Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3

John Sullivan idiez at me.com
Sat Jan 26 20:09:06 UTC 2013 

But Michael, that's what agglutinating languages do. Native speakers during the entire Colonial Period wrote the possessor attached to the noun. The fact that many native speakers today write it as a separate element is due to the influence of Spanish; i.e., mi casa = no chan.  Or "Yo te veo", "ni mitz itta". I have never seen an older document in which the possessor is separated from the noun. Except, perhaps, when the scribe's quill ran out of ink.
John

On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:55 PM, John Sullivan <idiez at me.com> wrote:

> Michael,
> 	En las atestaciones más antiguas de la escritura alfabética durante la Colonia, los nahuas escribían la "o" antecesiva de tres maneras. 
> 1. Como primer elemento del verbo. "topampa oquichiuh", "he/she did it for us".
> 2. Como primero elemento de una palabra de relación antes del verbo. "otopampa quichiuh", "he/she did it for us".
> 3. Como partícula. "o topampa quichiuh", o bien topampa o quichiuh". "he/she did it for us".
> 	Muy pronto desaparecieron la segunda y la tercera opción. También desapareció la función antecesiva de "o" (o sea, que podía utilizarse con el tiempo futuro y con el pluscuamperfecto) y se convirtió en marcador del pretérito exclusivamente. 
> 	Estoy de acuerdo contigo (si entiendo tu argumento) que ahora debe verse como preclítico; sin embargo, no debe escribirse separado del verbo.
> 	Nosotros aquí en IDIEZ hemos desarrollado la siguiente terminología:
> tlatenmotzquiltilli, "afijo"
> tlatzinpihuililli, "preclítico"
> tlatzinnetecholli, "prefijo inflexional"
> tlatzinpepecholli, "prefijo derivativo"
> tlatocaxtiliztli tlacalaquilli, "sustantivo incorporado"
> tlachihualiztli iyollo, "verb root"
> tlatzonpepecholli, "sufijo derivativo"
> tlatzonnetecholli, "sufijo inflexional"
> tlatzonpihuililli, "posclítico"
> 	Un abrazo,
> John
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Michael Swanton <mwswanton at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Jacinto, gracias por los ejemplos.
>> 
>> John, ¿cuál es tu argumento que o es un prefijo y no un clítico como ma?
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Sat, 1/26/13, John Sullivan <idiez at me.com> wrote:
>> 
>> From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3
>> To: "Jacinto Acatecatl" <tekuani at hotmail.es>
>> Cc: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 1:13 PM
>> 
>> Quitemoa, "él/ella lo/la busca. María quitemoa icoton, "María busca su blusa."
>> Nitemoc, Onitemoc, "bajé". Ic ompa nitemoc, "Por allí bajé."
>>    "qui-",  "i-" y "o-" son prefijos, no palabras independientes
>> 
>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Jacinto Acatecatl <tekuani at hotmail.es> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ki temohua: busca (3ra. persona),  María ki temohua i koton (Maria busca su atuendo/vestimenta).
>>> 
>>> ni temok/ o nitemok: baje, Ik ompa inrtemik (por ahí baje).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org
>>>> Subject: Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3
>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:00:01 -0600
>>>> 
>>>> Send Nahuatl mailing list submissions to
>>>>    nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>>>> 
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>    http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>    nahuatl-request at lists.famsi.org
>>>> 
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list atN
>>>>    nahuatl-owner at lists.famsi.org
>>>> 
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of Nahuatl digest..."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>> 
>>>>  1. temo, temoa (John Sullivan)
>>>>  2. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty)
>>>>  3. Re: temo, temoa (Michael McCafferty)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:23:05 -0600
>>>> From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
>>>> To: nahuatl discussion list <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
>>>> Subject: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa
>>>> Message-ID: <F69F9B47-779A-4A26-9B1B-1CAFDD127565 at me.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>>>> 
>>>> 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 "c".
>>>>    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.
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 2
>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:08:09 -0500
>>>> From: Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa
>>>> Message-ID: <20130118190809.9hn3s9yqio4gswww at webmail.iu.edu>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=ISO-8859-1;    format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Michael
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>>> "c".
>>>>>>    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.
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Nahuatl mailing list
>>>>>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>>>>>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 3
>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:19 -0500
>>>> From: Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>
>>>> To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] temo, temoa
>>>> Message-ID: <20130118185019.zvwkyh1zsc8sokgw at webmail.iu.edu>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=ISO-8859-1;    format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>> "c".
>>>>>    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.
>>>>> John
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> End of Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3
>>>> ***************************************
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Nahuat-l mailing list