article on Aztecs

[Frances Karttunen]

>not like saying "su majestad"? or "se enojo"?
>
The verb zo:ma: 'to frown (in anger)' is reflexive in Nahuatl.  So it has
to take the mo- prefix, even when used as a name.  The te:uc- 'lord' in
this construction functions as an adverb meaning something like 'in a
lordly fashion'.  Zo:ma: is a "class 4" or "class D" verb and takes a final
glottal stop in the preterite form.  Since the glottal stop generally
wasn't written in the traditional orthography, one gets orthographic
"-zoma" rather than -zo:mah."

One sees the preterite form more clearly in Cuauhtemoc (Cua:uhtemo:c) 'he
has descended in the manner of an eagle' because temo: is a class 1/class A
verb and takes the suffix -c in the preterite.  Temo: is NOT a reflexive
verb in Nahuatl, so there is no initial mo-.

Isn't it interesting that from language to language, which verbs are
reflexive and which are not isn't predictable?

Another example is the Nahuatl verb pa:qui, which is NOT relexive in
Nahuatl, even though it can usually be properly translated into English as
'to enjoy oneself' (i.e., reflexive in English).

Languages are just fascinating in their variety and elegance.


>
>Frances Karttunen wrote:
>>
>> >This is because mo = reflexive as in 'su sen~or, que se enoja' I
>> >understand?
>> >
>>
>> Maybe more like "he has frowned in a lordly fashion".
>>
>> Fran