Two questions from Zacatecas

[Michael Mccafferty]

Yes, John, I'm acutely aware of what you are talking about in example
numero uno, and i anticipated, though i had not researched it, some sort
of semantic distinction. I don't have the answer. But -tetete- does
exist, as does -tlatlatla-. :)

As for example 2, poke around in Andrews. I believe he discusses the
relationship between the object pronouns and what takes precedence. He may
even discuss the rare case of human over non-human. I also think Joe and
Fran discuss object pronouns in their gramma.

Best,

Michael




 On Fri, 12 Jul 2002,
John Sullivan, Ph.D. wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


Michael McCafferty
307 Memorial Hall
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
47405
mmccaffe at indiana.edu

"Talking is often a torment for me, and I
need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words.
                                                       C.G. Jung

"...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk."
                                    Rumi