Nahuatl Digest, Vol 318, Issue 1

[Jonathan Amith]

David Tuggy also has an excellent article on tla-

http://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9284

2010. “Function becomes meaning: The case of Nawatl tla-.” In McElhanon,
Kenneth A. and Ger Reesink, A Mosaic of Languages and Cultures: Studies
celebrating the career of Karl J. Franklin, 310-326. SIL Electronic
Publications #19.

As Una notes, in the Sierra Nororiental ta- has been extended beyond its
use in other Nahuatl languages with which I am familiar. Also, use of ta-
does not seem to preclude referentiality, particularly among younger
speakers.

Two earlier and generally pertinent articles:

D. J. Allerton. 1975. Deletion and proform reductioin. Journal of
Linguistics 11:213-37.

Charles J. Fillmore. 1986. Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora.
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society, pp. 95-107






On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Magnus Pharao Hansen <
magnuspharao at gmail.com> wrote:

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