two more on Huastecan Nahuatl

[Michael McCafferty]

-------------------
>> 	Could you explain what is meant by "analogical formation"?
> John
>
>
Juantzi,

Ahmo. I consulted my various selves and I have no idea what one of
them was thinking this morning. Please excuse the interference. I
attribute the strange comment to werewolves baying outside the window.

But it is very odd that the /k/ would maintain in the conditional in
Huastecan Nahuatl but "drop"  in the future. Very strange. Sometimes,
because of frequency of usage, an unexpected form will surface. The
future tense, of course, is a mighty popular syntactical form in
Nahuatl, very frequently employed. So, maybe this is one of those
instances that we can attribute to frequency of usage. It certainly is
a lot easier saying "chocazeh" instead of "chocazqueh".

Now, I do know that in so-called "classical" Nahuatl  /k/ will
sometimes apparently drop after /s/. The example I'm thinking of,
which I'll write in phonetic characters since it seems more
transparent that way, is the word for "here":  /iski/ > /isi/.  (i.e.,
in the traditional orthography for Nahuatl: izqui > ici).

That certainly is very little help, I admit.

Michael




On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:15  AM, Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > In "nimitzilia" ~ "nimitzihlia" which syllable is the strong one?
> >
> > Or, put another way, how are these pronounced?
> >
> > [ni-mitz-i-lya] where [-i-] is the strong syllable, or
> >
> > [ni-mitz-i-li-a] where [-li-] is the strong syllable?
> >
> >
> >
> > As for the future plural question, this is really interesting.
> >
> > fut. sing. [cokas]
> > fut. pl.   [cokaseh]  (or is that [cokase?], where [?] = glottal
stop?)
> > cond.      [cokaskiya] ~ [cokaskia]
> >
> > It looks like future plural is form analogically on future
singular,
> > but I
> > don't know.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 idiez at mac.com wrote:
> >
> >> There are two further characteristics of Huastecan Nahuatl that
puzzle
> >> me:
> >> 1. The plural of the future tense has no /k/, while the
> >> conditional/unfulfilled
> >> action construction does. Here's an example:
> >> future singular: "chocaz"
> >> future plural: "chocaceh"
> >> conditional/ unfulfilled action: "chocazquia"
> >> 2. Instead of "nimitzilhuia", "I tell  you", we have "nimitzilia"
with
> >> the apparent
> >> loss of the /w/ (And it's the same in all tenses). At least one
of my
> >> native
> >> speaking friends, pronounces a very slight aspiration before the
"l".
> >> Something
> >> like "nimitzihlia". I understand that this is metathesis: a
reverse
> >> case of what
> >> Lockhart comments on as the origin of the "-lhuia" applicative
suffix
> >> for Class 3
> >> verbs.
> >> 	Would anyone like to comment on what's going on in these two
cases?
> >>
> >> John Sullivan, Ph.D.
> >> Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas,
A.C.
> >> Francisco García Salinas 604
> >> Colonia CNOP
> >> Zacatecas, Zac. 98053
> >> México
> >> +52 (492) 768-6048
> >> idiez at mac.com
> >> www.idiez.org.mx
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Michael McCafferty
> > Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies
> > Indiana University
> > Bloomington, Indiana
> > 47401
> > mmccaffe at indiana.edu
> >
> > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk."
> >
> > -Rumi
> >
> >
>
>
>