-ti verber (again-1)

[M Launey]

Dear listeros.

Sorry for coming back to a cold case, but I had promised to do so.

Mary and Joe’s rationale consists of two points : (1) there are two different verbers –ti, one meaning « be » and one meaning « have » ; (2) the proof of this difference lies in the causative, which is in –ti-lia in the first case, e.g. tlāca-ti-lia lit. « cause to become a human being », i.e. « give birth to »), in –tia in the second case, e.g. cac-tia « cause to have shoes », i.e. « shoe » (the verb, as in « Who’s gonna shoe your pretty little foot »). Let me suggest another approach and try to convince you that it is more satisfactory.

Objection (1) I still challenge anyone to find a single example of ni-cac-ti / ni-cal-ti / ni-nān-ti etc. meaning « I have shoes / a house / a mother » etc. In this meaning, you find ni-caqu-ê / ni-cal-ê / ni-nān-ê etc., or oncâ no-cac / no-cal / no-nān etc. ; or in some dialects ni-c-piya no-cac etc. I’ll return later to some possible examples adduced by Mary Clayton and Tomas Amaya. But you could say : OK, you never find that, but there is an underlying structure with that meaning, so let’s pass to another objection

Objection (2) There is nothing like a clear translinguistic meaning of « be » and « have » : there are specific uses of these specific verbs in English, which only partly correspond to the uses of partly similar verbs in other languages, e.g. French « être » and « avoir », not to speak of Spanish which has « ser » + « estar » (would one of them, or both, be the « real » « be » ?), and still less of languages that have no verb « have », or neither « have » nor « be ». Actually, « be » and « have » typically belong to grammar, not to lexicon. This means that, like grammatical categories (say, number, aspect…) or syntactic rules and constraints, they mark abstract structures and relations, which are organized by each language in its own specific way, and which cannot be captured by a single word belonging to a specific language. [In this particular case, it is something like « X is spotted (I find it hard to find a good translation of French repérer) with relation to Y, located near Y », or « Y is the localisator (again, French « repère » is better) of X ». But this is not the main point here.]

Objection (3) I have challenged the translation (again, I say translation, not meaning) « have » for –ti. But translating –ti by « be » may be still worse. « I’m a lord » (if I dare say) is ni-tēuc-tli, not ni-tēuc-ti, which has more into it. Whatever the translation of –ti, one thing is sure : it forms verbs from noun (sometimes adverb) stems. That is, it confers verbal categories (tense, aspect, mood) to a notion that by itself lacks such categories. Moreover, -ti verbs are clearly dynamic, i.e. verbs of action. So if you translate them by the most prototypically stative English verbs, which are most particular (and defective) in relation to aspect, you miss the most interesting and explanatory point.

[Before coming to a suggestion : note that English « be » and « have » are more easily used in some typical verbal (i.e., aspectual or modal) contexts that in other languages. For instance, they may be used in imperative, e.g. « Be brave », but this means « behave bravely », and could perfectly be translated by a –ti verb in Nahuatl (xicuāuhti, xocēlōti lit. « behave like an eagle and a jaguar) ; or « have a drink », but it means « take a drink », not « be the owner of a drink ». I said in a preceding message that this English idiosyncrasy could be part of the misunderstanding, for instance in French « be brave » has a plausible exact translation (« sois brave »), but if you translate « have a drink » by « aie un verre », it sounds silly (except in some contexts, but this would lead us astray)]

So, my suggestion : a verb which has the structure N-ti is used to mark a behavior of some sort which has as an effect the realization of N : not as a stable property, but as an action. And here we come to what is admittedly an idiosyncrasy of Nahuatl grammar, because there are two different cases, which can mislead us into the « be » vs. « have » theory. The real difference is that this behavior can apply (a) to oneself, or (b) to an external object.

Case (a) (to oneself) : the person who can say ni-tēuc-ti can also say ni-tēuc-tli (I’m a lord, and so ni-tēuc-ti : I behave / act like a lord), or at least shares some properties (e.g. while the lord is away, I take on his charge and responsibilities), or accedes to the status of lord (inceptive aspect : I become a lord, or in the same way ni-tlācati « I become a human being – by birth »). In many cases, translation by « be » is possible, but impoverishing because it blurs the dynamic nature of the verb.

Case (b) (to an external object) This is more unusual (and you can imagine a language which would have a morpheme very similar to Nahuatl –ti, but only of type (a)). Actually, it seems very lexicalized and not as freely productive as case (a). In this case, there is a clear action, which brings something (usually inanimate) to existence. For obvious reasons the « be » interpretation is ruled out : of course, if you say ni-tequi-ti, you can hardly say ni-tequi-tl. But the « have » translation is in most cases awkward and sometimes just impossible : « I have medicine » is not a satisfying gloss for ni-pah-ti, even if you take « have » as a paraphrase of « take » (and still worse if it is a paraphrase of « possess »).

In a nutshell : the best gloss for N–ti is not the opposed pair « be »/ « have », but rather a single one, « make N exist », and if you look for a single, semantically vague and encompassing word, « do » is better than both « be » and « have ».

But I fear to bore you with long messages, so please wait for a following one, dealing with the « causative » issue and Mary’s examples.

Best

Michel L.





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