[Na. huat-l] paradigns yauh, huallauh

[Michael McCafferty]

No, I don't think that solves the problem, sir. Who are these "many"? 
It would be good to know that.




Quoting M Launey <mlauney at wanadoo.fr>:

>  
>
>  "Michael McCafferty"  wrote
>
>>
>> At the same time, I'm not sure what "modern grammarians" you are
>> referring to above. Modern grammarians do in fact address this issue,
>> and quite well.
>>
>> J. Richard Andrews (1975) in _Introduction to Classical Nahuatl_, p.
>> 67, says, (...)  Sullivan's contemporaneous publication (...)
>> Karttunen's and Campbell's "Foundation Course in Nahuatl Grammar" (vol.
>> 1, p. 47) says, (...)
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I say "many", not all.
> Let me put it this way: there are still (many? I can delete that if
> you like) people who list yauh and huallauh as two different verbs,
> and in my opinion they are wrong. Those who do not are right.
>
> I hope this settles the (minor) issue.
>
> M.L.
>
>
>>
>>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>> By the way, I object to considering hu?llauh as a verb of its own,
>> > and I?m afraid that in so doing, many colonial and modern grammarians
>> > are influenced by the fact that in European languages there are two
>> > different verbs to translate yauh and hu?llauh. But it is clearly
>> > hu?l- + yauh, with the directional prefix hu?l- which marks ?motion
>> > toward? (so hu?l-yauh is ?go closer?).
>>
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Michael McCafferty
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>



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