ome tlahtlaniliztli

[M Launey]

Dear John and dear listeros

I don’t have much to say about question 1. As for question 2, there is in my opinion a simple answer, but it raises new problems.

The answer is : cecec (or even cece:c, see below), is not the preterite of cece:ya, but is directly formed on the root ce-, following a productive pattern which gives « adjectives » derived from noun stems, such as izta-c, xoco-c (and probably other ones with less clear stems, like poye-c, coco-c, tzopeli-c, I leave alone the problem of vowel length)

I know the objection : izta-c could be a haplology for izta-ya-c. But deleting a whole syllable like /-ya-/ is unlikely and otherwise not clearly attested (the more so if xoco-c is supposed to come from xoco-ya-c or poye-c from poye-ya-c, i. e. with a preceding vowel other than /a/), and let me suggest another one which has a wider impact : the preterit value is not the basic one for the suffix –c (/-k/ and its variants (/-ki/ or zero – the plural /–k-e’/ guarantees its presence in the latter case – plus /–ka:-/ in derivation). Actually, it seems more reasonable and more fruitful to consider /-k/ with its variants as a participle marker. I hope not to bother you, but I need a few lines to explain this point.

1. The Latin word participium is a translation from Greek metochè, which first appeared as one of the eight “parts of speech” in the Grammar of Dionysius Thrax. These words were coined to express the fact that this form shares some properties with both the verb and the noun (adjectives being in the early grammatical theories a subclass of nouns): stating participles as part adjectival and part verbal forms appears a little everywhere in traditional grammars as well as in present-day linguistics. This is precisely what we have in Nahuatl: a sort of mixed or intermediate class of words, which can have more verbal or more adjectival/nominal uses, and be derived from both nominal and verbal stems.

2. The fact that a noun stem like izta- can receive a participial suffix has lots of parallels in many languages, for instance adjectives ending (just like past participles) in –é in French (e.g. orange > orangé “which has the color of an orange”, while there is no verb *oranger), or in –tus in Latin (barba > barbatus “bearded”, there is no verb *barbo, *barbare), and even in English (bearded is common, but the verb to beard is uncommon and does not mean “provide with a beard”). 

3. Considering as participles all words in /-k/ (and variants) leads to a more comprehensive interpretation, since it accounts for all of their semantic values and uses: as past or future tense (“I wrote” = “I am having written”; “I will write” = “I am having to write” – which again has parallels in many languages, e.g. in Slavic languages where the “preterit” in –l is clearly an verbal adjective, i.e. a participle); and in more typically nominal (i.e.: tenseless) words such as agent nouns and possessive nouns in –ê, -huâ and –yô (“provided with N”, as in beard-ed above).

In that case, there is no need for restoring verb stems or derivative verbs everywhere.

The fact that inchoative derived verbs in /-ya/ have the same distribution as “adjectives” in /-k/ like izta-c (or more clearly deverbal ones like tlil-ti-c) is an interesting fact, but is not a hint for deletion of /-ya-/: actually, “preterits” (if you like) in –ti-ya-c are attested (sorry, I’m away from my Nahuatl library and can give no real corpus example right away).

This leaves the problem of vowel length in cece-c. The first /e/ is clearly short, and first syllable reduplication /CV-/, i.e. with a short vowel, if admittedly much more unusual that /CV:-/ (with long vowel) and /CV'-/ (with saltillo), is attested in a few words. But do you really have corpus or dialectal evidence for the second also short? If so (but I'm waiting for convincing data), I’m ready to apologize for stating it long in my grammar. But whatever the case, it has no real incidence on the participial issue.

Best

Michel Launey







> Message du 06/07/14 01:13
> De : "John Sullivan" 
> A : "list nahuatl discussion" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [Nahuat-l] ome tlahtlaniliztli
> 
> Notlazohtequixpoyohuan, I have two questions, and I suspect I may have already asked one of them. 1. There seem to be two “nel-“ roots: one which produces nelli, “truth” and all of its derivatives; and another which produces neloa, "to mix s.t." and maneltic, “for grains, fruits or vegetables that one buys to be of mixed quality (small and large together, fresh and spoiled together, etc.). Are these indeed two separate roots? 2. Words having to do with coldness, seem to have two roots. Cetl, with a short e means “ice”, but it initial derivative forms cece:ya, “to become cold” and ce:hui, “to become cold or extinguished”, have a long e. But cecec, “cold” which would seem to be the preterite agentive of cecēya, has a short e. What is going on? 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