Closed ftyers closed 8 months ago
López Austin:
Así lo reprendían para que en esta forma se ahuyentara enseguida el augurio; así lo impedían, así devolvían, así atajaban su llamado; por esto no se realizaba en ellos lo que les cantaba.
Notes:
Update:
Questions:
What is ic? It appears a lot...
Yeah....Andrews's discussion is on pages 450-453. He treats it as a reln that can only take 3rd-person singular possessor.
Given the wide range of metaphorical meanings it is a challenge to analyze it. Elsewhere we have treated it as an ADV
I think (e.g. ordinal construction) and I don't hate that. I don't see ic taking any nominal morphology other than its i-. Also used with nouns of size/length/shape in measurement constructions ( in intlaxcal cemmolicpitl catca in ic yahualtic "their tortillas were an ell round")
So in this sent, if we say it is a reln, I think the nominal/clausal complements are omitted. The tree looks correct above with respect to in, but we should decide whether we like ADV
or NOUN
+NounType=Rel
How do we deal with iuhquin ?
I think we said it should be ADJ
(in #13 )? Also split into iuhqui n. I think the syntactic analysis is good in the most recent tree.
This is strange, but I have a feeling that in, before iuhquin is actually a demonstrative pronoun īn. So that part is "Así reprendían a ese" or something like that. Unfortunately we don't have the vowel length to help distinguish. The only sort-of evidence is that, if in is in fact a subordinator there, then we don't have a root. haha
So in this sent, if we say it is a reln, I think the nominal/clausal complements are omitted. The tree looks correct above with respect to in, but we should decide whether we like ADV or NOUN+NounType=Rel
It could also be that some ins are omitted, because in a lot of cases it looks like a subordinator too...
This is strange, but I have a feeling that in, before iuhquin is actually a demonstrative pronoun īn. So that part is "Así reprendían a ese" or something like that. Unfortunately we don't have the vowel length to help distinguish. The only sort-of evidence is that, if in is in fact a subordinator there, then we don't have a root. haha
Yeah, that is a good point I was thinking that too,
So like this?
LGTM
Merged in f762d1b.