u/w_v

▲ 21 r/nahuatl+1 crossposts

The Vocative

The vocative is a grammatical case used to call or attract the attention of a person or party.

English no longer has a vocative case, but the particle O is sometimes employed to approximate its quality, such as in the phrase “O ye of little faith.” Nahuatl had (has?) a vocative particle that attaches to a noun, forming a stress group with it. Its earliest description can be found in Andrés de Olmos’s 1547 grammar:

> También se debe denotar que en el vocativo hay variación, porque siempre acaba en é. Y, para denotar o señalar este vocativo, usan en todos los nombres de una de estas tres partículas: tzé, , é.

> Ex.: Pēdrohé, Pēdrohtzé, Pēdrohtzī.

> Y si el nombre acabare en eh, tomará en el vocativo otra é. Ex.: Tlaōleh, dueño del maíz, vocativo tlaōlehé.


A few decades later, in 1571, Alonso de Molina published, along with his famous dictionary, a grammar textbook where he spoke more on the vocative case:

> Así mismo es de notar que no pusimos el vocativo en la declinación de los dos nombres arriba declinados por casos, por cuanto entre los dichos casos solo el vocativo tiene distinta y diferente terminación del nominativo, así en el número singular como en el plural, porque tiene su terminación en é con acento agudo.

> Ejemplo del singular:

> Oquichtli, varón, vocativo oquichtlé, ah varón!
> Piltōntli, muchacho, vocativo piltōntlé, ah muchacho!

> Ejemplo de plural:

> Tlapītzqueh, tañedores de flauta, vocativo tlapītzquehé, ah tañedores!

> Y cuando el nominativo tiene la terminación en eh, el vocativo toma otra é. Ejemplo:

> Tlaōleh, el dueño del maíz, vocativo tlaōlehé, ah dueño del maíz!
> Mīleh, señor o dueño de la heredad o de la tierra que se cultiva y siembra, vocativo mīlehé, ah dueño de la heredad!
> Tlahtohqueh, señores, vocativo tlahtohquehé, ah señores!

> Y débese también de notar que solamente los varones usan de vocativo (como arriba dijimos), y no las mujeres, las cuales no usan del dicho vocativo en singular ni en plural; de manera que cuando llaman a alguno dicen oquichtlí en lugar de oquichtlé, ah varón!

> Ítem, dicen tlahtoāní en lugar de tlahtoānié, ah señor! etc.


The stress of the noun shifts entirely onto the clitic particle é, marked in later texts with an acute accent. It was also noted that this form of speech was used only by men. Women instead shifted the stress onto the final syllable of the noun itself, adding no additional element—what Antonio del Rincón, in 1595, describes as women’s “affected pronunciation”:

> Así, en el número singular como en el plural, diferencian el vocativo añadiendo una é; v.g., Pedrohé, teōpixquehé. Aunque las mujeres, sin poner esta é, solo diferencian el vocativo con su pronunciación afectada.

In book five of his grammar, regarding vowel lengths and diacritics, he mentions the stress shift in the vocative and remarks on how unintuitive it is for native speakers to pronounce words without using a penultimate stress pattern.

> Nota que nunca se pone acento agudo en la última si no es en la é de los vocativos, v.g., totēucyōé, Diosé. Y es tan natural esta pronunciación a los mexicanos, que aunque se les diga un vocablo español de los que tienen aguda la última, no lo pronuncian de esa manera, sino que antes se van a pronunciarlo como en latín, v.g., si les decimos que digan oración, no lo pueden pronunciar así, antes dicen como en latín, ōrātiō.


In his 1645 grammar, Horacio Carochi repeats much of the above while emphasizing the genderlectical nature of this feature:

> Las mujeres no usan de esta é en el vocativo, pero levantan mucho la postrera sílaba del nombre con afectación mujeril.

In his edition of Carochi, James Lockhart emphasizes that the female version of the vocative is still a true grammatical case.

> This still constitutes a true vocative, involving omission of the second person subject prefix; unless given the special pronunciation, nopiltzīn, for example, would mean He or she is my child, not O my child. The distinct masculine and feminine vocatives are adhered to strictly in texts of all kinds.


For a long time, I assumed this feature hadn’t survived into modern Nahuatl, but it has, at least in the dialects found in Mecayapán and Tatahuicapan de Juárez. According to Carl Wolgemuth’s grammar from 1981 (second edition: 2002).

> The vocative forms are the ones used to mark out the person to whom the word is directed. There are three forms ... the second is used by males to call to someone of the same or lesser status ... éi is added to the name of a person:

Pēdroéi, Peter!
Pābloéi, Paul!
Juanīyohéi, Little John!
Jōliohéi, Julius!

Interestingly, the traditional female vocative is considered in these dialects to be a “conversational vocative” that anyone can use, regardless of gender:

> Conversational Vocative: The voice is raised and the last syllable of the name is accented. Also, h is added if the word does not have it.

Pēdróh, Peter!
Pāblóh, Paul!
Jōlióh, Julius!
Mariyáh, Mary!

reddit.com
u/Any-Reply343 — 2 days ago
▲ 20 r/nahuatl+1 crossposts

PART ONE: A Standardized 16th century Classical Spelling System.

To modern readers, 16th century spelling practices can look chaotic or inconsistent, but they follow a very coherent internal logic inherited from older Spanish.

Andrés de Olmos (1547) is a good baseline because he represents some of the earliest surviving Nahuatl and occasionally explains the reasoning behind controversial spellings.

One thing modern readers miss is that ⟨s⟩ itself did not represent modern Latin-American /s/. At the time (and in some modern Spanish dialects) it represented a sound closer to /ʃ/, which is why Sahagún and his Nahua collaborators (1577) sometimes used ⟨s⟩ for Nahuatl /ʃ/:

suchitl [ˈʃoː.ʧitɬ]
ynimispan [in‿iː.mˈiːʃ.pã]
cuis [ˈkʷiʃ]

That practice faded, with most writers eventually preferring ⟨x⟩, since Old Spanish already used ⟨x⟩ for /ʃ/.

This explains Andrés de Olmos’s (1547) comment:

> “There is also some difficulty concerning the letter ⟨s⟩, because some people seem to pronounce it as though they were writing ⟨x⟩, yet they do not pronounce the ⟨x⟩ very strongly, but rather somewhat like ⟨s⟩. But if we examine the matter carefully, such words ought to be written with ⟨x⟩, even if at times they appear to have the pronunciation of ⟨s⟩.”


For /ʦ/, Andrés de Olmos (1547) spells:

ilutl [ˈʦi.loːtɬ]

In Old Spanish, ⟨ç⟩ originally represented /ts/, but by the 16th century had shifted toward /s/ before ⟨a⟩ and ⟨o⟩. Plain ⟨c⟩ before those vowels still implied /k/, so ⟨ç⟩ became necessary for /s/ in those positions.

Meanwhile ⟨z⟩ represented a voiced /z/ (earlier, /ʣ/), but at the end of syllables it had devoiced into /s/. That is why Nahuatl syllable-final /s/ was often written with ⟨z⟩. Examples taken from Andrés de Olmos (1547):

çan [ˈsã]
ciuapulh [siˈwaː.poːɬ]
quauhneucçayoli [kʷaʍ.nɛkʷ.saːˈjoː.l ĩ ]
oniquiz [oːˈni.kiːs]
tepoo [tɛˈpo.o]

Once you understand that system, spellings like ⟨tç⟩ for /ʦ/ make internal sense:

tepoeh [tɛˈpoʦ.ɛʔh]
niuetoc [niˈwɛʦ.tok]

Though one could argue that in the last example, ⟨tz⟩ would have been even more logical syllable-finally, since that was precisely where ⟨z⟩ was already being used.

There were other early experiments. A trilingual dictionary that Mary Clayton believes may have been produced by a Nahua scholar uses the fascinating ⟨ţ⟩ for /ʦ/. Nevertheless, ⟨tç⟩ was largely confined to the very early 16th century and was quickly replaced by ⟨tz⟩.


A fairly stable standard emerged for the period in question:

/si/ = ci
/se/ = ce
/sa/ = ça
/so/ = ço
syllable-final /s/ = z
/ʦ/ = tz
/ʃ/ = x

Tomorrow I’ll continue with the rest of the phonemes. Especially interesting are the voiceless allophones of /l/ and /w/.

u/w_v — 5 days ago