From kelly.mcdonough at austin.utexas.edu  Wed Nov  6 16:52:36 2013
From: kelly.mcdonough at austin.utexas.edu (Kelly McDonough)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:52:36 -0600
Subject: Native American and Indigenous Studies Association meeting in
 Austin, May 2014
Message-ID: <WED.6.NOV.2013.105236.0600.KELLY.MCDONOUGH@AUSTIN.UTEXAS.EDU>

Les escribo para recordarles que la última fecha para enviar propuestas
individuales o de paneles a la conferencia de NAISA - Austin, TX es el 15
de noviembre. Incluyo el enlace donde pueden encontrar informacón sobre la
conferencia y la organización http://naisa.org/node/666. Verán al pie de la
página una convocatoria en español.

Espero que podamos contar con su presencia, y por favor, difundan esta
información a otras personas interesadas.

-- 
Kelly McDonough
Assistant Professor
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B3700
Austin, TX 78712-1611
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl


From idiez at me.com  Fri Nov 22 04:55:06 2013
From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:06 -0600
Subject: tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
In-Reply-To: <20131121201710.gwl7x9you8co0gg4@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.21.NOV.2013.225506.0600.IDIEZ@ME.COM>

Hi Michael,
A. First, examples of the -tla impersonal derivative prefix, taking a verb from 1 to 0 valence (if i understand the concept right)
	1. huaqui, “for s.t. to become dry” > tlahuaqui, “for there to be a drought”
	2. petlani, “for s.t. to glisten” > tlapetlani, “for there to be lightning”
	3. nicochmiqui, “I am sleepy” > tlacochmiqui, “there are lots of sleepy people (in a certain place)"
B. Second, examples of the -tla non-specific non-human object inflectional prefix, taking a verb from 2 to 1 valence (from transitive to intransitive)
	1. niccua nacatl, “I’m eating meat” > nitlacua, “I’m eating”
	2. niccaqui tlatzotzontli, “I’m listening to the music” > nitlacaqui, “I am obeying”
Now Andrews talks about tla- fusion on p. 71, which takes place supposedly, when it’s addition doesn’t just signify a non-specific object, i.e., “things”, but creates a new meaning. This would be the case in example 2, with tlacaqui. I don’t agree with this. I think all of the above tla-’s are the same. They are all derivational and are all fused to the root. The fact that new meanings, semantically distant from the verb of origin, are created is normal for Nahuatl. Being an agglutinating language, it always needs to exploit optional processes of derivation to find new vehicles for carrying meaning. 
C. Third, an example of 3 to 2 valence reduction, with its preparatory stages 
	- niquichtequi tomin, “I’m stealing money” 
	- nimitzichtequilia tomin, “I’m stealing money from you”
	- nimitztlachtequilia, “I’m stealing from you”. I think this is more correct than to say, “I’m stealing things from you”. And I would say the verb is tlachtequilia, and it takes one object. Later I will be arguing that verbs in Nahuatl structurally can never take more than one object.
D. One more example: 3 to 1 valence.
	Xinechmaca tlaxcalli, “Give me tortillas” > Xitetlamaca, “Give”. This is what you would hear from a person soliciting donations, for example. “Please give [things to people] generously this year”
John

On Nov 21, 2013, at 19:17, Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu> wrote:

> John,
> 
> Interesting. Thank you.
> 
> Could you give us examples of the items you're referring to?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:
> 
>> Okeedokee listeros,
>> 	I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
>> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
>> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and
>> they share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The
>> impersonal prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb
>> and the non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive
>> verb to a transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one.
>> So, if this is right, we should no longer consider the te- and the
>> tla- nonspecific object prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they
>> would be derivational. And as such, when used they are always fused
>> to the root, creating a new word.
>> 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 idiez at me.com  Fri Nov 22 16:16:54 2013
From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:16:54 -0600
Subject: -oa
Message-ID: <FRI.22.NOV.2013.101654.0600.IDIEZ@ME.COM>

Mis estimados,
	Supposedly there is a verbing suffix -oa, which creates intransitive verbs from nouns. Some examples would be:
1. tlaxcalli + -oa = tlaxcaloa. nitlaxcaloa, “I am making tortillas.”
2.marchar (incorporated into Nahuatl as a noun) + -oa = marcharoa. nimarcharoa, “I am marching.”
	Now -oa doesn’t look to me much like a morpheme, considering what morphemes look like in náhuatl. Having the two vowels together is kind of strange. And along with the fact that the a drops off for many tenses, and is replaced by h in the preterite stem (suggesting that we are dealing with an older morpheme, -ta or -tla), I would prefer to think that the a is actually a causative suffix working on an impersonal verb, made up of the noun and a verbing suffix, maybe -hui or -hua, which then collapses down into o when the a is added.
	So it would look something like this:
1. tlaxcalli + -hui = tlaxcalhui, “tortillas are made” (not attested anywhere that I am aware of)
2. tlaxcalhui > tlaxcalo + a = tlaxcaloa, “to cause tortillas to be made”
	Unmerciful criticism is welcome.
John
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl


From magnuspharao at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 18:21:05 2013
From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:21:05 -0600
Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1385143202.24897.nahuatl@lists.famsi.org>
Message-ID: <FRI.22.NOV.2013.122105.0600.MAGNUSPHARAO@GMAIL.COM>

Una Canger made this argument in her 2007 article "Some languages do not
respect the designs of linguists". She argues that the syntactic function
of the two forms of tla- is the same, namely to pragmatically demote an
object, subject or location to non central status in the clause. She argues
for this reason that tla- is neither derivative nor inflectional but
belongs in a different category altogether, in the realm of sentence
pragmatics.

https://www.academia.edu/1430077/Some_languages_do_not_respect_the_designs_of_linguists_2007_

best,
Magnus



>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
> To: list nahuatl discussion <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:09:10 -0600
> Subject: [Nahuat-l] tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
> Okeedokee listeros,
>         I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and they
> share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The impersonal
> prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb and the
> non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive verb to a
> transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one. So, if this is
> right, we should no longer consider the te- and the tla- nonspecific object
> prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they would be derivational. And as
> such, when used they are always fused to the root, creating a new word.
> John
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl


From jdanahuatl at gmail.com  Sat Nov 23 05:14:33 2013
From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:14:33 -0500
Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <CAEj69cx6juUK-ZB91zG_ePZdWFFWVWjMiie2LTMPigXg2GpFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.23.NOV.2013.001433.0500.JDANAHUATL@GMAIL.COM>

David Tuggy also has an excellent article on tla-

http://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9284

2010. “Function becomes meaning: The case of Nawatl tla-.” In McElhanon,
Kenneth A. and Ger Reesink, A Mosaic of Languages and Cultures: Studies
celebrating the career of Karl J. Franklin, 310-326. SIL Electronic
Publications #19.

As Una notes, in the Sierra Nororiental ta- has been extended beyond its
use in other Nahuatl languages with which I am familiar. Also, use of ta-
does not seem to preclude referentiality, particularly among younger
speakers.

Two earlier and generally pertinent articles:

D. J. Allerton. 1975. Deletion and proform reductioin. Journal of
Linguistics 11:213-37.

Charles J. Fillmore. 1986. Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora.
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society, pp. 95-107






On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen <
magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote:

> Una Canger made this argument in her 2007 article "Some languages do not
> respect the designs of linguists". She argues that the syntactic function
> of the two forms of tla- is the same, namely to pragmatically demote an
> object, subject or location to non central status in the clause. She argues
> for this reason that tla- is neither derivative nor inflectional but
> belongs in a different category altogether, in the realm of sentence
> pragmatics.
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/1430077/Some_languages_do_not_respect_the_designs_of_linguists_2007_
>
> best,
> Magnus
>
>
>
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
> > To: list nahuatl discussion <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
> > Cc:
> > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:09:10 -0600
> > Subject: [Nahuat-l] tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
> > Okeedokee listeros,
> >         I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix
> and
> > the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> > thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and they
> > share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The impersonal
> > prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb and the
> > non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive verb to a
> > transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one. So, if this is
> > right, we should no longer consider the te- and the tla- nonspecific
> object
> > prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they would be derivational. And as
> > such, when used they are always fused to the root, creating a new word.
> > 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 rgyalrongskad at gmail.com  Sat Nov 23 11:18:17 2013
From: rgyalrongskad at gmail.com (Guillaume Jacques)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:18:17 +0100
Subject: tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
In-Reply-To: <D35E6939-FC83-482D-8430-A01DE418A93C@me.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.23.NOV.2013.121817.0100.RGYALRONGSKAD@GMAIL.COM>

Dear John,

A Uto-Aztecan perspective could be useful here. Langacker (1977:46)
reconstructs the prefixes*ta-- ‘unspecified subject’ and *tI- --
‘unspecified object’, and it could be interesting to have a look in the
rest of the family to see what the syntactic functions of the cognates of
tla- < *ta- are (I understand that there is room for improvement in these
reconstructions).
I have an article on the grammaticalization of antipassive which was just
published, where I briefly mention Nahuatl tla- as an example of non-human
antipassive (p20):

https://www.academia.edu/4483958/Denominal_affixes_as_sources_of_antipassive_markers_in_Japhug_Rgyalrong

Best regards,

Guillaume

Langacker, R.W.,1977. An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar:Studies in
Uto-Aztecan grammar. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of
Texas at Arlington,Dallas.




2013/11/22 John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>

> Hi Michael,
> A. First, examples of the -tla impersonal derivative prefix, taking a verb
> from 1 to 0 valence (if i understand the concept right)
>         1. huaqui, “for s.t. to become dry” > tlahuaqui, “for there to be
> a drought”
>         2. petlani, “for s.t. to glisten” > tlapetlani, “for there to be
> lightning”
>         3. nicochmiqui, “I am sleepy” > tlacochmiqui, “there are lots of
> sleepy people (in a certain place)"
> B. Second, examples of the -tla non-specific non-human object inflectional
> prefix, taking a verb from 2 to 1 valence (from transitive to intransitive)
>         1. niccua nacatl, “I’m eating meat” > nitlacua, “I’m eating”
>         2. niccaqui tlatzotzontli, “I’m listening to the music” >
> nitlacaqui, “I am obeying”
> Now Andrews talks about tla- fusion on p. 71, which takes place
> supposedly, when it’s addition doesn’t just signify a non-specific object,
> i.e., “things”, but creates a new meaning. This would be the case in
> example 2, with tlacaqui. I don’t agree with this. I think all of the above
> tla-’s are the same. They are all derivational and are all fused to the
> root. The fact that new meanings, semantically distant from the verb of
> origin, are created is normal for Nahuatl. Being an agglutinating language,
> it always needs to exploit optional processes of derivation to find new
> vehicles for carrying meaning.
> C. Third, an example of 3 to 2 valence reduction, with its preparatory
> stages
>         - niquichtequi tomin, “I’m stealing money”
>         - nimitzichtequilia tomin, “I’m stealing money from you”
>         - nimitztlachtequilia, “I’m stealing from you”. I think this is
> more correct than to say, “I’m stealing things from you”. And I would say
> the verb is tlachtequilia, and it takes one object. Later I will be arguing
> that verbs in Nahuatl structurally can never take more than one object.
> D. One more example: 3 to 1 valence.
>         Xinechmaca tlaxcalli, “Give me tortillas” > Xitetlamaca, “Give”.
> This is what you would hear from a person soliciting donations, for
> example. “Please give [things to people] generously this year”
> John
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 19:17, Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > Interesting. Thank you.
> >
> > Could you give us examples of the items you're referring to?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:
> >
> >> Okeedokee listeros,
> >>      I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
> >> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> >> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and
> >> they share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The
> >> impersonal prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb
> >> and the non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive
> >> verb to a transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one.
> >> So, if this is right, we should no longer consider the te- and the
> >> tla- nonspecific object prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they
> >> would be derivational. And as such, when used they are always fused
> >> to the root, creating a new word.
> >> 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
>



-- 
Guillaume Jacques
CNRS (CRLAO) - INALCO
http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques
http://himalco.hypotheses.org/
http://panchr.hypotheses.org/
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl

From lahunik.62 at skynet.be  Sat Nov 23 15:14:55 2013
From: lahunik.62 at skynet.be (Baert Georges)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:14:55 +0100
Subject: Tla impersonal prefix
Message-ID: <SAT.23.NOV.2013.161455.0100.LAHUNIK.62@SKYNET.BE>

Nahuatl Digest Vol.318,Issue 1

Cua, is a transitive verb.

So I can specify what I'm eating, meat i.e.

Ni-c-cua nacatl.

But I'm not always obliged to say what I'm eating.

In that case I use the impersonal or neutral prefix tla-.

Ni-tla-cua.

So what is the problem.

Baert Georges

Lahun ik 62

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


From kelly.mcdonough at austin.utexas.edu  Wed Nov  6 16:52:36 2013
From: kelly.mcdonough at austin.utexas.edu (Kelly McDonough)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:52:36 -0600
Subject: Native American and Indigenous Studies Association meeting in
 Austin, May 2014
Message-ID: <WED.6.NOV.2013.105236.0600.KELLY.MCDONOUGH@AUSTIN.UTEXAS.EDU>

Les escribo para recordarles que la ?ltima fecha para enviar propuestas
individuales o de paneles a la conferencia de NAISA - Austin, TX es el 15
de noviembre. Incluyo el enlace donde pueden encontrar informac?n sobre la
conferencia y la organizaci?n http://naisa.org/node/666. Ver?n al pie de la
p?gina una convocatoria en espa?ol.

Espero que podamos contar con su presencia, y por favor, difundan esta
informaci?n a otras personas interesadas.

-- 
Kelly McDonough
Assistant Professor
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B3700
Austin, TX 78712-1611
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl


From idiez at me.com  Fri Nov 22 04:55:06 2013
From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:06 -0600
Subject: tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
In-Reply-To: <20131121201710.gwl7x9you8co0gg4@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.21.NOV.2013.225506.0600.IDIEZ@ME.COM>

Hi Michael,
A. First, examples of the -tla impersonal derivative prefix, taking a verb from 1 to 0 valence (if i understand the concept right)
	1. huaqui, ?for s.t. to become dry? > tlahuaqui, ?for there to be a drought?
	2. petlani, ?for s.t. to glisten? > tlapetlani, ?for there to be lightning?
	3. nicochmiqui, ?I am sleepy? > tlacochmiqui, ?there are lots of sleepy people (in a certain place)"
B. Second, examples of the -tla non-specific non-human object inflectional prefix, taking a verb from 2 to 1 valence (from transitive to intransitive)
	1. niccua nacatl, ?I?m eating meat? > nitlacua, ?I?m eating?
	2. niccaqui tlatzotzontli, ?I?m listening to the music? > nitlacaqui, ?I am obeying?
Now Andrews talks about tla- fusion on p. 71, which takes place supposedly, when it?s addition doesn?t just signify a non-specific object, i.e., ?things?, but creates a new meaning. This would be the case in example 2, with tlacaqui. I don?t agree with this. I think all of the above tla-?s are the same. They are all derivational and are all fused to the root. The fact that new meanings, semantically distant from the verb of origin, are created is normal for Nahuatl. Being an agglutinating language, it always needs to exploit optional processes of derivation to find new vehicles for carrying meaning. 
C. Third, an example of 3 to 2 valence reduction, with its preparatory stages 
	- niquichtequi tomin, ?I?m stealing money? 
	- nimitzichtequilia tomin, ?I?m stealing money from you?
	- nimitztlachtequilia, ?I?m stealing from you?. I think this is more correct than to say, ?I?m stealing things from you?. And I would say the verb is tlachtequilia, and it takes one object. Later I will be arguing that verbs in Nahuatl structurally can never take more than one object.
D. One more example: 3 to 1 valence.
	Xinechmaca tlaxcalli, ?Give me tortillas? > Xitetlamaca, ?Give?. This is what you would hear from a person soliciting donations, for example. ?Please give [things to people] generously this year?
John

On Nov 21, 2013, at 19:17, Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu> wrote:

> John,
> 
> Interesting. Thank you.
> 
> Could you give us examples of the items you're referring to?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:
> 
>> Okeedokee listeros,
>> 	I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
>> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
>> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and
>> they share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The
>> impersonal prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb
>> and the non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive
>> verb to a transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one.
>> So, if this is right, we should no longer consider the te- and the
>> tla- nonspecific object prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they
>> would be derivational. And as such, when used they are always fused
>> to the root, creating a new word.
>> 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 idiez at me.com  Fri Nov 22 16:16:54 2013
From: idiez at me.com (John Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:16:54 -0600
Subject: -oa
Message-ID: <FRI.22.NOV.2013.101654.0600.IDIEZ@ME.COM>

Mis estimados,
	Supposedly there is a verbing suffix -oa, which creates intransitive verbs from nouns. Some examples would be:
1. tlaxcalli + -oa = tlaxcaloa. nitlaxcaloa, ?I am making tortillas.?
2.marchar (incorporated into Nahuatl as a noun) + -oa = marcharoa. nimarcharoa, ?I am marching.?
	Now -oa doesn?t look to me much like a morpheme, considering what morphemes look like in n?huatl. Having the two vowels together is kind of strange. And along with the fact that the a drops off for many tenses, and is replaced by h in the preterite stem (suggesting that we are dealing with an older morpheme, -ta or -tla), I would prefer to think that the a is actually a causative suffix working on an impersonal verb, made up of the noun and a verbing suffix, maybe -hui or -hua, which then collapses down into o when the a is added.
	So it would look something like this:
1. tlaxcalli + -hui = tlaxcalhui, ?tortillas are made? (not attested anywhere that I am aware of)
2. tlaxcalhui > tlaxcalo + a = tlaxcaloa, ?to cause tortillas to be made?
	Unmerciful criticism is welcome.
John
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl


From magnuspharao at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 18:21:05 2013
From: magnuspharao at gmail.com (Magnus Pharao Hansen)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:21:05 -0600
Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1385143202.24897.nahuatl@lists.famsi.org>
Message-ID: <FRI.22.NOV.2013.122105.0600.MAGNUSPHARAO@GMAIL.COM>

Una Canger made this argument in her 2007 article "Some languages do not
respect the designs of linguists". She argues that the syntactic function
of the two forms of tla- is the same, namely to pragmatically demote an
object, subject or location to non central status in the clause. She argues
for this reason that tla- is neither derivative nor inflectional but
belongs in a different category altogether, in the realm of sentence
pragmatics.

https://www.academia.edu/1430077/Some_languages_do_not_respect_the_designs_of_linguists_2007_

best,
Magnus



>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
> To: list nahuatl discussion <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:09:10 -0600
> Subject: [Nahuat-l] tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
> Okeedokee listeros,
>         I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and they
> share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The impersonal
> prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb and the
> non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive verb to a
> transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one. So, if this is
> right, we should no longer consider the te- and the tla- nonspecific object
> prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they would be derivational. And as
> such, when used they are always fused to the root, creating a new word.
> John
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl


From jdanahuatl at gmail.com  Sat Nov 23 05:14:33 2013
From: jdanahuatl at gmail.com (Jonathan Amith)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 00:14:33 -0500
Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <CAEj69cx6juUK-ZB91zG_ePZdWFFWVWjMiie2LTMPigXg2GpFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.23.NOV.2013.001433.0500.JDANAHUATL@GMAIL.COM>

David Tuggy also has an excellent article on tla-

http://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9284

2010. ?Function becomes meaning: The case of Nawatl tla-.? In McElhanon,
Kenneth A. and Ger Reesink, A Mosaic of Languages and Cultures: Studies
celebrating the career of Karl J. Franklin, 310-326. SIL Electronic
Publications #19.

As Una notes, in the Sierra Nororiental ta- has been extended beyond its
use in other Nahuatl languages with which I am familiar. Also, use of ta-
does not seem to preclude referentiality, particularly among younger
speakers.

Two earlier and generally pertinent articles:

D. J. Allerton. 1975. Deletion and proform reductioin. Journal of
Linguistics 11:213-37.

Charles J. Fillmore. 1986. Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora.
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society, pp. 95-107






On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen <
magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote:

> Una Canger made this argument in her 2007 article "Some languages do not
> respect the designs of linguists". She argues that the syntactic function
> of the two forms of tla- is the same, namely to pragmatically demote an
> object, subject or location to non central status in the clause. She argues
> for this reason that tla- is neither derivative nor inflectional but
> belongs in a different category altogether, in the realm of sentence
> pragmatics.
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/1430077/Some_languages_do_not_respect_the_designs_of_linguists_2007_
>
> best,
> Magnus
>
>
>
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
> > To: list nahuatl discussion <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
> > Cc:
> > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:09:10 -0600
> > Subject: [Nahuat-l] tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
> > Okeedokee listeros,
> >         I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix
> and
> > the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> > thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and they
> > share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The impersonal
> > prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb and the
> > non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive verb to a
> > transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one. So, if this is
> > right, we should no longer consider the te- and the tla- nonspecific
> object
> > prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they would be derivational. And as
> > such, when used they are always fused to the root, creating a new word.
> > 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 rgyalrongskad at gmail.com  Sat Nov 23 11:18:17 2013
From: rgyalrongskad at gmail.com (Guillaume Jacques)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:18:17 +0100
Subject: tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
In-Reply-To: <D35E6939-FC83-482D-8430-A01DE418A93C@me.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.23.NOV.2013.121817.0100.RGYALRONGSKAD@GMAIL.COM>

Dear John,

A Uto-Aztecan perspective could be useful here. Langacker (1977:46)
reconstructs the prefixes*ta-- ?unspecified subject? and *tI- --
?unspecified object?, and it could be interesting to have a look in the
rest of the family to see what the syntactic functions of the cognates of
tla- < *ta- are (I understand that there is room for improvement in these
reconstructions).
I have an article on the grammaticalization of antipassive which was just
published, where I briefly mention Nahuatl tla- as an example of non-human
antipassive (p20):

https://www.academia.edu/4483958/Denominal_affixes_as_sources_of_antipassive_markers_in_Japhug_Rgyalrong

Best regards,

Guillaume

Langacker, R.W.,1977. An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar:Studies in
Uto-Aztecan grammar. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of
Texas at Arlington,Dallas.




2013/11/22 John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>

> Hi Michael,
> A. First, examples of the -tla impersonal derivative prefix, taking a verb
> from 1 to 0 valence (if i understand the concept right)
>         1. huaqui, ?for s.t. to become dry? > tlahuaqui, ?for there to be
> a drought?
>         2. petlani, ?for s.t. to glisten? > tlapetlani, ?for there to be
> lightning?
>         3. nicochmiqui, ?I am sleepy? > tlacochmiqui, ?there are lots of
> sleepy people (in a certain place)"
> B. Second, examples of the -tla non-specific non-human object inflectional
> prefix, taking a verb from 2 to 1 valence (from transitive to intransitive)
>         1. niccua nacatl, ?I?m eating meat? > nitlacua, ?I?m eating?
>         2. niccaqui tlatzotzontli, ?I?m listening to the music? >
> nitlacaqui, ?I am obeying?
> Now Andrews talks about tla- fusion on p. 71, which takes place
> supposedly, when it?s addition doesn?t just signify a non-specific object,
> i.e., ?things?, but creates a new meaning. This would be the case in
> example 2, with tlacaqui. I don?t agree with this. I think all of the above
> tla-?s are the same. They are all derivational and are all fused to the
> root. The fact that new meanings, semantically distant from the verb of
> origin, are created is normal for Nahuatl. Being an agglutinating language,
> it always needs to exploit optional processes of derivation to find new
> vehicles for carrying meaning.
> C. Third, an example of 3 to 2 valence reduction, with its preparatory
> stages
>         - niquichtequi tomin, ?I?m stealing money?
>         - nimitzichtequilia tomin, ?I?m stealing money from you?
>         - nimitztlachtequilia, ?I?m stealing from you?. I think this is
> more correct than to say, ?I?m stealing things from you?. And I would say
> the verb is tlachtequilia, and it takes one object. Later I will be arguing
> that verbs in Nahuatl structurally can never take more than one object.
> D. One more example: 3 to 1 valence.
>         Xinechmaca tlaxcalli, ?Give me tortillas? > Xitetlamaca, ?Give?.
> This is what you would hear from a person soliciting donations, for
> example. ?Please give [things to people] generously this year?
> John
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 19:17, Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > Interesting. Thank you.
> >
> > Could you give us examples of the items you're referring to?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:
> >
> >> Okeedokee listeros,
> >>      I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
> >> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> >> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and
> >> they share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The
> >> impersonal prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb
> >> and the non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive
> >> verb to a transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one.
> >> So, if this is right, we should no longer consider the te- and the
> >> tla- nonspecific object prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they
> >> would be derivational. And as such, when used they are always fused
> >> to the root, creating a new word.
> >> 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
>



-- 
Guillaume Jacques
CNRS (CRLAO) - INALCO
http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques
http://himalco.hypotheses.org/
http://panchr.hypotheses.org/
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl

From lahunik.62 at skynet.be  Sat Nov 23 15:14:55 2013
From: lahunik.62 at skynet.be (Baert Georges)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:14:55 +0100
Subject: Tla impersonal prefix
Message-ID: <SAT.23.NOV.2013.161455.0100.LAHUNIK.62@SKYNET.BE>

Nahuatl Digest Vol.318,Issue 1

Cua, is a transitive verb.

So I can specify what I'm eating, meat i.e.

Ni-c-cua nacatl.

But I'm not always obliged to say what I'm eating.

In that case I use the impersonal or neutral prefix tla-.

Ni-tla-cua.

So what is the problem.

Baert Georges

Lahun ik 62

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