in cuappetlapan

[Galen Brokaw]

>
>  the next
> > doubt is 'oimmac' (unless 'imma' means 'their hands', immac = 'in
> > their hands' and o- is the antecessive prefix ??);
>
> sim.  o <o> indica o passado e a traducao de <imma> e correcta.

This is an interesting issue. If "o" is the past tense indicator then it is
being attaching to the locative phrase "immac"[in their hands] rather than
the verb "manca". Did they do this? Is it possible that this "o" is actually
the directional "on" without the "n"? I think a little while back Fran
mentioned "n" dropping, but I'm not sure if this was only in certain
environments. If it is the past tense "o" then does this suggest that the
"immac" is actually imbedded in the verb like nouns often are? I don't know,
but if I had to guess, I would say that the "o" was actually "on".
Galen