibility of an >> underlying -*yi*- in those two words. I don't know the form "*notocah*" "my >> name" from any dialects - I only know "*notocayoh*" "my name" (formed with >> the -*yo*- inalienable possesion suffix) and the verb *notoca *"I call >> myself" (with the *ni*- suffix elided because it is redundant) - in >> Hueyapan and classical at least. In Zongolica the unpossessed word for >> "name" is *tocaitl *(which probably has an underlying -y- glide between a >> and i), but the possessed form is *notocayoh*. >> >> best, >> M >> >> On 2 January 2013 19:00, John Sullivan wrote: >> >>> Piyali Magnus huan notequixpoyohuan, >>> I have always wondered why in Eastern Huastecan Nahuatl the >>> following alternate forms exist: >>> 1. arm/hand >>> a). nomah, "my arm". nomahpil, "my finger. >>> b). ima:cuayo:, "its branch" >>> >>> 2. name >>> a). noto:cah, "my name" >>> b). to:ca:xtia:, nic., "to name s.t. or s.o." >>> c). noto:ca:yo:, "my godfather, godson of a male" >>> >>> I've always assumed that the final aspiration on the possessive forms >>> (nomah, noto:cah) is an alternate form of the devoiced "yi" that you >>> mention. I discarded the possibility of it being "-uh" because I've never >>> seen this possessor suffix used with either word in other variants. And in >>> Huastecan Nahuatl, h vs uh before a consonant (mahcahua vs cauhqui) and in >>> a word final position (cuaciyah vs noamauh) are very hard to tell apart. >>> John >>> >>> On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear John and listeros >>> > >>> > Thanks for the explanations. >>> > >>> > some responses: >>> > >>> > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La >>> > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and >>> /ma:yitl/). >>> > This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. >>> > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are >>> > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property >>> words >>> > that form stative predicates. >>> > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to >>> form >>> > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny >>> > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts >>> > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument >>> of >>> > a verb as nouns prototypically do. >>> > >>> > best, >>> > M >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Nahuatl mailing list >>> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jdanahuatl at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 06:16:34 2013 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:16:34 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <50E4629C.9060306@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Hi listeros, I am on a computer in a cybercafe with a bad keyboard, so this might be shorter than otherwise. In my experience there are many nominal ?forms? that do not function as prototypical nouns (arguments) but rather are limited to a predicate position. Think of "ablaze" in English and the limits to its syntactic function. For Launey, if I understand his omnipredicativity argument, everything (except a few things like vocatives, eg.) are predicates so I am not sure how he would distinguish kwalli, tlapa:ktli, etc. from other nouns. But my experience is that these are only predicates and hence the difference. Many speakers consider tlapa:ktli as an adjective if asked, but this is because of its syntactic limitations. However, one wants to resolve the problem there are differences in the syntactic functions of different nouns and one solution might be to divide them on a type of squish in Ross?s terminology, again if I remember correctly. Similar problems exist with "adjectives" and "adverbs" and one solution is to look at predicate modifiers as a class. Cf. yo:li:k, chika:wak, etc. for which I am not quite sure what the best part of speech solution would be, but whatever one chooses it should be noted that the modification can often be of nouns or verbs, etc. best, jonathan On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Galen Brokaw wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought your original > point was that grammatical categories should be based on form and formal > behavior rather than semantic function. And I wholeheartedly agreed with > that. I had the same concern, and we have had discussions on the list about > this issue before. Now that I've gone back and reread your original > response, I see that you do refer to syntactical function, but you then > immediately explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in > Nahuatl based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were defining > syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure exactly how > syntactical function differs from form and whether or not you can divorce > it from form or from semantics either, and that seems to cause problems. I > agreed with what I understood you to be saying, that grammatical categories > should be based on their formal properties and behavior rather than their > semantic function. I think this is so in part because "semantic function" > always has formal implications that are not necessarily universal. For > example, if a particular language uses verbs exclusively to describe nouns, > then it is difficult for us to talk about the semantics of this phenomenon > without recourse to the grammatical category "adjective." But this does not > mean that such verbs have an adjectival function. In the hypothetical > language to which I am referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have > a verbal function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to > languages that have adjectives. > > This is only indirectly related to my question about "cualli." I think the > issue here is a little different. So to get back to the case of "cualli," > and at the risk of revealing my profound ignorance, can I ask how the usage > of "kwalli" is different from other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your > examples, but don't other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah > titlakati" too, right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a > verb. If that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate nominatives and > direct objects function like verbs when the verb is omitted? It sounds like > you are saying something similar to the idea that because a verb is not > necessary, therefore nouns work like verbs in Nahuatl. But just because the > verb can be omitted doesn't mean that the noun takes on a verbal function. > It seems to me that this confuses pragmatics with formal categories and > structures of syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you > are hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it behaves > irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, but rather merely > because it is commonly used without a verb. But it seems to me that such > usage has more to do with pragmatic function than it does syntactic > function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an actual verb in a complete > and acceptable utterance (which could be expressed as a complete > grammatical sentence with a verb). Of course, I think this is true of all > languages. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > >> Dear John and listeros >> >> Thanks for the explanations. >> >> some responses: >> >> 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending (this means that in La >> Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly /tokayitl/ and >> /ma:yitl/). >> This would not be recognized by speakers of central dialects. >> 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are formed, they are >> clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function like property words >> that form stative predicates. >> 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic function is to >> form >> predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it is not very nouny >> ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it neither accepts >> plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever occurs as the argument of >> a verb as nouns prototypically do. >> >> best, >> M >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/**listinfo/nahuatl >> >> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/**listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Thu Jan 3 04:53:40 2013 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:53:40 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It is only misleading if you assume that formal properties are always consistent indicators of usage. But that isn't the case. There are always irregularities in language usage that are not predictable based merely on formal criteria. So you always have to explain the peculiarities of usage in all languages. And based on the examples you gave, it didn't sound like "kwalli" was used in a way that is exactly the same as property words like chichiltic, iztac, etc. Do these other property words take the -tin ending in agreement with the nouns that they describe? I would also say that in Classical Nahuatl, at least, I'm pretty sure that you do actually find "ipan cualli" meaning "in goodness." And "cualli" appears as an imbedded noun in verbs such as "ninocualtoca" [I consider myself good]. But even if this is not the case in a particular dialect of Nahuatl, what you claim are differences in the properties of "kwalli" in relation to other nouns is explainable as a difference in usage rather than a real difference in properties. It seems to me that this is a valid distinction to make. For example, even in English, some nouns don't take plural endings. And "kwalli" is a good example. We wouldn't say "goodnesses" either, but that doesn't mean that "goodness" is not a noun. Based merely on formal rules, you can produce "goodnesses," and it is clear what is being done. But it doesn't make any sense in our culturally determined conceptual paradigm, so we don't produce that form. So, again, the fact that a word doesn't exhibit all of the same behaviors as other words of the same class doesn't really justify creating a new class for it or putting it in a different class. So for that reason, the argument that "kwalli" is a stative rather than a noun based on formal properties doesn't make sense to me. Even if you give weight to the fact that in Hueyapan Nahuatl, "kwalli" does not exhibit all of the properties evident in other nouns, you would still have to demonstrate that it exhibits formal properties of some other class that other nouns do not. The classification of "kwalli" as a stative is not based solely on the formal argument. It also has to be based on the semantic determination that it conveys a stative meaning. And your stative category is based on semantics rather than form. "kwalli" is certainly stative insofar as it refers to a persistent condition, but all nouns do that. There is certainly a qualitative distinction that can be drawn between the condition of being "kwalli" and the condition of being "tlakatl," but I'm not sure that this is necessarily a universal difference (i.e., that speakers of all languages would necessarily conceptualize "kwalli" and "tlakatl" as qualitatively different) or that it is all that significant for the determination of formal word classes. It may be true that the "stative" is a useful and necessary word class in Nahuatl. I don't know. I'm only commenting on "kwalli," and I'm not convinced that "kwalli" justifies such a word class for the reasons that I've explained. And what you are saying doesn't respond to those reasons. It sounds like you want the syntactical categories to do all the work of accounting for usage. But in order to do that, you have to abandon formal criteria in favor of semantic criteria. And I don't see the advantage or the logic in doing that. To me it would make more sense to use "stative" as a sub-class rather than a class of its own. Thus you could have stative verbs like "chichiltic" and perhaps stative nouns like "kwalli." That way you wouldn't have to abandon formal criteria for determining the larger word classes. And the semantics of the word, cultural logic, conventions of usage, and so forth would account for the variations and anomalies in usage. Yes, that would have to be explained, but it has to be explained anyway. On 1/2/2013 5:41 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > Many languages use only verbs to describe nouns, and depending on the > exact details of analysis and the definition of the word class > adjectives they may or may not be said to have adjectives. If for > example those verbs that describe properties of nouns behave > syntactically different from other verbs, then it can be said that the > language has adjectives, but that adjectives are a subclass of nouns. > Or it can be said that the language has no adjectives, and that the > adjectival function is fulfilled by verbs. This decision depends on > theoretical concerns about what how one understand and describes > grammar and different linguists do either of the two - some linguists > do consider the adjectival function to be universal, others don't. > > The reason I think it doesn't make sense to just say that kwalli is a > noun is that it shares virtually none of the properties of other > nouns, except the fact that it can make predicates. To say that it is > a noun is misleading because in order to explain the words usage we'd > have to explain that it is a special noun that is used in a way that > is exactly the same as property words like hueyi, iztac, chichiltic, > etc, and entirely unlike all other nouns. Therefore I think it makes > more sense to say that in Nahuatl there is a class of words that have > the primary function of creating stative predicates and that some of > those words are deived from nouns and others from verbs. > > My Nahuatl wordclasses are as follows: > > Predicators > -Verbs > -Nouns > -Statives > > Non-Predicators > -Particles > > > > > On 2 January 2013 13:51, Galen Brokaw > wrote: > > Hey Magnus, > > I have no problems with the morphological criteria for classifying > words in Nahuatl. So no problems there. But... > I mispoke/miswrote in my example. I didn't mean to say that the > language would use verbs exclusively to describe nouns, which I > know is what I wrote. I meant that in describing nouns, the > language used verbs rather than something else. In other words, > the hypothetical language doesn't have adjectives; it uses verbs > rather than adjectives to convey the qualities of nouns in > addition to the other things that verbs do. Of course, the idea is > informed by the way Nahuatl uses verb forms in contexts in which > English and Spanish would use adjectives. The point was that in > such a case it is misleading to talk about verbs fulfilling an > adjectival function as if "adjective" were some kind of universal > category. I know you weren't doing this with "kwalli," but it > seems to me a similar problem. You seem to want to attribute > verb-like qualities to a noun based on what seems to me the > pragmatic usage of nouns to convey an idea that could be more > fully elaborated into a more "complete" grammatical utterance. I > don't see the formal basis for making this argument, and if I > understand the issue (which I admit, I may not), then pragmatics > provides an explanation for the positive evidence that you give of > how "kwalli" actually does behave. The only formal basis for this > argument is the negative evidence that "kwalli" doesn't do all the > things other nouns do. > The fact that a particular word like "kwalli" doesn't exhibit ALL > of the same morphological behavior as other nouns doesn't > necessarily mean that it doesn't belong to the same category. > There are certain expressions in English, and I assume all > languages, that while formally grammatical, are not acceptable > based on usage because they are semantically strange or illogical > given the way the word is culturally defined. So just because you > couldn't or wouldn't say it, doesn't mean that it is not formally > grammatical. So when you say that you "cannot say 'nokwal,'" I > take your word for it. But does this mean that it is merely an > expression that is not used for semantic, cultural, and/or logical > reasons or does it mean that it violates the in/formal, abstract > rules implicit in the speakers' mental grammar. If I understand > correctly, all the examples that you give in both posts are > negative ones: they are things that "kwalli" doesn't do that other > nouns do. But what about what it does? Doesn't the positive > evidence that you cite (i.e., what "kwalli" actually does > formally) conform to the expectations of nouns? Does it do > anything in formal terms that other nouns don't? If "kwalli" > behaves formally in ways that other nouns don't, then that kind of > evidence might be a more compelling basis for qualifying its > classification or for classifying it differently. But if there is > no doubt about the fact that "cualli" is a noun historically and > it doesn't behave formally in ways that other nouns don't (by > which I mean what it actually does rather than what it doesn't > do), then I don't see on what basis you would need to call it > something other than a noun. So if this is the case, I don't see > why the perfect solution for "kwalli" wouldn't be to just call it > a noun. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/2/2013 12:42 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > Hi Galen > > The form/function issue comes from the fact that Nahuatl is > polysynthetic, which means that most of its syntax is carried > out by means of morphology, and that syntactic functions are > marked through morphology. I.e. when I argue for the use of > formal morphological criteria for determining word class > membership in nahuatl it is because they are the best > diagnostic tools for determining the syntactic functions of > words. I.e. a word that takes nominal morphology also tends to > have particular syntactic functions. > > I don't understand your example of a language that uses verbs > exclusively to describe nouns - I don't think such a language > is possible since verbs are generally understood to be words > that have the primary function of forming predicates. Any > wordclass that has the primary function of describing nouns > would be a class of adjectives not verbs - unless there is > another reason to consider them a subclass of verbs. > > Regarding kwalli I don't have a perfect solution, it is > obviously historically and morphologically a noun - no doubt > about that. But you cannot in contemporary Nahuatl say > "nokwal" or "kwalko" or "ipan kwalli" or pluralize it to > kwalmeh or kwaltin (except in agreement with the noun it > modifies). You also never use kwalli as the argument of a verb > "se kwalli" or "in kwalli" (unless followed by a head noun > that is being modified by kwalli). In all of these ways it > doesn't behave like a noun. Yes it is true that all nouns in > Nahuatl can form predicates, like titlacatl, but for most > nouns this is not the primary use, for kwalli it is. I am > currently thinking that kwalli, hueyi, chichiltik and other of > these words are best characterized as statives, that form > intransitive predicates. > > You can read a more complete exposition of my thoughts on > Nahuatl word classes here: > http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/8101/1/KWPL-32-PharaoHansen2.pdf > > > best regards, > M > > On 2 January 2013 11:38, Galen Brokaw >> wrote: > > > Hi Magnus, > > I have a question about "cualli" too. Like John, I thought > your > original point was that grammatical categories should be > based on > form and formal behavior rather than semantic function. And I > wholeheartedly agreed with that. I had the same concern, > and we > have had discussions on the list about this issue before. > Now that > I've gone back and reread your original response, I see > that you > do refer to syntactical function, but you then immediately > explain, and advocate for, the classification of words in > Nahuatl > based on morphological form. So I guess I thought you were > defining syntactical function in formal terms. So I'm not sure > exactly how syntactical function differs from form and > whether or > not you can divorce it from form or from semantics either, and > that seems to cause problems. I agreed with what I > understood you > to be saying, that grammatical categories should be based > on their > formal properties and behavior rather than their semantic > function. I think this is so in part because "semantic > function" > always has formal implications that are not necessarily > universal. > For example, if a particular language uses verbs > exclusively to > describe nouns, then it is difficult for us to talk about the > semantics of this phenomenon without recourse to the > grammatical > category "adjective." But this does not mean that such > verbs have > an adjectival function. In the hypothetical language to > which I am > referring, such expressions are verbal, so they have a verbal > function. They only have an adjectival function in relation to > languages that have adjectives. > > This is only indirectly related to my question about > "cualli." I > think the issue here is a little different. So to get back > to the > case of "cualli," and at the risk of revealing my profound > ignorance, can I ask how the usage of "kwalli" is > different from > other nouns? Maybe I don't understand your examples, but don't > other nouns work the same way? You can say "tehwah > titlakati" too, > right? But this doesn't mean that "tlakati" works as a > verb. If > that were the case, then wouldn't all predicate > nominatives and > direct objects function like verbs when the verb is > omitted? It > sounds like you are saying something similar to the idea that > because a verb is not necessary, therefore nouns work like > verbs > in Nahuatl. But just because the verb can be omitted > doesn't mean > that the noun takes on a verbal function. It seems to me > that this > confuses pragmatics with formal categories and structures of > syntax. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like > you are > hesitant to classify it as a regular noun, not because it > behaves > irregularly from a morphological or formal perspective, > but rather > merely because it is commonly used without a verb. But it > seems to > me that such usage has more to do with pragmatic function > than it > does syntactic function: the fact that Nahuatl doesn't need an > actual verb in a complete and acceptable utterance (which > could be > expressed as a complete grammatical sentence with a verb). Of > course, I think this is true of all languages. > > Galen > > > > > > > On 1/1/2013 10:49 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > Dear John and listeros > > Thanks for the explanations. > > some responses: > > 2. Ok, so the -x is the remnant of the /yi/ ending > (this means > that in La > Huasteca the phonological forms are underlyingly > /tokayitl/ > and /ma:yitl/). > This would not be recognized by speakers of central > dialects. > 4. I am not giving an account of how these words are > formed, > they are > clearly fromed from verbs and nouns. But they function > like > property words > that form stative predicates. > 5. kwalli works as a verb in that its primary syntactic > function is to form > predicates "kwalli inon" 'tehwah tikwalli" etc. And it > is not > very nouny > ()although obviously it originated as a noun because it > neither accepts > plural or possessive morphology, and hardly ever > occurs as the > argument of > a verb as nouns prototypically do. > > best, > M > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > > > > -- > 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 kasiamikulska at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 22:23:33 2013 From: kasiamikulska at hotmail.com (Katarzyna Mikulska) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:23:33 +0000 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <3CFB0913-9E0F-46AA-A872-128F6AF9C3EA@me.com> Message-ID: Piyali John huan nochin listeros, I would suggest not to use the category of "letter", but instead sth like "phoneme" or any other category which refer to the sounds of the linguistic system itself. "Letter" is just a graphic form, from other system (even if it is supposed to reflect a phoneme), and it is a question of graphic convention if we write the sound /k/ as "c", "qu" or "k". Consequently, in Nahuatl I think it shouldn't be named on base of icuiloa, but on sth based on "sound". Best regards from Warsaw and happy 2013, Kasia (Katarzyna Mikulska) > From: idiez at me.com > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:59:59 -0600 > To: magnuspharao at gmail.com > CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes > > Piyali Magnus huan nochin notequixpoyohuan, > I've taken a long time to respond to this mail, but I assure you it is only because, on the one hand, I've had a lot of work, and on the other hand, it really helped me to clear up some of my ideas. The most important thing I got out of this was the realization that indeed I was confusing form with meaning. This isn't a negative thing: the fact that I came to the realization that noun structures had all of these functions in Nahuatl was very enlightening. I now realize that, as you pointed out, the word classes should be based on form, in other words, how they work, and not what they mean. And, also as you pointed out, this is the way all of the major Nahuatl linguists do it. So anyway, here are the categories for dictionary entries we will be working with: > 1. tlatocaxtiliztli, "noun" > 2. tlachihualiztli, "verb" > 3. tlapantiliztli, "relational". And here, I am assuming that what people have called relational suffixes, etc., in the past, are actually the root of the word. Nouns can be incorporated into some of them, and some of them can take possessors and other affixes (reverential). I agree with you that these words are a form of noun. I think that they originated as nouns, but now work a bit differently. The main structural difference that I would used to separate them from the noun class is that they cannot take subjects (at least in the variants I work with). > 4. piltlahtoltzin, "particles". These are words that are made of a single morpheme, or chains of single morpheme words, and perhaps, words that have become fossilized in some way. This is going to be the hardest class to work out. > 5. tlatenmotzquiltilli, "affix" > 6. tlamotzquiltihquetl, "ligature". There is only one, the "-t(i)-" ligature. "ca:-" can work as a ligature and in most cases is structurally a verb suffix, but sometimes it is used in cases where no verb is present (cualcan, macehualcayotl, etc.), and I have not made up my mind if these are actually two different morphemes. > 7. piltlahcuiloltzin, "letter" > Listeros, please continue to criticize these categories. Tweeking makes perfect. > Second to last thing. I don't believe one has to go through the process of linguistic academic preparation in order to have the right to work with language. For practicality's sake I have to say this, because if not I'd be screwed and would have to give up a job that I really love. I took an introductory class in linguistics when I was a freshman a long time ago, but I dropped out because I didn't like it. This is not to say that formal linguistics is boring. It is just boring to me. I deeply respect the work of linguists, profit from reading some of their work, and most immensely enjoy sitting down and talking about Nahuatl with them in person. It's just that I prefer to do this thing my own way. And I think the history of science is full of cases of outsiders making contributions to disciplines. And I'm not talking about re-inventing the wheel. It's just that it is very important to go over what scholars have done and look for ways to make things better. The idea of the academic "vaca sagrada" has always made me sick to my stomach: the idea that the purpose of getting a Ph.D. is to aspire to get into an academic club and wind up subordinating oneself to a big name (this is very common in Mexico, I don`t know if this is also the case in the US or in Europe). When you actually get know the big names who are the real thing, in the vast majority of cases, they are friendly, ego-less, accessible and generous with their time and research, and not at all interested in being king or queen of the hill. > And last of all, Magnus, in your list of eminent grammarians of Nahuatl, you forgot to include the greatest Nahuatl grammarian in history (so far). > Best, > John > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 idiez at me.com Fri Jan 4 19:36:22 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:36:22 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali listeros, I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and refers to the result of an action. 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not in a certain state. 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he stands up and has rested in that state." 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally "He sits down and has rested in that state." John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Jan 4 20:01:55 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:01:55 -0600 Subject: tematlachtli Message-ID: Piyali Innochimeh, Has anyone every seen (or heard) the word "tematlachtli"? John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From magnuspharao at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 21:52:42 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 16:52:42 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 283, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am using the term statives as a shorthand for "stative verbs", a term sometimes used for a subclass of verbs that describe states or properties. I don't want to call them stative verbs in Nahuatl because I don't think they are a subclass of verbs (they don't take verbal morphology such as tense/aspect/mood), but rather one of three subclasses of predicate forming words, the two other subclasses being nouns and verbs.The usage is perhaps confusing because of the existence of a stative aspect which is something else. In my analysis statives are different from Nouns and verbs in that they take none of the special morphology of either of those classes (tense/aspect/mood/transitivity for verbs and possession/pluralization/locative for nouns). -- 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 Mon Jan 14 19:10:58 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl word classes In-Reply-To: <87wqvqqzg5.fsf@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: Piyali Joost, But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for example doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I walk" you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" and ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. Best, John On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers wrote: > Hi John, > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the same > verb form, then the verb form is stative. > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep > event. > > HTH > > Joost > > > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: >> Piyali listeros, >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and refers to the result of an action. >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not in a certain state. >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he stands up and has rested in that state." >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally "He sits down and has rested in that state." >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Jan 15 18:43:03 2013 From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:43:03 -0500 Subject: statives Message-ID: But Joost and John That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding and describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like "kwalli", "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. The specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a reduplicated form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to form the frequentative aspect. best, M On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: John Sullivan > To: Joost Kremers > Cc: nahuatl discussion list > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes > Piyali Joost, > But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan > Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for example > doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I walk" > you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk > everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" and > ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. > Best, > John > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers > wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is > > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is > > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific > > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into > > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the same > > verb form, then the verb form is stative. > > > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say > > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you > > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, > > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 > > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep > > event. > > > > HTH > > > > Joost > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Piyali listeros, > >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in > linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? > >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". > Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and > refers to the result of an action. > >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means > "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship > of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not > in a certain state. > >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he > stands up and has rested in that state." > >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally > "He sits down and has rested in that state." > >> John > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > -- 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 Tue Jan 15 22:52:15 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:52:15 -0600 Subject: statives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, What I said about nehnemi is a bit tangent to this discussion, but it goes for most verbs in present tense, whether or not they are reduplicated. Here are some examples. Nitlacua, "I am eating." Mohmoztlah nitlacua, "I eat everyday." Nicpohua ce amoxtli, "I'm reading a book." Axquemman nicpohua amoxtli, "I never read books." I asked the macehualmeh what the difference was between the "present" tense (nitlacua) and the present progressive (nitlacuahticah) and they have a hard time distinguishing them. The provisional idea to describe the progressive is that of "cenyahtoc", a verb placed before another verb to emphasize that the second action is happenning in an intense and uninterrupted fashion. So, using the example of a video we just made, Molini atl, "the water is boiling". Cenyahtoc molini atl, or, Molinticah atl, "The water is boiling (in an intense and uninterrupted fashion?)". Whenever I come across these kinds of things, I wonder if the classical (and some of the more recent) grammarians were perhaps oversimplifying some of their descriptions, due to comparisons with models based on European languages. Or perhaps, in some variants (past and present), for example, Nitlacua does mean just "I eat." And Nitlacuahticah means "I am eating." John On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote: > But Joost and John > > That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a > semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several > Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been > analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave > morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to > include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my > analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding and > describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like "kwalli", > "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". > > Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same > as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. The > specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I > would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a reduplicated > form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to > form the frequentative aspect. > > best, > M > > > > On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: > >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: John Sullivan >> To: Joost Kremers >> Cc: nahuatl discussion list >> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes >> Piyali Joost, >> But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan >> Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for example >> doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I walk" >> you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk >> everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" and >> ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. >> Best, >> John >> >> On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers >> wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is >>> a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is >>> stative if it describes a situation or property without specific >>> duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into >>> smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the same >>> verb form, then the verb form is stative. >>> >>> So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say >>> eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you >>> can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, >>> "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 >>> minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep >>> event. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Joost >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: >>>> Piyali listeros, >>>> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in >> linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? >>>> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". >> Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and >> refers to the result of an action. >>>> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means >> "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the relationship >> of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is not >> in a certain state. >>>> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he >> stands up and has rested in that state." >>>> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally >> "He sits down and has rested in that state." >>>> John >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Tue Jan 15 23:07:32 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:07:32 -0600 Subject: consortium building for Nahuatl Message-ID: Piyali listeros, I am currently interested in promoting "shared" Nahuatl instruction within two organizations: 1. the Big Ten schools, through their academic consortium "Committee on Institutional Cooperation"; and 2. the PAC 12 schools, who also have an academic consortium. If you are a member of an institutions in either of these consortiums and are interested in participating in this project, please contact me. The next step would be a similar project for schools on the East Coast, and we can discuss this at the Yale Nahuatl Conference in May. Finally, if there are members of other academic consortiums (founded on Sports Conferences......) that would like to look into this option for Nahuatl instruction, please contact me. John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Research Scholar in Nahuatl Studies and Academic Director of the Yale-IDIEZ Nahuatl Language Institute, Yale University; Visiting scholar, Department of Liberal Arts University of Warsaw; Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas; Director, Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 43 Centro Hist?rico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile (Mexico): +52 1 (492) 103-0195 Mobile (US): (615) 649-2790 idiez at me.com www.macehualli.org _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jdanahuatl at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 15:13:40 2013 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:13:40 -0600 Subject: statives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that one must analyze any meaning/use of a verb with a specific context of utterance (both the words surrounding it and the actual situation in which something is said). For me, certain verbs can be used in the present indicative to indicate an ongoing action: cho:ka mokone:w 'Your child is crying' (said by one person to another upon hearing a child cry in the other room; I would find it unusual, though not wrong, to say cho:katok mokone:w, at least in Balsas and Sierra Nororiental) ?miki mokone:w ? for me not a felicitous statement. I would say, in Balsas i (or ye) miktok mokone:w 'Your child is dying' o:mik mokone:w 'Your child is dead', 'Your child has died' koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is snapped' (i.e., is in the state that results from it having snapped in two, cut in two) i koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is on the verge of snapping' (i.e., it is being frayed against something as it about to snap apart) It is a matter for empirical analysis to determine which verbs belong in which paradigm (frame, or whatever). The process of research should be similar to that undertaken by Beth Levin for English verb classes. The result would be a sort of cline in which certain verbs ("cho:ka" verbs) would use the present indicative as a progressive and the durative (-tok, -tikah) would be a sort of more emphatic statement of progressivity. A second set of verbs (e.g. "miki" verbs) would use the perfective as a stative/resultative. Finally, a third set would use the durative marker (-tok, -tikah) as a resultative and would mark the progressive with "ye". The last two categories come somewhat together with some internal variation, e.g., miki. Cf. also poliwi. I would find it more usual to say 'o:poliw X' than 'poliwtok X' to indicate 'X is lost' 'o:poliw notomi:n' 'My money is lost' 'My money got lost' And cf. 'i polihtok' 'It is starting to get out of sight'. But with wa:htlapolihtok there is a progressive sense that doesn't require "ye" and with the sense of a countryside becoming obscured as a rain and mist are approaching. Note that in N. Veracruz, and somewhat in N. Puebla (though less so) -tok can have a sort of perfect meaning nitakwahtok a in N. Puebla 'I've already eaten'. Basically, then, verb classes are a matter for empirical investigation in the context of use and, significantly, can be used as diagnostics for classes of verbs. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen < magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote: > But Joost and John > > That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a > semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several > Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been > analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave > morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to > include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my > analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding and > describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like "kwalli", > "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". > > Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same > as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. The > specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I > would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a reduplicated > form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to > form the frequentative aspect. > > best, > M > > > > On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: > > > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: John Sullivan > > To: Joost Kremers > > Cc: nahuatl discussion list > > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 > > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes > > Piyali Joost, > > But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan > > Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for > example > > doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I > walk" > > you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk > > everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" > and > > ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. > > Best, > > John > > > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers > > wrote: > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there is > > > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb is > > > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific > > > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into > > > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the > same > > > verb form, then the verb form is stative. > > > > > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say > > > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, you > > > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, > > > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes 10 > > > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep > > > event. > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > Joost > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: > > >> Piyali listeros, > > >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in > > linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? > > >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". > > Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and > > refers to the result of an action. > > >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally means > > "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the > relationship > > of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is > not > > in a certain state. > > >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he > > stands up and has rested in that state." > > >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally > > "He sits down and has rested in that state." > > >> John > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > > > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jdanahuatl at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 16:22:01 2013 From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:22:01 -0600 Subject: statives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Magnus, Your work sounds fascinating. Someone recommended the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary ( http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/talk) as a model for lexicography of Indigenous languages, and although English works like this are thousands of man/woman hours in the making I think there is a lesson on the importance of diagnostics and subdivisions in classes. After the works of scholars starting with Ross, perhaps, on squishes or clines, or on unergative/unaccusative verbs, etc. there is a clear idea that word class categories such as Noun, Verb, etc. are not really adequate: they are prototypical categories with some more representative than others and with non-discrete boundaries, etc. Cf. ablaze in the Oxford dictionary where it is stated to be an adjective "but not before nouns". It seems that this could be expressed just as well by dividing the adjective class into predicates and modifying/attributive and creating two classes. Or one can do what Levin did with English verbs and create subclasses (e.g., 'wave verbs' vs. 'crook verbs', if I remember correctly, with the former being able to delete the body part and the second not: I waved my hand goodbye/I waved goodbye cf. I crooked by neck to see/I crooked to see. While these might be morphosyntactic classes, there are also semantic groups as well as something like frame semantics might be worth looking. Cf. poliwi poliwi in the context of V N and the present indicative usually has the meaning of 'to be lacking' poliwi mokone:w 'Your child is missing (e.g., hasn't arrived) But in the perfective it would mean 'to get lost' o:poliw mokone:w 'You child got lost' One cannot use, I don't think poliwi (present) NP to mean 'gets lost' except with certain adverbial modifiers Mohmo:stla poliwi mokone:w ('Every day your child gets lost' although one could also interpret this as 'Every day your child is late/lacking') Best, jonathan On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Amith wrote: > I think that one must analyze any meaning/use of a verb with a specific > context of utterance (both the words surrounding it and the actual > situation in which something is said). For me, certain verbs can be used in > the present indicative to indicate an ongoing action: > > cho:ka mokone:w 'Your child is crying' (said by one person to another > upon hearing a child cry in the other room; I would find it unusual, though > not wrong, to say cho:katok mokone:w, at least in Balsas and Sierra > Nororiental) > > ?miki mokone:w ? for me not a felicitous statement. I would say, in > Balsas i (or ye) miktok mokone:w 'Your child is dying' > > o:mik mokone:w 'Your child is dead', 'Your child has died' > > koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is snapped' (i.e., is in the state that > results from it having snapped in two, cut in two) > > i koto:ntok mola:soh 'Your rope is on the verge of snapping' (i.e., it is > being frayed against something as it about to snap apart) > > It is a matter for empirical analysis to determine which verbs belong in > which paradigm (frame, or whatever). The process of research should be > similar to that undertaken by Beth Levin for English verb classes. The > result would be a sort of cline in which certain verbs ("cho:ka" verbs) > would use the present indicative as a progressive and the durative (-tok, > -tikah) would be a sort of more emphatic statement of progressivity. A > second set of verbs (e.g. "miki" verbs) would use the perfective as a > stative/resultative. Finally, a third set would use the durative marker > (-tok, -tikah) as a resultative and would mark the progressive with "ye". > The last two categories come somewhat together with some internal > variation, e.g., miki. Cf. also poliwi. I would find it more usual to say > 'o:poliw X' than 'poliwtok X' to indicate 'X is lost' 'o:poliw notomi:n' > 'My money is lost' 'My money got lost' And cf. 'i polihtok' 'It is starting > to get out of sight'. But with wa:htlapolihtok there is a progressive sense > that doesn't require "ye" and with the sense of a countryside becoming > obscured as a rain and mist are approaching. > > Note that in N. Veracruz, and somewhat in N. Puebla (though less so) -tok > can have a sort of perfect meaning > > nitakwahtok a in N. Puebla 'I've already eaten'. > > Basically, then, verb classes are a matter for empirical investigation in > the context of use and, significantly, can be used as diagnostics for > classes of verbs. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen < > magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote: > >> But Joost and John >> >> That definition of "stative" is semantic, and it defines "statives" as a >> semantically defined subclass of intransitive verbs. IN contrast, several >> Mesoamerican languages including Maya, Totonacan and Otomian have been >> analyzed as having a *syntactic *class of stative verbs that behave >> morphosyntactically different from other verbs and which also tend to >> include semantic content about properties or states. That is what my >> analysis of Nahuatl wordclass suggests is a useful way of understanding >> and >> describing the morphological and syntactic behavior of words like >> "kwalli", >> "weyi" and "yolik", "chichiltik". >> >> Lots of verbs have a stative meaning, but as long as they behave the same >> as all other verbs there is no reason to set them apart as a wordclass. >> The >> specific reason the verb *nehnemi *has a stative like meaning (actually I >> would consider it progressive and not stative) is that it is a >> reduplicated >> form that has been lexicalized, and reduplication was historically used to >> form the frequentative aspect. >> >> best, >> M >> >> >> >> On 15 January 2013 13:00, wrote: >> >> > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> > >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> > >> > You can reach the person managing the list at >> > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> > >> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> > >> > Today's Topics: >> > >> > 1. Re: Nahuatl word classes (John Sullivan) >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: John Sullivan >> > To: Joost Kremers >> > Cc: nahuatl discussion list >> > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:58 -0600 >> > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl word classes >> > Piyali Joost, >> > But if this is the case, then, at least in Modern Huastecan >> > Nahuatl, the present tense is inherently stative. "ninehnemi", for >> example >> > doesn't mean "I walk", it means "I am walking". To get it to mean "I >> walk" >> > you have to add an adverb. For example, "Mohmoztlah ninehnemi", "I walk >> > everyday". I still don't understand the difference between, "ninehnemi" >> and >> > ninehnenticah". I'll have to run this by the macehualmeh here at IDIEZ. >> > Best, >> > John >> > >> > On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joost Kremers >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi John, >> > > >> > > Though I can't comment on your Nahuatl examples in particular, there >> is >> > > a working definition of statives that might help. In general, a verb >> is >> > > stative if it describes a situation or property without specific >> > > duration. That is, if you can split up the event being described into >> > > smaller subevents and these subevents can still be described by the >> same >> > > verb form, then the verb form is stative. >> > > >> > > So "He is sleeping" is stative because if the sleeping lasts for say >> > > eight hours, and you consider any subinterval of those eight hours, >> you >> > > can describe each correctly with "he is sleeping". On the other hand, >> > > "he fell asleep" is not stative, because if the falling asleep takes >> 10 >> > > minutes, then any subinterval does not constitute a falling asleep >> > > event. >> > > >> > > HTH >> > > >> > > Joost >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 04 2013, John Sullivan wrote: >> > >> Piyali listeros, >> > >> I'm a little confused with how the word stative is used (in >> > linguistics?). Would all of these words be considered stative? >> > >> 1. Cuaciyah tlachihchihualli. "It's a hand-made chair". >> > Tlachihchihualli is a noun formed from the passive form of a verb, and >> > refers to the result of an action. >> > >> 2. Cuaciyah chichiltic. "It's a red chair". Chichiltic literally >> means >> > "it has become a very red chilli". This seems to me to be the >> relationship >> > of a metaphor, in other words, chair is identified with a chilli, it is >> not >> > in a certain state. >> > >> 3. Eliazar ihcatoc. "Eliazar is standing". Ihcatoc is literally "he >> > stands up and has rested in that state." >> > >> 4. Eliazar mocehuihtoc. "Eliazar is seated." Mocehuihtoc is literally >> > "He sits down and has rested in that state." >> > >> John >> > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Fri Jan 18 23:23:05 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 Subject: temo, temoa Message-ID: Piyali notequixpoyohuan, I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: nitemoc (pret) nitemoa (pres.) nitemoz (fut.) What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. John _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Jan 19 00:08:09 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 Subject: temo, temoa In-Reply-To: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often written for -ohua. Interesting. Always a surprise. We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before it was lost. Michael Quoting Michael McCafferty : > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > > > > > Quoting John Sullivan : > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >> "c". >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >> is a better explanation here. >> 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 mmccaffe at indiana.edu Fri Jan 18 23:50:19 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 Subject: temo, temoa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? Quoting John Sullivan : > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > nitemoc (pret) > nitemoa (pres.) > nitemoz (fut.) > What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > "c". > I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > is a better explanation here. > 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 tekuani at hotmail.es Sat Jan 26 03:44:38 2013 From: tekuani at hotmail.es (Jacinto Acatecatl) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:44:38 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). > From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 > > Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list atN > nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) > 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 > From: John Sullivan > To: nahuatl discussion list > Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > nitemoc (pret) > nitemoa (pres.) > nitemoz (fut.) > What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". > I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. > John > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 > From: Michael McCafferty > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > > Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the > classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often > written for -ohua. > > Interesting. Always a surprise. > > We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a > pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian > language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders > who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, > and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before > it was lost. > > Michael > > Quoting Michael McCafferty : > > > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > > > > > > > > > > Quoting John Sullivan : > > > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > >> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > >> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > >> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >> nitemoc (pret) > >> nitemoa (pres.) > >> nitemoz (fut.) > >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > >> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > >> "c". > >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > >> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > >> is a better explanation here. > >> John > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nahuatl mailing list > >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 > From: Michael McCafferty > To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > > > > > Quoting John Sullivan : > > > Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > > I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > > there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > > descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > > nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > > nitemoc (pret) > > nitemoa (pres.) > > nitemoz (fut.) > > What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > > double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > > "c". > > I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > > on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > > is a better explanation here. > > 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 > > > End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Sat Jan 26 18:13:38 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:13:38 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca su blusa." Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >> >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list atN >> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >> From: John Sullivan >> To: nahuatl discussion list >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >> >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >> >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >> written for -ohua. >> >> Interesting. Always a surprise. >> >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >> it was lost. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >> >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >> >> >> >> >> Quoting John Sullivan : >> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>> "c". >>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> 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 >> >> >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> *************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 idiez at me.com Sat Jan 26 19:55:48 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:55:48 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <1359228271.88482.YahooMailClassic@web142402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael, En las atestaciones m?s antiguas de la escritura alfab?tica durante la Colonia, los nahuas escrib?an la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us". 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relaci?n antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us". 3. Como part?cula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". "he/she did it for us". Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opci?n. Tambi?n desapareci? la funci?n antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que pod?a utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirti? en marcador del pret?rito exclusivamente. Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como precl?tico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo. Nosotros aqu? en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminolog?a: tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo" tlatzinpihuililli, "precl?tico" tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional" tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo" tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado" tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root" tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo" tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional" tlatzonpihuililli, "poscl?tico" Un abrazo, John On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: > > Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. > > John, ?cu?l es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un cl?tico como ma? > > > --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: > > From: John Sullivan > Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" > Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM > > Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca su blusa." > Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." > "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > > > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). > > > > > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 > >> > >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to > >> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list atN > >> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) > >> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > >> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 > >> From: John Sullivan > >> To: nahuatl discussion list > >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > >> Message-ID: > >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > >> > >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >> nitemoc (pret) > >> nitemoa (pres.) > >> nitemoz (fut.) > >> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". > >> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. > >> John > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 > >> From: Michael McCafferty > >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > >> > >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the > >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often > >> written for -ohua. > >> > >> Interesting. Always a surprise. > >> > >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a > >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian > >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders > >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, > >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before > >> it was lost. > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : > >> > >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting John Sullivan : > >>> > >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >>>> nitemoc (pret) > >>>> nitemoa (pres.) > >>>> nitemoz (fut.) > >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > >>>> "c". > >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > >>>> is a better explanation here. > >>>> John > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Nahuatl mailing list > >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 3 > >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 > >> From: Michael McCafferty > >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa > >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" > >> > >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting John Sullivan : > >> > >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, > >>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and > >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to > >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), > >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: > >>> nitemoc (pret) > >>> nitemoa (pres.) > >>> nitemoz (fut.) > >>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've > >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a > >>> "c". > >>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending > >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there > >>> is a better explanation here. > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 > >> *************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Jan 26 19:05:49 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:49 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I found Mr. Acatecatl's past tense prefix o- written separate from the verb as native speaker's predilection, so to speak, since that o- can have intermittent quanta before the appearance of the verb stem, as for example, in "ohuel mic" rather than the equally workable "huel omic". I'm not sure why we write the possessive suffixes attached to the nouns. They seem to *work* unattached. Mr. Acatecatl, how would you write "I saw him" using the verb "itta"? Michael Quoting John Sullivan : > Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca > su blusa." > Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." > "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > >> >> >> >> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria >> busca su atuendo/vestimenta). >> >> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). >> >> >> >>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >>> >>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >>> From: John Sullivan >>> To: nahuatl discussion list >>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >>> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, >>> and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is >>> a "c". >>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> John >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >>> From: Michael McCafferty >>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>> >>> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >>> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >>> written for -ohua. >>> >>> Interesting. Always a surprise. >>> >>> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >>> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >>> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >>> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >>> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >>> it was lost. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >>> >>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>> >>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>> "c". >>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>> John >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >>> From: Michael McCafferty >>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>> *************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 19:24:31 2013 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:24:31 -0800 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. John, ?cu?l es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un cl?tico como ma? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca su blusa." Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." ??? "qui-",? "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona),? Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >> >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> ??? nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> ??? http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> ??? nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list atN >> ??? nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>???1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>???2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>???3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >> From: John Sullivan >> To: nahuatl discussion list >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >> >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> ??? I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >> ??? What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >> ??? I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset=ISO-8859-1;??? format="flowed" >> >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >> written for -ohua. >> >> Interesting. Always a surprise. >> >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >> it was lost. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> ??? I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> ??? What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>> ??? I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset=ISO-8859-1;??? format="flowed" >> >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >> >> >> >> >> Quoting John Sullivan : >> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> ??? I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>> ??? What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>> "c". >>> ??? I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> 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 >> >> >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> *************************************** > ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at me.com Sat Jan 26 20:09:06 2013 From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:09:06 -0600 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan. Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, when the scribe's quill ran out of ink. John On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:55 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > Michael, > En las atestaciones m?s antiguas de la escritura alfab?tica durante la Colonia, los nahuas escrib?an la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. > 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us". > 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relaci?n antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us". > 3. Como part?cula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". "he/she did it for us". > Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opci?n. Tambi?n desapareci? la funci?n antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que pod?a utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirti? en marcador del pret?rito exclusivamente. > Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como precl?tico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo. > Nosotros aqu? en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminolog?a: > tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo" > tlatzinpihuililli, "precl?tico" > tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional" > tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo" > tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado" > tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root" > tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo" > tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional" > tlatzonpihuililli, "poscl?tico" > Un abrazo, > John > On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: > >> >> Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. >> >> John, ?cu?l es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un cl?tico como ma? >> >> >> --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: >> >> From: John Sullivan >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" >> Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM >> >> Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca su blusa." >> Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." >> "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes >> >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). >>> >>> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >>>> >>>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>>> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>>> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>>> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >>>> From: John Sullivan >>>> To: nahuatl discussion list >>>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >>>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >>>> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >>>> written for -ohua. >>>> >>>> Interesting. Always a surprise. >>>> >>>> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >>>> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >>>> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >>>> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >>>> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >>>> it was lost. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >>>> >>>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>>> >>>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>>> "c". >>>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>>> John >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>> >>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>> >>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>> "c". >>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>> *************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Sat Jan 26 20:15:19 2013 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <2CF1FD64-0C93-433E-A485-57E184E077FA@me.com> Message-ID: Of course! But what I'm getting is, what is going in the native speaker's mind. Quoting John Sullivan : > But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers > during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the > noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate > element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan. > Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document > in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, > when the scribe's quill ran out of ink. > John > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:55 PM, John Sullivan wrote: > >> Michael, >> En las atestaciones m?s antiguas de la escritura alfab?tica durante >> la Colonia, los nahuas escrib?an la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. >> 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did >> it for us". >> 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relaci?n antes del verbo. >> "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us". >> 3. Como part?cula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". >> "he/she did it for us". >> Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opci?n. Tambi?n >> desapareci? la funci?n antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que pod?a >> utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se >> convirti? en marcador del pret?rito exclusivamente. >> Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe >> verse como precl?tico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del >> verbo. >> Nosotros aqu? en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminolog?a: >> tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo" >> tlatzinpihuililli, "precl?tico" >> tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional" >> tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo" >> tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado" >> tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root" >> tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo" >> tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional" >> tlatzonpihuililli, "poscl?tico" >> Un abrazo, >> John >> On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: >> >>> >>> Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos. >>> >>> John, ?cu?l es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un cl?tico como ma? >>> >>> >>> --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: >>> >>> From: John Sullivan >>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>> To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" >>> Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM >>> >>> Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca >>> su blusa." >>> Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." >>> "qui-", "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes >>> >>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona), Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria >>>> busca su atuendo/vestimenta). >>>> >>>> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >>>>> >>>>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >>>>> nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list atN >>>>> nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>>>> 2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>>> 3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >>>>> From: John Sullivan >>>>> To: nahuatl discussion list >>>>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >>>>> >>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for >>>>> publication, and there is something I can't explain. The >>>>> intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic >>>>> should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), >>>>> actually works like this: >>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really >>>>> is a "c". >>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes >>>>> depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't >>>>> know if there is a better explanation here. >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 2 >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >>>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>>> >>>>> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >>>>> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >>>>> written for -ohua. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. Always a surprise. >>>>> >>>>> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >>>>> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >>>>> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >>>>> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >>>>> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >>>>> it was lost. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >>>>> >>>>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>>>> "c". >>>>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 3 >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >>>>> From: Michael McCafferty >>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >>>>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" >>>>> >>>>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>>>> >>>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>>>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>>>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>>>> "c". >>>>>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>>>> is a better explanation here. >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >>>>> *************************************** >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nahuatl mailing list >>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 20:28:20 2013 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:28:20 -0800 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, entonces tu afirmaci?n se trata de una prescripci?n ortogr?fica y no un argumento ling??stico, ?no? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 To: "Michael Swanton" Cc: "Jacinto Acatecatl" , nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 2:55 PM Michael, En las atestaciones m?s antiguas de la escritura alfab?tica durante la Colonia, los nahuas escrib?an la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras.?1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us".2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relaci?n antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh",?"he/she did it for us".3. Como part?cula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh".?"he/she did it for us". Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opci?n. Tambi?n desapareci? la funci?n antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que pod?a utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirti? en marcador del pret?rito exclusivamente.? Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como precl?tico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo. Nosotros aqu? en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminolog?a:tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo"tlatzinpihuililli, "precl?tico"tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional"tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo"tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado"tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root"tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo"tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional"tlatzonpihuililli, "poscl?tico" Un abrazo,JohnOn Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton wrote: Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos.John, ?cu?l es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un cl?tico como ma? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan wrote: From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM Quitemoa, "?l/ella lo/la busca. Mar?a quitemoa icoton, "Mar?a busca su blusa." Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "baj?". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por all? baj?." ??? "qui-",? "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl wrote: > > > > ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona),? Mar?a ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta). > > ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ah? baje). > > > >> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600 >> >> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to >> ??? nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> ??? http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> ??? nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list atN >> ??? nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>???1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan) >>???2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >>???3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600 >> From: John Sullivan >> To: nahuatl discussion list >> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII >> >> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >> ??? I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >> nitemoc (pret) >> nitemoa (pres.) >> nitemoz (fut.) >> ??? What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a "c". >> ??? I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there is a better explanation here. >> John >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset=ISO-8859-1;??? format="flowed" >> >> Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the >> classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often >> written for -ohua. >> >> Interesting. Always a surprise. >> >> We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a >> pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian >> language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders >> who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups, >> and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before >> it was lost. >> >> Michael >> >> Quoting Michael McCafferty : >> >>> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting John Sullivan : >>> >>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>>> ??? I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>>> nitemoc (pret) >>>> nitemoa (pres.) >>>> nitemoz (fut.) >>>> ??? What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>>> "c". >>>> ??? I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>>> is a better explanation here. >>>> John >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nahuatl mailing list >>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500 >> From: Michael McCafferty >> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa >> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset=ISO-8859-1;??? format="flowed" >> >> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua? >> >> >> >> >> Quoting John Sullivan : >> >>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan, >>> ??? I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and >>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to >>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret), >>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this: >>> nitemoc (pret) >>> nitemoa (pres.) >>> nitemoz (fut.) >>> ??? What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've >>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a >>> "c". >>> ??? I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending >>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there >>> is a better explanation here. >>> 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 >> >> >> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 >> *************************************** > ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Sun Jan 27 04:08:43 2013 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:08:43 -0500 Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <2CF1FD64-0C93-433E-A485-57E184E077FA@me.com> Message-ID: John, ome Michaels, and all, Sometime during my first semester of graduate school, my professor was discussing an issue of linguistics and he abruptly interrupted his discourse and opened his eyes wide and looked at us. Of course, we already knew his lecturing rhythm -- after the pause, he was going to tell us "One of the Big Truths". Henry Kahane had studied with some of the most important philologists of Europe. In the late '30s he fled Hitler and ended up at the University of Illinois, teaching both philology and American Structuralism. He was ready to tell us the First of his Rules about analyzing a language with input from a native speaker: "Zee native speaker is never wrong." --The native speaker is the source of data for the linguist who seeks to describe his language. And then Kahane smiled and said, "And zee second Rule is that you must never trust the zee native speaker as a linguist... that is, he is not trained in analysis, but he is the ultimate source of the data." So when I started learning Nahuatl in Tepoztlan in the Summer of 1962, it would never have occurred to me to ask don Juanito if the sequence "oten" ('it filled up') was one word or two ("oten" or "o ten"). I assumed that the logical structure of the language would soon reveal the answer and it soon did. It turned out that all nouns, verbs, and other major word classes, have penultimate stress, and since in the sequence [o..t..e..n..], the [o] is stressed and the [e] is without stress, it must be one word, not two. How else could I account for a stressless word ("ten")? The same logic leads one to assume that "nocal" is one word, not two. Back to the two Rules -- a little reflection leads you to the conclusion that ideal linguist is the Native Speaker who has learned the logic of linguistic analysis! Joe Quoting John Sullivan : > But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers > during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the > noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate > element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan. > Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document > in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, > when the scribe's quill ran out of ink. > John > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl