Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3

[Jacinto Acatecatl]

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 <idiez at me.com>
> To: nahuatl discussion list <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa
> Message-ID: <F69F9B47-779A-4A26-9B1B-1CAFDD127565 at me.com>
> 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 <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
> 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 <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>:
> 
> > Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:
> >
> >> 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 <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
> 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 <idiez at me.com>:
> 
> > 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