Re: Ergativity Reference Done

From:    Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...>
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > Andreas wrote [concerning A and O marked one way, S another]:
> > > I cannot off-hand think of any
> > > examples for clairvoyant ones, but they're out there, or so I'm told.
> >
> > Nahuatl might count as one.  Most nouns in Nahuatl have
> > a so-called "absolutive" suffix (occuring in all three Dixonian
> > roles), which must be removed to add possessive or plural morphology:
> >
> >   n-inekwisti-s xonaka-tl
> >   1-smell-fut   flower-abs
> >   'I will smell the flower'
> >
> >   n-inekwisti-s xonaka-meh
> >   'I will smell the flowers'
> >
> >   n-inekwisti-s mo-xonaka
> >   'I will smell your flower'
> >
> > The absolutive suffixes (either -tli, -li, or -tl) was IIRC
> > originally an article, which over time lost its deictic sense and is
> > now just frozen nominal morphology.
>
> Do you have a reference for this? I was not aware that any Uto-Aztecan
> language had articles (with the exception of Tepiman), or that anyone
> had proposed that the absolutive came from an article. It would had to
> have been a Pre-Proto-Uto-Aztecan development, since the absolutive as
> such is found in all branches of the family.
I don't remember a precise citation, unfortunately.  I vaguely
remember Langacker saying something along these lines in an article
in _Language_ in the 1970s.  I could be misremembering this, or
confusing it with a different article on Nahuatl dialectology.

> (BTW, my Nahuatl
> dictionary gives _xonoca-tl_ as 'onion' -- _xochi-tl_ is 'flower'; I
> once had a student named Xochitl, and so the word has stuck with me.)
I should probably note that I am currently studying the modern
dialects spoken in Oapan and Ameyaltepec, not Classical Nahuatl.
Amith's (unfortunately yet to be published) book clearly says
"flower".  His lexicon lists lots of forms referring to various
parts of the onion plant, though, so clearly you're right about
the general jist.

> > Since it is no longer an article,
> > one could just as well call it case -- except that there is no
> > opposition  defining it as such. Such systems are obviously
> > dysfunctional.
>
> One would expect a dysfunctional system to change, but Luiseño, in the
> Takic branch of Uto-Aztecan, has absolutives with about the same
> distribution as Nahuatl (i.e., deleted in possessive constructions,
> with postpositions, and in compounds; though unlike Nahuatl, they are
> retained in the plural). If absolutives were feature of PUA, then the
> retention of absolutives in Luiseño (and indeed in modern Nahuatl)
> would be strange if the feature is dysfunctional.
This is true.  I was proposing the analysis rather more in the
attempt to show how something so weird could arise.  I'm sure you
will recall that definiteness is sometimes associated with case
marking (e.g. in Persian). I will certainly bow to your greater
experience with this family on this.

> The more so if it were considered a case, since in Luiseño the
> absolutive can cooccur with case inflection:
True enough.  But we were talking about Nahuatl.  Just because the
languages are related doesn't mean they work the same! :)

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier	       "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637

Reply