Chimalpahin

[campbel at INDIANA.EDU]

Dear Rikke Marie,

   I'm sure that when Una was talking about "tla" and "tli", she was referring
to the historical evolution of the form of the absolutive suffix in final
position.  I doubt that she was referring to an internal "tla", since nouns
don't retain their absolutive suffixes when they are non-final and either
compounded or embedded in verbs.  Of course, there are some noteworthy
exceptional forms where a part of the absolutive suffix "peeks through" -- as in
"altepetl" or in the placename "Alpoyecan".  But there is a reason why we
consider these forms **exceptional**!  That's because the absolutive suffix
doesn't appear word-internally!

   I didn't say that "tlatoca" involves an inanimate object of -tla.  What I
said was that the "tla-" (which is an object at some stage of the word
derivation -- and is an object in dynamically form verbs) is fused to the
verbstem, creating, at the surface level, an intransitive unit.  Thus, there are
not *two* noun elements involved before the verbstem, only one: "oh-".  *But*
since "tlatoca" is intransitive, "oh-" does not fulfill the role of object --
it acts adverbially, just as many nouns function before intransitive verbstems
(e.g., "ni-coyo-nehnemi", 'I crawl on all fours').  So "toca doesn't have two
objects, or even one object -- it has no objects.

Saludos,

Joe

Quoting Rikke Marie Olsen <dr.rom at DANSEMUS.DK>:

> Dear Joe and Galen
>
> I belive my teacher Una Canger told me that the -tla in òtla actually is the
> pure form of the absolutive suffix. The -a- is normally not strong enough to
> hold and usually transforms to an -i-. But in this particular incorporation
> of òtli into ò-tla-toca, the -a- can hold its position.
>
> I think Joe is right about some forms being lexicalized to always appear
> with the inanimate object of -tla. But in this case that would give you two
> objects - first the incorporated root of ò- and second the inanimate object
> og -tla-. But -toca only takes one object...?!
>
> Rikke Marie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nahua language and culture discussion [mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU]
> On Behalf Of campbel at INDIANA.EDU
> Sent: 27. maj 2005 00:18
> To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Chimalpahin
>
> Quoting José Rabasa <jrabasa at CALMAIL.BERKELEY.EDU>:
>
> > As you point out the otlatoca is attested by
> > Molina, and figures earlier in the passage. I
> > cannot answer the question you pose as to the
> > passage from -tli in otli to -tla- in otlatoca.
> >
>
>
> Tocayo,
>
>    I collected some examples of "ohtlatoca" last night and I think I've
> cleaned
> out (most of) the irrelevant ones.  Galen's commentary has covered beyond
> what I
> could have said when onicochmic.  I just wanted to add a comment to the
> problem
> about the mysterious "tla".   The active morphology of Nahuatl involves
> forms
> such as the following:
>
>   ni-c-toca     I follow him
>
>   ni-tla-toca   I follow something
>
> And, as in the case with other verbs, "tla-" sometimes fuses to form a new
> intransitive verb "tlatoca" (to follow or continue along).  The noun stem
> "oh-"
> is then prefixed adverbially.  "Tla-" fusion is sometimes recognizable by
> the
> placement of those adverbial nouns -- the position inside the adverbial noun
> (close to the verb) is an indication of fusion, just as is the reduplication
> of
> the "tla-", since objects don't reduplicate, but something fused and made
> into
> an integral part of the verb stem will.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Joe
>
>