Mayan [re: universality of grammatical functions]

[Rachel Nordlinger]

Stuart Robinson said:

>I've noticed a number of comments about "Mayan" (quoted below). Could
>someone clarify which Mayan languages are claimed not to possess
>grammatical functions? It is worth pointing out that many Mayan
>languages do possess grammatical functions. In Tzotzil, for example,
>the existence of objects can be established on the grounds that
>various grammatical phenomena require rules that appeal to a
>grammatical function rather than just a thematic role. Passivisation
>in Tzotzil is best accounted for by positing a grammatical function of
>object which is distinct from the thematic role of patient (as shown
>by possessor raising).

Stuart has correctly picked me up here on inexcusable sloppiness in my
original message to Joan.  The language I was thinking of is called
Oluta Popoluca, and is Mixe-Zoquean not Mayan.  It was just an error
from typing the original message off too quickly, and then not editing
when I transferred quickly-typed private messages into the public domain!

Sorry for causing the confusion.

Rachel