Tloc, nahuac, tech, tlan

[David Wright]

Susana:

 

As far as I can see, in early colonial central Mexican Nahuatl -tloc,
-na:huac, -tech (preceded by the ligature -ti- when the noun it follows ends
in a consonant), and -tlan (preceded by the ligature -ti- in place names)
are postpositions; -tla:n (never with -ti-) is a locative suffix.
Postpositions are like English prepositions in that they express relations
(spatial, temporal, and other sorts), and have been labeled as such because
of their similar function, and the fact that they are added to the end of
nouns. Postpositions can also be added to possessive prefixes; the existence
of examples where the latter happens is what distinguishes postpositions
from locative or other sorts of suffixes. This is why -tla:n is usually
labeled as a locative suffix: it’s not found stuck to a possessive prefix.
To label a morpheme a “locative suffix” is a risky proposition, since if an
example can be provided of it being attached to a possessive prefix, then we
would be forced to move it to the category of postpositions.

 

Colonial grammarians (Andrés de Olmos, Alonso Molina, Horacio Carochi, and
others) called postpositions “preposiciones” in spite of their place and the
end of words. The earliest use of the term “postposition” (or its cognates
in French or Spanish) that I’ve seen is in the grammatical sketch by Siméon,
published in 1885. Others have followed this practice, including Ángel María
Garibay, Thelma Sullivan, Joe Campbell, and Frances Karttunen. Richard
Andrews preferred to call them “relational suffixes” in 1975 and now prefers
the phrase “relational NNC” (NNC = “nominal nuclear clause”). Lockhart calls
them “relational words.”

 

The classic example of postpositions behaving like nouns is the name of the
Nahua deity Tloqueh Na:huaqueh, “owner of that which is together, owner of
that which is near”, a ubiquitous, invisible being. Here the
“postpositions”, exceptionally, come first, adding the singular possessive
suffix -eh. The final c in both cases becomes qu because of a Spanish
spelling convention, both being /k/.

 

Alonso Molina’s Arte de la lengua mexicana y castellana (1571), chapter 6
(folios 74r-80v), has a good treatment of postpositions combined with
possessive prefixes. An example is notlan (the first person singular
possessive prefix no- plus the postposition -tlan). Rather than “my with”
(which of course doesn’t make sense in English), notlan means “with me”.

 

As for possible translations, I’ve compiled a list for each postposition (or
in the case of -tla:n, locative suffix), putting together all of the
possibilities I’ve found in a variety of colonial and modern sources. Since
most of these are in Spanish, I’ll leave them in this language, to avoid the
double distortion we would have if I were to translate them into English.

 

Postpositions:

 

-tloc

al lado de/cerca de/con/junto a

 

-na:huac (na:hua + (co - o))

al lado de/cerca de/con/en compañía de/en la vecindad de/junto a

 

-tech

a/adherido a/con/de/en/en contacto con/entre/incorporado a/junto a/sobre

 

-tlan

al lado de/cerca de/con/debajo de/en/en compañía de/en el interior
de/entre/junto a

 

Locative suffix:

 

-tla:n

con/en/entre/junto a/lugar de

 

As you mentioned, there’s a lot of semantic overlap. I guess the next step
would be to observe their use in early colonial texts to get a better grasp
of how they were used.

 

I hope this helps clear things up.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

 

De: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org]
En nombre de Susana Moraleda
Enviado el: martes, 10 de noviembre de 2009 01:50 p.m.
Para: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Tloc, nahuac, tech, tlan

 

 

I'm a bit confused on the uses of TLOC, NAHUAC, TECH and TLAN since they all
have similar meanings.  I've consulted Garibay, Sullivan and Horcasitas, but
the differences are not clear.

·         TLOC and NAHUAC are synonyms and mean "junto a", "cerca de".

·         TECH means "en", "pegado o adherente a", "referente a".

·         (TI)TLAN means "en", "entre", "con", "junto a", "cerca de". And
besides, Garibay says "sobre", while Sullivan says "debajo"!!!

Are there any rules saying when to use which?

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

Susana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20091110/b847eb27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl