Book Read Free

A Historical Grammar of the Maya Language of Yucatan (1557-2000)

Page 17

by Victoria R. Bricker


  a rare holdover from early Colonial times.

  1.2.3. SEMANTIC IMPLICATIONS OF ASPECTUAL AND MOOD SUFFIXES. For the most part, the subjunctive

  verb stems in (45a–g), (46a–b), and (47) appear in subordinate clauses, which represents a common role of

  the subjunctive in Yucatecan Maya grammar. But a comparison of such clauses with the use of imperfec-

  tive stems in similar contexts suggests that aspectual suffixes have broader semantic implications that are

  important to speakers of the language.

  In complement constructions, the transitive complement normally has a subjunctive suffix, as is the

  case in the examples mentioned above. However, one of the historical texts I taperecorded in Hocaba

  during the summer of 1971 contains a sentence in which the transitive complement takes the imperfective

  suffix, -ik, instead of the subjunctive suffix -eh (V. Bricker 1979c:30, line 11, 1981b:97):

  (48a) pwes k u tàal u mol-ik-Ø

  ‘pues viene recogiéndolo’

  ‘well, he comes gathering it’

  In (48a), I have provided both the Spanish translation of this sentence that was given to me when I ques-

  tioned its grammaticality and my English translation of the Spanish gloss. In (48b) appears another version

  of this sentence, in which -eh has replaced -ik, with corresponding adjustments in the Spanish and English

  glosses:

  (48b) pwes k u tàal u mol-eh-Ø

  ‘pues viene a recogerlo’

  ‘well, he comes to gather it’

  This minimal pair highlights the difference in meaning between the two suffixes: -ik has a gerundial

  meaning that indicates that the action denoted by the complement occurs at the same time as the action

  denoted by the main verb, whereas -eh has a purposive or optative meaning that indicates that the action

  denoted by the complement may take place after the action denoted by the main verb. Thus, both suffixes

  have temporal significance, -ik indicating the simultaneity of two events (“coming” and “gathering”) and -eh

  indicating that they may be sequential (“coming,” followed by “gathering”).

  There is, then, a multi-dimensional contrast among aspectual suffixes in Yucatecan Maya: (1) the dis-

  tinction between actions that have been completed versus those that are ongoing (-ah versus -ik) and

  82

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD

  (2) the distinction between actions that are simultaneous versus those that are sequential (-ik versus -eh).

  However, these are not the only distinctions necessary for understanding the relationship between the

  aspectual system and mood in Yucatecan Maya. Other, finer discriminations based on the imperfective and

  subjunctive stems are borne by aspectual head words and clitic particles, which are discussed in 2. below.

  2. ASPECTUAL HEAD WORDS AND CLITIC PARTICLES

  Only three of the four aspectual stems described in 1. co-occur with aspectual head words and clitic particles

  (the perfective, imperfective, and subjunctive stems). The fourth —  the present perfect stem, marked by

  -ma —  does not and will not be considered further in this chapter.

  2.1. ASPECTUAL CLITIC PARTICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERFECTIVE STEM. The perfective stems of

  root and derived transitives and intransitives could be used alone or with the clitic particle t(i) in Colonial

  Yucatec. The use of the clitic particle was not optional with perfective stems. It had a temporal significance,

  but exactly what that meaning was and how it contrasted with the perfective stems that occurred without

  that particle cannot be determined from an examination of example phrases and sentences in the Calepi-

  no de Motul and other Colonial dictionaries, nor from the treatises of Colonial grammarians. It requires

  a broader context that can only be provided by a consideration of their use in narrative texts written by

  native speakers of the Maya language with interests of their own other than providing example sentences

  and phrases for dictionaries and grammars.

  2.1.1. THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFEERENCE BETWEEN T(I)- AND Ø-PERFECTIVE STEMS. According to the Francis-

  can grammarian, Gabriel de San Buenaventura (1684:112, 266), the temporal reference of perfective verbs

  governed by t(i) is a single day, designated as “today” ([h]oy) in Spanish glosses. Although neither of the

  Maya expressions for “today” (yual and hele la) appears in his examples of such constructions, the Spanish

  word for “today” shows up in his glosses of those constructions:

  (49a) Pedro t u cimçah vinic

  ‘Pedro matò oy á un hombre’

  ‘Peter killed a man today’ (1684:112)

  (49b) t in haɔah paal

  ‘oy açotè al muchacho’

  ‘today I whipped the boy’ (1684:267)

  (49c) ti bini padre

  ‘el padre se fue oy’ (1684:267)

  ‘the priest went today’

  The same is true of some expressions of this kind in the Calepino de Motul, for example:

  (50a) ti valah teex tilob vahi t a cħaex

  ‘dixeos lo oy mas no lo tomastes’

  ‘I told you-all that today, but you-all did not take it’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 438v)

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD 83

  (50b) t u talçah v kin padre

  ‘traxo oy nueuas de que venia el padre’

  ‘he brought news today that the priest was coming’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 407v)

  (50c) t in hel-pachtah haa ti be

  ‘escapeme oy del agua’

  ‘I escaped from water on the road today’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 183r)

  (50d) ɔeɔ ma ti vilah haa ti be

  ‘por poco no me moje oy en el camino’

  ‘I barely missed becoming wet on the road today’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 129r)

  There are, however, numerous exceptions to this generalization in the Calepino:

  (51a) t in hel-pachtah ceh

  ‘dexe atras el venado’

  ‘I left the deer behind’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 183r)

  (51b) t u hel-pachtahen ceh

  ‘dexome a mi el venado atras’

  ‘the deer escaped from me’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 183r)

  (51c) nocaanen ca ti luben

  ‘yo cay boca abaxo de buzas’

  ‘I was upside down when I fell’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 329r)

  (51d) t in hechah v halal in nup

  ‘rebati la flecha de mi contrario’

  ‘I repelled the arrow of my enemy’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 180v)

  (51e) t in ppatah in bat chepe

  ‘o pobre de mi que he perdido mi hacha’

  ‘oh, poor me! I have lost my axe’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 140v)

  (51f) t in bonlah in çuyem

  ‘he teñido mi capa’

  ‘I have dyed my cloak’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 55v)

  Furthermore, the Calepino contains a pair of contradictory examples suggesting that the perfective stems

  that are not accompanied by t(i) are the ones that refer to more recent time in the past:

  (52a) napul(a)cen valab missa ca ti kuchen ti cah

  ‘luego como oy llegue al pueblo dixe missa’

  ‘then upon arriving in the town today, I said Mass’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 324r)

  (52b) napulahen ti missa ca __ kuchen ti cah

  ‘pero no habla de antes de oy’

  ‘but it does not speak of before today’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 324r)

  84

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD

  The Spanish phrase in (52b) is a comment, not a gloss, recognizing that this perfective expression without

  t(i) does not refer to a time before today. As such
, it implies that it is such expressions without t(i) that refer

  to the more recent and bounded time. The first part of the Maya sentence in (52b) is probably incomplete,

  but the second part refers to the subject’s arrival in the town, which the “gloss” says must be today because

  it cannot be before today, even though ti is not present before kuchen.

  The examples in (51a–f) and (52a–b) present a confused picture of the relationship between the two

  uses of the perfective stem. Not only do the examples in (51a–f) lack [h]oy ‘today’ in their Spanish glosses,

  but the translations are inconsistent in their use of the Spanish preterite for (51a–d) and the Spanish pres-

  ent perfect for (51e–f). Possibly in response to such examples, especially the conflicting examples in (52a–b),

  Ortwin Smailus (1989:41) came to a different conclusion in his modern grammar of Colonial Yucatec, which

  he illustrates with the following didactic examples:

  (53a) in cambezah-ech

  ‘te enseñé’

  ‘I taught you’

  (53b) t in cambezah-ech

  ‘te enseñé hace tiempo’

  ‘I taught you long ago’

  In his view, t(i) refers to an event in the remote past, not one limited to the current day, which is exactly the

  opposite of the view espoused by San Buenaventura (1684:112, 267) and followed, with a few exceptions,

  by the Calepino de Motul.

  The inconsistency in the use of the Spanish preterite and present perfect tenses in glossing the verbs

  in (51a–f) suggests that the compilers of the Calepino de Motul did not have a clear idea of how such

  expressions should be translated. In fact, the 94 sentences containing perfective verbs governed by t(i) in

  the Calepino are equally divided between those in which the Spanish gloss employs the preterite and those

  glossed with the present perfect (see Table 5-1).

  The same inconsistency in the use of the present perfect can be found in the glossing of perfectives

  governed by Ø-:

  (54a) _ a bo(l)tah xin a ppax

  ‘has por uentura pagado tus deudas’

  ‘have you paid your debts?’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fols. 54v-55r)

  (54b) _ in bo(l)tah in ppax ca _ huli Pedro

  ‘pague mis deudas quando vino Pedro’

  ‘I paid my debts when Peter arrived’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 58v)

  Table 5–1. A comparison of the frequencies of the use of ti- and Ø-perfective stems for translating the

  Spanish preterite and compound indicative and subjunctive verbs into Maya.

  Pret

  PresPerf

  PluPerfIndic PluPerfSubj

  ImpfSubj

  Total

  Ti

  47

  46

  1

  0

  0

  94

  Ø

  572

  47

  5

  8

  3

  635

  TOTAL

  619

  93

  6

  8

  3

  729

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD 85

  (54c) _ v nabinah v cimil Juan

  ‘fue culpado en la muerte de Juan’

  ‘he was implicated in John’s death’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 315v)

  (54d) _ in hahcunah in than y okol Juan

  ‘atestigue yo contra Juan’

  ‘I testified against John’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 172v)

  (54e) _ in pulah in keban t in pach

  ‘oluide y dexo mis pecados’

  ‘I forgot and left my sins behind’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 385v)

  (54f) haili Noe y etel v balnailob _ puɔi ca _ vchi hay=cabale

  ‘solamente Noe y su familia se escaparon y libraron quando el diluuio’

  ‘only Noah and his family escaped when the flood occurred’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 383r)

  (54g) lay vaxac tzuc pixanilob _ y alah c ah lohil t u cambeçah vinicilob

  estas ocho bien auentruanças dixo nuestro redemptor a sus discipulos’

  ‘these eight beatitudes Our Savior told his disciples’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 377v)

  In those cases, however, the overwhelming majority of the Ø-perfectives are glossed in terms of the preter-

  ite (574 versus 61) (see Table 5-1).

  The inconsistency in the assignment of the preterite and the present perfect to the t(i)- and Ø- perfec-

  tives is part of a larger problem, namely that Colonial Yucatec had another stem for the present perfect of

  transitives, marked by -ma, that is still in use today (see 1.2.1. above). Glossing either or both the t(i)- and

  Ø-perfectives as present perfect when there was already a well-documented present perfect in the lan-

  guage makes it unlikely that a solution to the problem can be found in the Calepino de Motul.

  I suspect that the source of the problem lies in the likelihood that much of the Calepino is a reverse

  translation of an original Spanish-to-Maya dictionary like the closely related Bocabulario de Maya Tħan

  / Vienna (ca. 1570). This is certainly the case with sentences drawn from the Old and New Testaments (e.g.,

  [54f–g]) and other religious sources like catechisms and sermons (e.g., [54e]). For a native Maya speaker,

  whose language did not have tenses, the task of rendering such sentences into Maya must have been

  challenging.

  If, indeed, the problem was one of having to translate Spanish sentences into Maya (rather than vice

  versa), then the Maya translator seems to have had great difficulty with the Spanish compound tenses,

  especially the present perfect as described above, but also the Spanish pluperfect indicative (6 examples)

  and pluperfect subjunctive (8 examples), of which fourteen examples were treated as Ø–perfectives and

  only one as a ti-perfective. There are also three examples of the imperfect subjunctive that were treated as

  Ø-perfectives in the Calepino de Motul (see Table 5-1).

  A possible solution to the opposing interpretations of the distinction between t(i)- and Ø-perfectives

  can be found in three documents of sixteenth-century date. The first, which bears a date of 16 March 1569,

  contains a history of the migration of a lineage founder named Na ɔul Pox (Figure 5-1):

  (55)

  hex na ɔul pox lae ych cah Mayapan

  and this Na ɔul Pox here, from the town of Mayapan

  86

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD

  Figure 5-1. Chronicle of the Pox Family of Dzan. March 16, 1569. Manuscripts Collections,

  The Latin American Library, Tulane University.

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD 87

  u talel ca _ u heɔah lum Chichican

  he was coming when he settled the land at Chichican

  ca ti liki Chichican ca __ bini Tinum

  when he left Chichican, then he went to Tinum’ (DZ569-025-029)

  Three events are mentioned in this passage: (1) his founding of a settlement at Chichican after leaving

  Mayapan; (2) his subsequent departure from Chichican at an unspecified date, followed by (3) his arrival at

  Tinum. The clitic particle associated with the earliest of the three events is Ø; the one for the second event

  is ti; and the one for the most recent event is Ø.

  Elsewhere in the document we are told that Na ɔul Pox died with Ah Pul Ha, an event that took place

  in 1537, according to the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011:79, Table 4-1). This means

  that the founding of Chichican and its abandonment some years later must have occurred more than

  three decades before 1569, when the document from which the quoted passage is taken was written and<
br />
  notarized before multiple witnesses. And because the second sentence in (55) states that Na ɔul Pox left

  Chichican before going to Tinum, the ti in ca ti liki Chichican cannot refer to an event more recent in time

  than the Ø in Ø bini Tinum.

  The second document that has a bearing on this issue concerns a dispute between Diego Pox of Dzan,

  a descendant of Na ɔul Pox in the puuc region of Yucatan, and his siblings over the division of property

  from their father, who died intestate. In this document, dated to 1587, Diego Pox mentions in two places

  that he paid his father’s debts. There is no t(i) particle in either sentence:

  (56a) yan ix v ppax in yum __ in bo(l)tah t in hunal xan

  ‘and there is the debt of my father that I alone paid’ (DZ587A-020A-B)

  (56b) y oklal t in hunali __ in bo(l)tah v ppax in yume

  ‘because I alone paid the debt of my father’ (DZ587A-039A-B)

  He then goes on to say that he supported his father, this time with the t(i) particle:

  (56c) t in tzentah ix in yum xan

  ‘and I supported my father also’ (DZ587A-045)

  The implication is that he supported his father while his father was alive, not just for a single day, which

  suggests that the t(i) particle had the function of signalling a more distant time, perhaps earlier than the

  occasion on which he paid his father’s debt.

  The third example shows that the perfective stem without t(i) could refer to recent time and specifi-

  cally to a single day. The earliest provenienced document in Yucatecan Maya is the Crónica de Mani, which

  describes a survey of the boundaries of the Province of Mani that began on 15 August 1557. Immediately

  following the date is a long sentence recording the gathering together in Mani of the leaders of all the

  towns in the province, as well as leaders from towns in the adjoining provinces, for the purpose of placing

  markers at various places along the boundary of the province (Figure 5-2):

  (57)

  __ v hu=molcinah v baob halach vinic Don Franco de Montejo Xiu

  ‘they gathered together, Don Francisco de Montejo Xiu,

  88

  TENSE/ASPECT AND MOOD

  Figure 5-2. The First Page of the Crónica de Mani, the Earliest Maya Text Written in the Latin Alphabet.

  August 15, 1557. Manuscripts Collections, The Latin American Library, Tulane University.

 

‹ Prev