Tlein ticmati?

[Galen Brokaw]

Michael,
I see the importance of your clarification. If the "ti" were interpreted
as causative, then it wouldn't make sense. If it were causitive, one
would expect that what we are dealing with really isn't a benefactive
form but rather an honorific consisting of the causative in conjunction
with the benefactive, in which case one would expect to find the
reflexive "mo" at the beginning of the word. And actually that would be
possible in that the "mo" might be disguised in the "quin-hual" really
being "quin-mo-hual". Of course, if that were the case, the verb would
have to be "cuepcayo." But, as your clarification indicates, this isn't
a verb; its a noun (actually a verb which has been converted into a
noun) with the suffix "tia" which turns it back into a transitive verb.
It seems to me that the benefactive is appropriate in this context, no?
So, maybe one has a choice here of using the benefactive or not.
Moreover, this sentence inherently has both a specific direct object and
a specific indirect object but only one of these objects may appear
because of the rule that prevents a construction like
"quimquimcuepcayotilique." So, maybe they use the benfactive to
emphasize the presence of the indirect object which doesn't appear
explicitly. I wonder if this is a general practice: using the
benefactive form precisely because one is prevented from explicitly
expressing the indirect object.

Galen



Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> Let me restate my original query:
>
>
>
> In the Florentine Codex, Book 12, page 6, fourth paragraph from the top
> there is a recounting of the exchange of gifts that occurred at the first meeting of the Aztecs and the
> Spanish:
>
> It reads: "quinhualcuepcayotilique," which D. and A. translated "[the
> Spaniards] gave them gifts in return".
>
> quin-hual-cuepcayotia-lia
>
> Can someone explain why the benefactive is used here? Couldn't
> one have simply said *quinhualcuepcayotique?
>
> *Tlatlaxtlahui*
> ,
>  Michael
>