Two questions from Zacatecas

[John Sullivan, Ph.D.]

Hi Michael,
    Example 1: I realize the postpositions are dealing with two different
relationships. What I am concerned about is the fact that the grammatical
relationship between the verb and one of its objects, "Juan", is different
in each sentence. Actually, this grammatical relationship doesn't even
appear to exist in the first example: the two object prefix slots allowed
for the applicative verb "ilhuia" are occupied by "no" and "te", and yet,
another object, "Juan", is present in the sentence. Reexamining Molinia, I
see that there are two relevent possibilities for "teilhuia":
"ninoteilhuia", "quejarse a la justicia", and "niteteilhuia", "acusar a
otro". If we are going to use the example with the reflexive pronoun (as is
the case in the example that started this discussion), it would seem to me
that there would be two possibilities for mentioning the person against whom
the complaint is lodged: "niteteteilhuilia" (and I have never seen this
before), or "itechcopa ninoteilhuia Juan" (I believe this structure is
common).
    Example 2: I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing in any of the
grammars an explanation for object prefix order based on the indirect/direct
object distinction. I know it works out this way most of the time because
indirect objects tend to be human, but if as a matter of fact the order is
based on the human/non human distinction or on the animacy hierarchy, as
Sergio Romero from Tulane commented a while ago, I would like to know.
    John

On 7/12/02 7:33 AM, "Michael Mccafferty" <mmccaffe at indiana.edu> wrote:

> John,
> I figured Joe or Fran would respond to this message.
>
>
> Your question #1:
>
> As you realize the postpositional elements in your two phrases are not
> related in the sense that the first speaks of the relationship between the
> subject of the verb and the whoever "y'all" was, while the second speaks
> of the relationship between the verb and the person that the verb is
> talking about. There's nothing that would prohibit postpositions with
> different referents to appear in the same phrase. *Amixpantzinco
> ninoteilhuia itechcopa in Juan sounds good to me. (Course, at some point
> Joe and Fran will come in and sort all this out, but I'll keep sticking my
> neck out here for a cleaner cut.)
>
> What is curious about your two phrases is that the verb 'complain' seems
> to express a different grammatical nature in each; seems we are
> seeing two ways of expressing the same idea.
>
> The first: '(It-is-before-y'all)  I-am-complaining  it-is-Juan'
>
>
> The second: 'it-is-against-him  we-are-complaining  it-is-the-padre'
>
>
> Your question #2:
>
> Occasionally, rarely, someone will create an utterance with a "semantic"
> hierarchy that is traditionally not grammatical by placing an object
> pronoun with a **human** referent (not *animate* referent)  over a
> object pronoun with a **non-human** referent (not **inanimate** referent.
> In other words, the traditional, expected order of indirect object over
> direct object and secondary indirect object over primary indirect object
> breaks down in favor of a  human/non-human consideration. This doesn't
> happen often.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael McCafferty
>
> =========================
>
>
> On Wed, 10
> Jul 2002, John Sullivan, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> Two questions regarding Classical Nahuatl:
>>
>> 1. In the sentence, "amixpantzinco ninoteilhuia Juan (a abbreviated form of
>> one of the examples from  Lockhart's grammar)", "In your (plural) presence,
>> I make a complaint against Juan", how is "Juan" connected to the verb? I see
>> that in Molina, this is the form used. However, in the Jalostotitlan
>> document I am working on, we see "itechcopa timoteilguia yn tovicario", "we
>> make a complaint in relation to our priest." And I believe I have seen this
>> form often. Is there a rule in Nahuatl preventing the use of two
>> postpositions with one verb, and is this why there is nothing connecting
>> Juan to the verb in the first example?
>>
>> 2. Is animacy only a criterion for deciding whether a noun can be
>> pluralized, or is it also a criterion for determining the order and
>> hierarchy of verbal object prefixes. If it is, how does this mesh with the
>> human/non-human distinction mentioned in the rules on pages 171-173 of
>> Campbell and Karttunen's grammar, vol.1, and especially in the specific
>> object prefix slot?
>>             John Sullivan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Michael McCafferty
> 307 Memorial Hall
> Indiana University
> Bloomington, Indiana
> 47405
> mmccaffe at indiana.edu
>
>
>