<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBurgoa%5CCONFIG%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabla normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";" lang="EN-US">One linguistic phenomena
being discussed here--certain stems that behave as nouns with regard to
inflection but are always (or almost always) oblique arguments--seems to be quite common
in Mesoamerican languages. Among linguists working in <st1:place w:st="on">Mesoamerica</st1:place>,
the term "relational noun" is frequently used to refer to this. I believe this
usage originated among Mayanists.</span><br><br>--- On <b>Tue, 11/10/09, Michael McCafferty <i><mmccaffe@indiana.edu></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe@indiana.edu><br>Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Tloc, nahuac, tech, tlan<br>To: nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<br>Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:18 PM<br><br><div class="plainMail">Quoting David Wright <<a ymailto="mailto:dcwright@prodigy.net.mx" href="/mc/compose?to=dcwright@prodigy.net.mx">dcwright@prodigy.net.mx</a>>:<br><br>> Susana:<br>><br>><br>><br>> As far as I can see, in early colonial central Mexican Nahuatl -tloc,<br>> -na:huac, -tech (preceded by the ligature -ti- when the noun it follows ends<br>> in a consonant), and -tlan (preceded by the ligature -ti- in place names)<br>> are postpositions; -tla:n (never with -ti-) is a locative
suffix.<br><br><br><br>tla:n is usually seen place names. It's not that common otherwise.<br><br><br>> Postpositions are like English prepositions in that they express relations<br>> (spatial, temporal, and other sorts), and have been labeled as such because<br>> of their similar function, and the fact that they are added to the end of<br>> nouns. Postpositions can also be added to possessive prefixes; the existence<br>> of examples where the latter happens is what distinguishes postpositions<br>> from locative or other sorts of suffixes. This is why -tla:n is usually<br>> labeled as a locative suffix: it’s not found stuck to a possessive prefix.<br>> To label a morpheme a “locative suffix” is a risky proposition, since if an<br>> example can be provided of it being attached to a possessive prefix, then we<br>> would be forced to move it to the category of postpositions.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Colonial
grammarians (Andrés de Olmos, Alonso Molina, Horacio Carochi, and<br>> others) called postpositions “preposiciones” in spite of their place and the<br>> end of words. The earliest use of the term “postposition” (or its cognates<br>> in French or Spanish) that I’ve seen is in the grammatical sketch by Siméon,<br>> published in 1885. Others have followed this practice, including Ángel María<br>> Garibay, Thelma Sullivan, Joe Campbell, and Frances Karttunen. Richard<br>> Andrews preferred to call them “relational suffixes” in 1975 and now prefers<br>> the phrase “relational NNC” (NNC = “nominal nuclear clause”). Lockhart calls<br>> them “relational words.”<br>><br><br>It's a convenience to refer to such entities as "postpositions".<br>However, Andrews demonstrates that such a view is, as it puts it,<br>"ethnocentric (or 'linguicentric')".<br><br>This is of course one of Andrews' fortes, explaining
Nahuatl from<br>within rather from without (i.e., from a European language point of<br>view. English grammar has suffered a somewhat similar fate in having<br>been analyzed in the past through the lens of Latin grammar.)<br><br>As Andrews explains, what we like to term "postpositions" for<br>convenience sake are in truth noun stems "used to form adverbialized<br>NNCs." This is not to say that we can't continue to call them<br>"postpositions," but they are truly not postpositions.<br><br><br>Michael<br><br><br>><br>><br>> The classic example of postpositions behaving like nouns is the name of the<br>> Nahua deity Tloqueh Na:huaqueh, “owner of that which is together, owner of<br>> that which is near”, a ubiquitous, invisible being. Here the<br>> “postpositions”, exceptionally, come first, adding the singular possessive<br>> suffix -eh. The final c in both cases becomes qu because of a Spanish<br>> spelling convention, both
being /k/.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Alonso Molina’s Arte de la lengua mexicana y castellana (1571), chapter 6<br>> (folios 74r-80v), has a good treatment of postpositions combined with<br>> possessive prefixes. An example is notlan (the first person singular<br>> possessive prefix no- plus the postposition -tlan). Rather than “my with”<br>> (which of course doesn’t make sense in English), notlan means “with me”.<br>><br>><br>><br>> As for possible translations, I’ve compiled a list for each postposition (or<br>> in the case of -tla:n, locative suffix), putting together all of the<br>> possibilities I’ve found in a variety of colonial and modern sources. Since<br>> most of these are in Spanish, I’ll leave them in this language, to avoid the<br>> double distortion we would have if I were to translate them into English.<br>><br>><br>><br>>
Postpositions:<br>><br>><br>><br>> -tloc<br>><br>> al lado de/cerca de/con/junto a<br>><br>><br>><br>> -na:huac (na:hua + (co - o))<br>><br>> al lado de/cerca de/con/en compañía de/en la vecindad de/junto a<br>><br>><br>><br>> -tech<br>><br>> a/adherido a/con/de/en/en contacto con/entre/incorporado a/junto a/sobre<br>><br>><br>><br>> -tlan<br>><br>> al lado de/cerca de/con/debajo de/en/en compañía de/en el interior<br>> de/entre/junto a<br>><br>><br>><br>> Locative suffix:<br>><br>><br>><br>> -tla:n<br>><br>> con/en/entre/junto a/lugar de<br>><br>><br>><br>> As you mentioned, there’s a lot of semantic overlap. I guess the next step<br>> would be to observe their use in early colonial texts to get a better grasp<br>> of how they were used.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I hope this helps clear things
up.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Best wishes,<br>><br>><br>><br>> David<br>><br>><br>><br>> De: <a ymailto="mailto:nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org">nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org</a> [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org">nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org</a>]<br>> En nombre de Susana Moraleda<br>> Enviado el: martes, 10 de noviembre de 2009 01:50 p.m.<br>> Para: <a ymailto="mailto:nahuatl@lists.famsi.org" href="/mc/compose?to=nahuatl@lists.famsi.org">nahuatl@lists.famsi.org</a><br>> Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Tloc, nahuac, tech, tlan<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> I'm a bit confused on the uses of TLOC, NAHUAC, TECH and TLAN since they all<br>> have similar meanings. I've consulted Garibay, Sullivan and Horcasitas, but<br>> the differences are not
clear.<br>><br>> · TLOC and NAHUAC are synonyms and mean "junto a", "cerca de".<br>><br>> · TECH means "en", "pegado o adherente a", "referente a".<br>><br>> · (TI)TLAN means "en", "entre", "con", "junto a", "cerca de". And<br>> besides, Garibay says "sobre", while Sullivan says "debajo"!!!<br>><br>> Are there any rules saying when to use which?<br>><br>><br>><br>> Thanks for any thoughts.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Susana<br>><br>><br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Nahuatl mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org" href="/mc/compose?to=Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org">Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org</a><br><a href="http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl"
target="_blank">http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl</a><br></div></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>