Nahuatl Digest, Vol 284, Issue 3

Sat Jan 26 20:15:19 UTC 2013

Of course!

But what I'm getting is, what is going in the native speaker's mind.

Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:

> 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
>

_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl