Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1

Magnus Pharao Hansen magnuspharao at gmail.com
Fri Nov 22 18:21:05 UTC 2013


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



More information about the Nahuat-l mailing list