-ti verber (again-2)

[M Launey]

Dear listeros

Back to the –ti verber and the « causative » issue.

I tried to explain why both « be » and « have » were bad glosses, and that « do » was better, the most satisfying ones being in fact « cause to exist » or « act in such a way that N becomes a reality » where this reality keeps developing in time (and this fact is expressed by the verbal categories of Tense, Aspect and Mood).

Now, for the two « causatives » e.g. tlāca-ti-lia « cause to be a human being », i.e. « give birth to » (related to the alleged « be » meaning) vs. e.g. cac-tia « cause to have shoes », i.e. « give shoes to », or nān-tia « give a mother to » (related to the alleged « have » meaning). If we give up the « have » gloss of the latter, the difference is accounted for by the « type (a) » vs. « type (b) » opposition, namely : we have –ti-lia with type (a) (an action applied to oneself: tlāca-ti is « realize the existence of a human being by becoming a human being ») vs. –tia with type (b)  (it applies to an external object: tequi-ti is « realize the existence of the tequitl without being a tequitl in any way ».)

But if we drop the « have » meaning, are the N–tia verbs causatives after all ?

For the meaning, tlācatilia « cause to be/become a human being » is indeed the causative of tlācati ; but since nānti does not mean « have a mother » (again, in all its occurrences it means « be/behave like/act as a mother » then the meaning of nāntia is not causative, but rather applicative (ni-mitz-nān-tia « I act in such a way that there is a mother for you », « I provide you with a mother ». As you know, there is a ditransitive use of these verbs, mostly (but not always) reflexive, e.g. ni-mitz-no-nān-tia « I act in such a way that you are a mother for me ».

We could then consider that there is a transitivizer –a (or perhaps –ia), which is not per se causative or applicative, but more generally marks valency increasing, the semantic interpretation of this increase being variable. Some data support this idea, though admittedly scarce and sometimes idiosyncratic, so that I admit some nitpicking. But consider the fact that –a or –ia can sometimes be used as an applicative suffix (pepena / pepenia, quetza / quechia, cōhua / cōhuia – and also chīhuia or pōhuia, in the sense of « cast a spell »), but also as a causative one (calaqui / calaquia, tlatla / tlatia, tlami / tlamia, olini /olinia, and the whole series -ni / -nia, and –ihui / -oa). Also consider the fact that cuīcatia is not causative (« make sing ») but applicative (« sing for », « sing in honor of »). I was long embarrassed with this, until I realized that it was the –tia form of cuīca-tl, and that ni-mitz-cuīca-tia was to be interpreted as « I provide you with a song », just like ni-mitz-cal-tia « I provide you with a house ». This opens onto the (not totally loony) idea that causatives are related to object nouns, and, as I said in a preceding message, that ni-mitz-tla-cua-l-tia « I make you eat » was somehow related to tla-cua-l-li « food », and could be glossed « I provide you with food ». Of course, this relation is blurred by the fact that causatives can occur with definite objects (ni-mitz-cua-l-tia tlaxcalli « I give you tortillas to eat » etc.

Again, I was long, and Mary’s and Tomas’ examples deserve consideration. I’ll come to that as soon as I can (tomorrow or the day after ?)

Thanks for your attention

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