Suffix -NI

[t_amaya at megared.net.mx]

	 Susana, nimitzyoltlapalohua 

	I’d like to help you with some examples taken from
Cuetzalan-Nahuat. I will write the T with tl for better understanding.
Of course I have in mind the writings of Olmos, Molina, Carochi and
other authors of our times. The examples are understood and produced
by people that have nahuat as mother language and prefer the use of
nahuat for everyday communication.  

	A. 

	1.    A difference:  

	_cualoni_ comes from a transitive “verb” cua (tlacua: nitlacua,
titlacua, 0-tlacua, etc.) 

	_micohuani_ comes from an intransitive “verb” miqui (nimiqui,
timiqui, 0-miqui, etc.). Truly, it comes from the impersonal form of
miqui: micoa 
	2.    So, when you are saying: _YN NANACATL IZTAC, CUALONI; CUALONI
‘N IZTACNANACATL_, you are meaning “the mushroom, the white one,
is edible”; “the white mushroom is edible”. Thus, cualoni means
“something/somebody edible” “that is edible” “that we can
eat” being cualo the passive form (nicualo, ticualo, etc.: I am
eaten, you are eaten, etc). But “cualo” also may mean “it is
eaten” (vid. R. Andrews), in Spanish: SE COME, ALGO QUE SE COME.
Thus: the ending particle NI is like an “agent” marker: the one
that, who, (Spanish: el que, la que, lo que). This way you have the
translation: cualoni = the one that is eaten, edible (Sp. lo que se
come, comestible).  
	3.    When you say: _TLACUALONI_, you are saying “the one that is
eaten-thing” simplifying: the one is eaten-thing; inverting: thing
(by which) the one is eaten; simplifying again: thing through which it
is eaten; interpreting: thing trough which things are eaten; i. e. an
instrument, a mean to make the eating possible. Thus,TLACUALONI may
be: a table, a room to eat, etc. 

	B.  

	1. MICOHUANI is not the same case. It scarcely admits tee an tlaa
(person-particle; thing-particle). If we combine micohuani with te or
tla it sounds improper but we understand it with very open eyes. BUT
WE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE COMBINANTION AS INSTRUMENTAL-MAKING (THING
THROUGH WHICH) BUT AS NOMINAL (THAT IS, WHO IS) OR ACCUSATIVE (THING
TO, THING THAT IS TO CAUSE). But attention: Because micohuani comes
from a intransitive verb, and itself it is the impersonal form of
_miqui_,  then it is not necessary (and is not grammatically
admissible to put them) to use te or tla particles. Thus,  when we are
talking about things,  micohuani only means: “the one of death”
“something of death” “something mortal” (sp. algo de muerte,
algo mortal), e.g. _YN TAMAZOLIN íN ICHIHCHI MICOHUANI_ (toad’s
spit is mortal; as for the toad, its spit is mortal).  

	Note: In Cuetzalan we prefer to use temictiani. _YN NANACATL
TLILTIC, TEMICTIANI_ (the black mushroom is poisonous, mortal)   

	2. But if we talk about persons, the matter is a little different.
In the example: _MICOHUANI ‘N MOTLATZIN, AMO TOTECH POHUI OC_, it
means: Your oncle is almost dead. He belongs to death, no more to us;
i.e. _micohuani_ could easily mean:  the one that is dying, who is
dying. But not “mortal” as when used as adjective for things (see
previous paragraph).  

	Micohua as impersonal may mean: it dies, many die, there is death
(sp. se muere, la gente muere, hay muerte). Thus, combining _micohua_
+ _ni_, we have for persons: “the one who is dying, who dies and
suddenly comes into life but again goes into death, because his real
state is that of someone who is practically dead”.  

	In a word: micohuani= belonging to death.  

	5. For this reason, there ist not _te-micohuani, tlamicohuani_, as
instrumental forms. We have to say _temictiloni (a dagger, a rifle),
tlamictiloni_ (a butcher’s knife). Talking about the liquor from
sugar cane (aguardiente or refino) and considering that we usually
drink it  because we want, we like it, we can express:  _yn refino
nemictiloni_,  translation: the aguardiente is mortal, killing. But
_MICTILONI_ comes from _MICTíA_ (_TLAMICTíA_, to kill animals,
things; _TEMICTíA_, to kill persons). 

	Nel cenca nehpactía ín onimitzpalehuihtoc.  

	Tomas Amaya 
 On Wed 27/07/11 10:34 AM , "Susana Moraleda" susana at losrancheros.org
sent:
  Sorry to disturb everybody with a question that to many may seem
stupid, but
 I have no other alternative but to ask here, after having consulted
a number
 of grammars. I ask you to please be patient with me.
 Suffix -NI as far as I know, is added to verbs in three instances
(other
 than customary present):
 1) as agentive - added to the present tense - e.g. CUICANI (one who
sings)
 2) as instrumental - added to the impersonal - e.g. NEITTALONI
(instrument
 with which to see oneself = mirror)
 3) as adjective - added to the passive - e.g. CUALONI (eatable)
 My problem is how to distinguish (2) from (3)
 My reasoning is that, given that the impersonal is used with both
transitive
 and intransitive verbs (only with 3rd person sing), and the passive
is used
 only with transitive verbs, does this also apply in the creation of
 instruments and adjectives?
 So an intransitive verb can only become instrumental and not
adjective?
 and a transitive verb may become both instrumental and adjective?
 For example
 MICOHUANI (MICOHUA, impersonal, - death is going on - intransitive)
 can only mean "instrument with which to kill - poison", but not
 "killable"?
 NEITTALONI (ITTALO, passive, - he is seen - transitive/refl)
 can be "mirror", but can it also mean "mirrorable" or "seeable"?
 How to distinguish the latter?
 Sorry for the confusion and thanks a million for any feedback.
 Susana
 _______________________________________________
 Nahuatl mailing list
 http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl [2]
-------------------------
Este e-mail fue enviado usando Webmail Meg at red.

Links:
------
[2]
http://webmail.megared.net.mx/parse.php?redirect=http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl