Chimalpahin

[Michael McCafferty]

Well put! Thanks for the grammar lesson.

Michael


Quoting 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
> >
> >
>