Ambiguity

[Galen Brokaw]

Joe,
I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate 
morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place.
Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In other 
words, is it possible that even the form that has been identified as 
using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the construction 
involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer "-ti-" and the 
causative "-a"?
I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms is 
that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested in 
other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive nouns 
are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't the 
formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated by the 
"noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an attested 
patientive form?
Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that patientive 
nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand correctly, do not 
take specific object prefixes. So one might argue that you would not 
expect patientive nouns to have the specific object prefixes that occur 
in the causative form. However, it seems to me that in the context of a 
verbalized patientive noun, there would be no reason not to 
reincorporate specific object prefixes. The restriction against specific 
object prefixes for patientive nouns is strictly pragmatic. The 
pragmatics of the patientive and resultant-state forms do not allow for 
a specific object, because it wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized 
causative form, the pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make 
perfect sense to have either specific or non-specific object prefixes.
A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I 
would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the 
semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form.
Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing 
here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form somehow 
precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" structure? If not, 
then couldn't we explain them all using one morphology instead of two?
Galen

Campbell, R. Joe wrote:
> "I think I've found an ambiguous word in Nahuatl!"
>
>    When I say that, I'm assuming that some people will react in
> the same way that my syntax professor did in my early years in
> graduate school when I arrived in class and proudly announced,
> "I think I've found an ambiguous sentence in English."  Ignoring
> the fact that this was just my way of introducing what I thought
> was an interesting sentence, he barely looked up and said, "I
> think if you stop to think about it, *most* sentences in English are
> ambiguous."
>
>    So I assume that most of you know that ambiguity is common in
> Nahuatl.  My aim is simply to bring a particular class of Nahuatl
> words to your attention.
>
>    By "ambiguity", I mean what linguists mean, not the meaning
> that is probably the first one referred to in everyday
> conversation, which is "not clear, uncertain in meaning".
> The use in linguistics refers to a word, phrase, or sentence which
> has more than one syntactic structure, such as "I hate visiting relatives":
>
>   1. I hate the activity of visiting (particularly relatives);
>
>   2. I hate relatives, the kind who visit.
>
>    Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl has many examples of
> ambiguity, one of which involves the structure of compound nouns
> with at least three components.  Nouns with two components like
> "petlacalli" and "teocuitlatl" obviously can have only one structure,
> but nouns like "tepozpetlacalli" (iron or copper box or chest) and
> "teocuitlacozcatl" (gold ornament) have more than one possible
> structure.  I will indicate close relationship with a single
> hyphen and secondary relationship with a double hyphen.
>
> These words are not compounded as follows:
>
>    tepoz-petla-calli       metal chest
>
>    teo-cuitla-cozcatl      gold ornament
>
> where no two adjacent stems are more closely to each other than to
> the third stem.
>
> Neither are they compounded in this way:
>
>    tepoz-petla--calli (hinting at an intermediate component "tepozpetlatl")
>
>    teo--cuitla-cozcatl (hinting at an intermediate component "cuitlacozcatl")
>
> That is, we recognize that we are dealing with a "petlacalli" made
> of "tepoztli" and a "cozcatl" made of "teocuitlatl", respectively,
> but there is nothing in the structure of the words that informs us
> of this.
>
>    The word "chilmolcaxitl" presents us with true ambiguity:
>
>    chil-mol-caxitl is both:
>
>     chilmol-caxitl     bowl for chile sauce
> and
>     chil-molcaxitl     sauce bowl for chile
>
>    But I digress.  The ambiguity that I want to address is that of:
>
>    nitetlacualtia  (reasonably glossed as 'I feed somebody')
>
>    The traditional description involves the causative formation:
>
>    nitetla    cua-l-tia      I *cause* someone to eat something
>
> However, "nitetlacualtia" has another possible analysis, parallel
> to "nitecactia" (I provide someone with shoes):
>
>    subj  obj  noun stem    have  causative-a
>
>    ni    te   cac          ti    a
>
>    ni    te   tlacual(li)  ti    a
>
>
>    It should be remembered that ambiguity is something inherent in
> some linguistic structures; it is *there* regardless of whether a
> speaker or hearer perceives it or not.  In other words, when a
> hearer "gets" or understands one meaning of "I hate visiting
> relatives", the other meaning is available for interpretation (and
> is sometimes taken advantage of in jocular exchanges).
>
>    To be explicit about the class of ambiguous words that I am
> pointing to, they comprise verbs that can be interpreted
> as 1) a verb stem with a causative suffix or as 2) a verb stem
> which forms a patientive noun, which noun is suffixed with
> "-ti" (have) + causative-a = "-ti-a" (provide with).  Here is a
> short list of examples:
>
> In this first group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is obvious
> from the 'l' before '-ti-a'.
>
>   nin-aahuil-ti-a        I provide myself with "ahuilli", I enjoy myself
>     (ahuiya)
>   qui-huical-ti-a        she provides him with a companion or a load;
>     (huica)              she sends it with him
>
>   nicno-mamal-ti-a       I provide myself with it as a load;
>     (mama)               I carry it
>
>   quin-tlacual-ti-a      he provides them with food, he feeds them
>     (cua)
>   ninote-tlaquehual-ti-a I provide myself to someone as a laborer,
>     (tlactli-ehua)       I hire myself out
>
>
> In this second group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is implicit
> before '-ti-a' (i.e., "tlanamictli, quentli, nemactli, cuicatl,
> etc., are nouns).
>
>   nite-tlalnamic-ti-a    I provide someone with a remembered thing,
>     (il-namiqui)         I remind someone of something
>
>   c-ama-quen-ti-a        he provides it with a paper covering,
>     (quemi)              he wraps it with paper
>
>   c-on-nemac-ti-a        he provides him with a given thing (gift),
>     (mo-maca)            he give it to him as a gift
>
>   ni-te-tlatqui-ti-a     I provide someone with a possession,
>     (tla-itqui)          I give away or send something to someone
>
>
>      So, while the the causative in -tia following -l- or other
> nonactive forms and the noun-ti-a formation appear very similar
> because both derive from nonactive verb forms, they differ in that
> the latter is formed with a verb suffix 'ti' followed by a
> causative 'a' and is attached to a stem with nominal rather than
> verbal force.
>
> Iztayomeh,
>
> Joe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>
>
>   
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl