Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1

[Magnus Pharao Hansen]

Una Canger made this argument in her 2007 article "Some languages do not
respect the designs of linguists". She argues that the syntactic function
of the two forms of tla- is the same, namely to pragmatically demote an
object, subject or location to non central status in the clause. She argues
for this reason that tla- is neither derivative nor inflectional but
belongs in a different category altogether, in the realm of sentence
pragmatics.

https://www.academia.edu/1430077/Some_languages_do_not_respect_the_designs_of_linguists_2007_

best,
Magnus



>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>
> To: list nahuatl discussion <nahuatl at lists.famsi.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:09:10 -0600
> Subject: [Nahuat-l] tla- huan tla- (huan te-)
> Okeedokee listeros,
>         I would like to propose that the tla- impersonal verbal prefix and
> the tla- non-specific, non-human object prefix are, in fact, the same
> thing. They occupy the same position with respect to the root and they
> share a function. Both reduce the valence of the verb. The impersonal
> prefix reduces an intransitive verb to an impersonal verb and the
> non-specific, non-human object prefix reduces a bitransitive verb to a
> transitive verb, or a transitive to an intransitive one. So, if this is
> right, we should no longer consider the te- and the tla- nonspecific object
> prefixes as inflectional morphemes: they would be derivational. And as
> such, when used they are always fused to the root, creating a new word.
> John
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl