mmccaffe at indiana.edu
Sat Jan 19 00:08:09 UTC 2013
Of course, nitemohua, as far as I know, would be, at least in the
classical language, ungrammatical. But, as you know, John, -oa is often
written for -ohua.
Interesting. Always a surprise.
We just discovered over the last twenty-four hours that a
pan-Algonquian verb root for 'trade, buy' got lost in the Algonquian
language Miami-Illinois and then was brought back by *French* traders
who had learned the verb root from other Algonquian-speaking groups,
and then Miami-Illinoized to look just like it would have looked before
it was lost.
Quoting Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>:
> Could nitemoa be the non-active form of temo, i.e., nitemohua?
> Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:
>> Piyali notequixpoyohuan,
>> I am editing a text in Modern Tlaxcalan Nahuatl for publication, and
>> there is something I can't explain. The intransitive verb, "to
>> descend", which according to my logic should be nitemoc (pret),
>> nitemo (pres.) and nitemoz (fut), actually works like this:
>> nitemoc (pret)
>> nitemoa (pres.)
>> nitemoz (fut.)
>> What in going on with this mictlantlahtolli? And I've
>> double-checked: that final "c" in the singular preterite really is a
>> I know that some verbs fudge around between verb classes depending
>> on the tense (like "to go", for example), but I don't know if there
>> is a better explanation here.
>> Nahuatl mailing list
>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
More information about the Nahuat-l