Chimalpahin

[Rikke Marie Olsen]

I agree, Michael. 

Joe, you may well be right. However, I didn't say that it wasn't an
exceptional form to have òtli with its original absolutive suffix
incorporated into -toca. Obviously it is. But as we already discussed, it is
not unprecedented: altepetl, atli (to drink water), atlacui. 

Michel Launey backs you up in that you can have a monotransitive form with a
fossilized or fused tla, and still have a nominal root. In fact the nominal
root can still function as an object because the -tla looses its right as an
object in these cases.

Where I'm not entirely convinced yet is where I don't have any examples of
tlatoca without the ò-. If it is in fact a fossilized form in classical
nahuatl, it should exist in the original documents.

I looked at Eisinger's Index to Florentine Codex, Molina's dictionary,
Carochi and Michel Launey, and was not able to find a form of tlatoca
without the ò-. Also I tried to find it with other nominal roots, as I
figured you could follow other things than roads, but still no hit.

Does anyone have any examples of the verb tlatoca (in the sense of following
something) from an original source?

Rikke Marie

Ps. Una actually did talk about the internal -tla-, because we discussed the
word òtlatoca, as it appears in Florentine Codex 8 (in the story of
Nanahuatzin and Teucziztecatl turning into the sun and the moon).
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nahua language and culture discussion [mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU]
On Behalf Of mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU
Sent: 27. maj 2005 12:59
To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: Chimalpahin

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
> >
> >
>