noun as adverb

Mon Nov 5 15:45:12 UTC 2012

Hi all,

of course, nouns being used as adverbs is nothing strange or
exceptional. Lots of languages do that. In English, for example,
temporal adverbials don't always need a preposition or something
similar. "This week", "last month", "next year" are examples. In "two
days from now", "two days" is a noun phrase modifying "from". Or take an
example such as "he returned the winner" or "he left a desolate man"
(well, in that case, "the winner"/"a desolate man" is a secondary
predicate, not an adverbial, but it's similarly not licensed by the
verb).

In case-marking languages, such nouns are often in accusative case
(although sometimes different cases appear). So in German, you say
"letzt-en Monat" 'last-ACC month' and "dies-en Donnerstag" 'this-ACC
Thursday'. 

And regarding money, in English there is the wondrous phrase "I'll bet
you five bucks he won't go". Now, normally, English verbs allow one, two
or three arguments, but not more. This example, however, seems to have
four: "I", "you", "five bucks" and "he won't go". But if "five bucks"
isn't actually an argument but an adverbial, the problem goes away...

Best,

Joost

On Fri, Nov 02 2012, John Sullivan <idiez at me.com> wrote:
> Piyali notequixpoyohuan,
> 	I just finished working with a student via Skype on a 1677 document from Western Mexico (near Colotlán, Jalisco), and found two more examples of the dangling (adverbial?) noun on one page.
> 1. nechtlaocoliz nosepultura, "Él me regalará mi sepultura.” He will have mercy on me (regarding my burial). Tlaocolia only takes one object.
> 2. ma nechtlapolhui notlahtlacol, “May he forgive my sins.” This verb is normally from the reduplicated form of poloa, “to destroy s.t.” So if poloa takes one object, and polhuia takes two, both of these are spoken for by the tla- and the nech-, leaving notlahtlacol just hanging out there. So again, it would seem that the idea would be “to pardon s.o., with respect to their sins.”
> John
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Jesse Lovegren <lovegren at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi John
>>   Thanks for the example and for clarifying the "ilnamiqui" example (I had been wondering what the double applicative was for!)
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Sullivan <idiez at me.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jess,
>> 	In Modern Huastecan Nahuatl the set ihtlani/ihtlania/ihtlanilia is similar. From what I understand ihtlania and ihtlanilia are alternate applicatives of ihtlani. The problem is that ihtlani can only be used with a specific object meaning, “to ask for a woman‘s hand in marriage.” In all other cases we have:
>> 1. Nitlahtlani, “I ask (a question) or I make a request.”
>> 2. Nimitztlahtlania or Nimitztlahtlanilia, “I ask you a question or I make you a request.”
>> 3a. Nimitztlahtlania queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.”
>> 3b. Nimitztlahtlanilia queniuhqui motocah, “I ask you what your name is.”
>> 3c. Nimitztlahtlania ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.”
>> 3d. Nimitztlahtlanilia ce peso, “I ask you for a peso.”
>> 	I all of the 3s, the “external object” is not supported by the verb.
>> 	One more thing regarding your first example with ilnamiqui. In the example it has two applicative subjects. One is eliminated by the reverencial, but that leaves two objects for the verb: one that ilnamiqui takes naturally and the other from the applicative. So one would correspond to tech- and the other to “in tocnoyo”. So that phase isn‘t technically adverbial, it‘s an object.
>> John
>> 
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "John F. Schwaller" <schwallr at potsdam.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> OMG
>>> 
>>> Lightbulb moment.
>>> 
>>> THANK YOU
>>> 
>>> Tlazohcamati huel miac.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/2/2012 1:35 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
>>>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan,
>>>> 	I have never quite understood some structures in Modern Huastecan Nahuatl such as the following, “Nitlaxtlahuaz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay two pesos.” The verb “ixtlahua” can only take the “tla-” object, which won‘t allow us to specify the object. I can add the applicative, “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz.” “I‘m going to pay you.” Or “Nimitztlaxtlahuiliz ome pesoh.” “I‘m going to pay you two pesos.” But again, the specific amount of money can‘t be an object of the verb. 
>>>> 	So after going back to Andrews (2003, p. 512), I see at the beginning of Lesson 49, “Xochitl ancueponqueh.” “You(pl.) have budded like flowers.” So a stand alone noun can function as an adverb. So perhaps the two pesos in the modern example is an adverb talking about HOW I paid you.
>>>> John
>>>> 	
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Nahuatl mailing list
>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> John F. Schwaller
>>> President
>>> SUNY Potsdam
>>> 44 Pierrepont Ave.
>>> Potsdam, NY  13676
>>> 
>>> schwallr at potsdam.edu
>>> 
>>> tel: 315-267-2100
>>> fax 315-267-2496
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jesse Lovegren
>> University at Buffalo
>> Department of Linguistics
>> 625 Baldy Hall
>> office +1 716 645 0114
>> cell +1 716 352 3643
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl

-- 
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl