A Historical Grammar of the Maya Language of Yucatan (1557-2000)
Page 33
and Books of Chilam Balam.
13. This is a slightly revised version of section 2.2.1.3. in V. Bricker et al. (1998:334–335).
CHAPTER 8
NOUNS
The principal differences between root and derived nouns in Colonial and Modern Yucatec are seman-
tic, not formal. Nominal roots include the well-defined domains of body-part and kinship terminology,
numeral classifiers (see Chapter 9), and the names of many animals and plants. Verbal nouns are derived
from verb roots and have an active meaning that nominal roots lack. Abstract nouns are derived from
adjectival roots. Agentive nouns can be derived from several kinds of roots, including nominal ones, and
instrumental nouns are primarily derived from root transitives. And relational nouns can be derived from
any form class.
1. NOMINAL ROOTS
All nominal roots share the possibility of inflection for possession, with clitic pronouns and a limited num-
ber of suffixes or internal changes in a root vowel, or with a noun specifier.
1.1. INFLECTION FOR POSSESSION. Nominal roots can belong to one or more of the ten inflectional classes
listed below:
(1)
n1
ownership possession with -Ø.
n2
ownership possession with -il.
n3
associative possession with -il.
n4
inalienable possession with -el.
n5
ownership possession with -al.
n6
ownership possesion with -Vl (vowel in suffix echoes vowel in root).
n7
ownership possession indicated by CV̀VC stem.
n8
ownership possession indicated by CV̀VCVC stem.
n9
possession only with noun specifier (ʔàalak’ or ʔóʔoč).
n10
never possessed.
The first two classes include the majority of root nouns. In (2a), bocħ ‘toque, hat’ took no suffix (-Ø) when it
was possessed, whereas in (2b–c), paal ‘young boy or girl; servant’ took -il when it was possessed in Colonial
Yucatec:
(2a)
v katah v bocħ ten vahi ten cħaic
‘she asked me for her toque as if it was I who had taken it’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 438v)
188
NOUNS
189
(2b) ho=uen
in paalil
‘my child is five months old’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 208v)
(2c)
lic bin a haɔic a palil t u men u tuz
‘they say that you whip your boy because he lies’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 267c)
The kind of possession indicated by -Ø and -il in these examples is ownership: the woman owned the toque
that had been taken from her, and the child and boy or servant belonged to the possessor. It contrasts with
the kind of possession indicated by -il in n3, which refers to the association of an object with the possessor,
as can be seen in the contrast in meaning between u nok and u nokil (from nok ‘clothes, cloth’) in (3a–b):
(3a)
v çiah v nok ti hun tul ah num=ya
‘he donated his clothes to a pauper’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: 103v)
(3b)
v nokil ɔic
‘shaving cloths’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: 130r)
The clothes mentioned in (3a) belonged to the person who donated them to a pauper, whereas the cloths
mentioned in (3b) were ones used for shaving but not owned by the user.
The noun, ȼ’onóʔot ‘cenote, sinkhole,’ also employs -Ø and -il in a similar contrast between ownership
and associative possession in Modern Yucatec:
(4a)
u ȼ’onóʔot h wàan
‘John’s sinkhole [i.e., the sinkhole owned by John]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:54)
(4b)
u ȼ’onóʔotil hùuh
‘the iguana’s sinkhole [i.e,. the sinkhole inhabited by the iguana]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:54)
A few nouns take -al instead of -il when inflected for possession (n5), as was the case with eb ‘step, stair,
rung, staircase’ in Colonial Yucatec:
(5a)
he y almah=tħanil Diose lay y ebal licil naacal ti caan
‘the commandments of God serve as the staircase for rising to heaven’ (Ciudad Real 1600?:
fol. 267v)
The same is true of p’íiš ‘size’ in Modern Yucatec:
(5b)
laʔ b’uk u p’íišal le pàaloʔ
‘look at the size of that child!’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:230)
In another case in Modern Yucatec, the use of -Ø for ownership possession contrasts with the use of -al for
associative possession:
(6a)
č’aʔ aw ìik’
‘breathe! [literally, take your air!]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:12)
190 NOUNS
(6b)
uy ìik’al čik’in
‘the west wind [literally, the wind of the west]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:12)
The third-person clitic pronoun, u, can be translated as “the” in (5b) and (6b), and y has the same function
in (5a). There is no other way of expressing the definite article in Colonial and Modern Yucatec.
Sometimes the vowel of the inflectional suffix echoes the vowel of the root (n6), as in the following
examples based on cħeen ‘well, cistern, sinkhole containing water’ and ku ‘God’:
(7a)
ox=çap u tabil in cħenel
‘the depth of my well is three fathoms’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 98v)
(7b) pazex
a cħenel
‘clean out your well!’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 357r)
(7c)
tanlex a ba t u beel a yumil a kuul
‘dress yourself to receive your Lord, your God’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 413r)
The suffix -el (n4) marks possession in nouns that refer to parts of the body, such as the liver and the
blood in one’s veins, that are not under the individual’s control (see 1.2.1. below).
Of the remaining four kinds of nominal possession in (1) that have been attested in the Hocaba dialect
of Modern Yucatec, only n9 and n10 can be documented in Colonial Yucatec. In a few monosyllabic noun
roots, the neutral or high tone changes to low tone when they are inflected for possession in Modern
Yucatec (n7), as in V. Bricker et al. (1998:360):
(8)
čúuk
'charcoal’
in čùuk
'my charcoal’
č’il
'corncrib, granary’
in č’ìil
'my corncrib, granary’
č’óoy
'bucket’
in č’òoy
'my bucket’
káat
'large, wide-mouthed
in kàat
'my large, wide-mouthed jar for cooking’
jar for cooking’
kay
'fish’
in kàay
'my fish’
kib’
'candle, wax’
in kìib’
'my candle, wax’
k’áan
'hammock’
in k’àan
'my hammock’
k’úuȼ
'tobacco’
in k’ùuȼ
'my tobacco’
lak
'clay cup’
in làak
'my clay cup’
šíiw
'herb, plant’
in šìiw
'my herb, plant’
Although there is some evidence of both tones in Colonial Yucatec, it is not marked consistently enough
for such a pattern to be detected. Similar changes occur in disyllabic noun roots when they are possessed
in Modern Yucatec (n8), as in V. Bricker et al. (1998:361):
(9)
ȼíimin
'horse’
in ȼìimin
'my horse’
č’uyub’
'hanging device’
in č’ùuyub’
'my hanging device’
č’ilib’
'twig’
in č’ìilib’
'my twig’
kisin
'devil, demon’
in kìisin
'my devil, demon’
k’éewel
'skin’
in k’èewel
'my skin’
NOUNS
191
k’eyem
'posol’
in k’èeyem
'my posol’
k’óob’en
'kitchen’
in k’òob’en
'my kitchen’
k’omoh
'stink, stench’
in k’òomoh
'my stink, stench’
k’éek’en
'pig’
in k’èek’en
'my pig’
But once again, the orthography used for Colonial Yucatec does not permit identification of such a pattern,
if indeed it already existed then.
The Calepino de Motul contains a few examples of the noun specifiers, alak (with nouns referring to
domesticated animals) and och (with nouns referring to food), that were used in possessive constructions
(n9). The ones mentioned with alak concerned pigs and dogs:
(10a) cimi
valak keken
‘my pig died’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 34r)
(10b) hutul v cibah y al valak pek
‘the puppies of my pet dog were born’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 202v)
A document from Tekanto dated to 1674 uses alak in a possessive construction with domesticated cows
and horses:
(10c) ocbal
vy alakob vacax y etel tziminob hecex
‘their cows are on the point of entering with those horses’ (TK674-015A-B)
The Modern cognate of alak is ʔàalak’, which is often abbreviated as ʔalaʔ, as in the following examples
from V. Bricker et al. (1998:361):
(11)
ʔáak
'turtle’
inw alaʔ ʔáak
'my turtle’
kay
'fish’
inw alaʔ kay
'my fish’
h míis
'cat’
inw alaʔ h míis
'my cat’
mukuy
'turtle dove’
inw alaʔ mukuy
'my turtle dove’
pèek’
'dog’
inw alaʔ pèek’
'my dog’
kéeh
'deer’
inw alaʔ kéeh
'my [pet] deer’
The other noun specifier, och, that refers to food or sustenance, co-occurs with ixim ‘maize, corn’ most
frequently in the Calepino de Motul, but it also appears with the words for beans (buul) and an edible bird
(cħicħ) in the following examples:
(12a) v cuch y och cħicħ
‘the payment for his bird [that will be eaten]’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 86r)
(12b) tzami
voch ixim
‘my corn ran out’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 116r)
(12c) kaa v cah voch ixim voch buul
‘I have an abundance of corn and beans left’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 231r)
192 NOUNS
The Modern cognate of och is ʔóʔoč, as in the following examples from V. Bricker et al. (1998:361):
(13)
ʔab’al
'plum’
inw óʔoč ʔab’al
'my plum’
b’úʔul
'beans’
inw óʔoč b’úʔul
'my beans’
kay
'fish’
inw óʔoč kay
'my fish’
kéeh
'deer’
inw óʔoč kéeh
'my venison’
k’éek’en
'pig’
inw óʔoč k’éek’en
'my pork’
saʔ
'gruel’
inw óʔoč saʔ
'my gruel’
wàah
'tortilla’
inw óʔoč wàah
'my tortilla’
Note that some nouns can co-occur with both noun specifiers, depending on whether the animal in ques-
tion is regarded as a pet (inw alaʔ kéeh ‘my [pet] deer]’) or food (inw ʔóʔoč kéeh ‘my venison’).
The nouns that are never possessed can only be identified by the designation, sin denotar cuyo ‘without
denoting whose,’ in the glosses in the Calepino de Motul. They are most evident in the glosses for kinship
terms, which are discussed in 1.2.2. below.
1.2. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. Two semantic classes of nouns, body-part terms and kinship terms, illus-
trate additional complexities of inflection for possession in Colonial and Modern Yucatec. So also do nouns
with reflexive and reciprocal functions.
1.2.1. BODY-PART TERMS. Unlike other Mayan languages, Colonial and Modern Yucatec distinguish terms
for parts of the body according to whether they are controlled by will. Limbs like arms and legs can be
moved voluntarily, whereas the movement of blood in one’s veins is not under our control. This distinction
is marked in possessive constructions by no suffix (n1) in the first case and -el (n4) in the second. Body-part
nouns that co-occur with -el are called “inalienable” because they are not subject to human (or animal)
control.
In (14a–d) appear some examples of the possession of the inalienable nouns, baac ‘bone, horn (of deer,
cow),’ ɔom ‘brains (human, animal), kik ‘blood,’ and tanam ‘liver,’ in the Calepino de Motul:
(14a) manaan y ala in bacel t u haɔ in xiblil
‘not a single [healthy] bone of mine is left as a result of the whipping by my husband’ (Ciudad Real
1600?: fol. 244v)
(14b) ma chan in ɔomel in nuctei
‘my brain is not sufficient to understand it’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 333r)
(14c) v keluctah v kikel c ah lohil
‘Our Savior sweated his blood’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 244v)
(14d) ya v cah in tanamel
‘my liver aches’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 244v)
They contrast with kab ‘hand, arm, lower forearm, finger,’ oc ‘foot, leg,’ and pol ‘head, hair’ that take no
suffix (-Ø) when inflected for possession:
(15a) çulex
a kab ti haa
‘thrust your hands in water’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 111r)
NOUNS
193
(15b) v pakah v bacel in kab Juan
‘John set the bone of my arm’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 364r)
(15c) eɔaan va au oc ti luum
‘are your feet planted firmly in the ground?’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 161v)
(15d) tzaplac v yail voc t u men ɔac t in ɔaachi
‘the pain in my foot was devoured by the medicine I applied to it’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 116r)
(15e) lac tun v ɔocol v pocic y ocob ca hoppi v tzeec
‘once he finishes washing his feet, then he began to preach’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 258r)
(15f) v cohah in pol t u nak pak
‘he beat my head against the wall’ (Ciudad Real 1600?: fol. 78v)
The nominal phrase in (15b) contains two bod
y-part terms inflected for possession, one with -el (v bacel)
and the other with -Ø (in kab). Although I can move my hand (in kab) voluntarily, my arm does not have the
same power over its bone (v bacel).
The same contrast in possessive suffixes occurs in a nominal phrase in a pun on the name of the town
of Buctzotz in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel:
(16)
ca u kuchob buctzotz
‘then they arrived at Buctzotz;
ti u bucinahob u tzotzel v pollobi
there they dressed their hair on their heads;
buctzotz v kaba vaye c u tħanob
“Buctzotz is the name of this place” they say’ (Gordon 1913:5)
Here the inalienable noun (tzotz ‘hair’) is possessed with -el, and the noun that refers to a part of the body
that can be moved voluntarily (pol ‘head’) takes no suffix when possessed. When hair is attached to the
head, it is the owner of the head who controls it (not the head itself).
Modern Yucatec has retained the distinction between the two kinds of body-part terms. It uses -el for
inflecting inalienable nouns for possession (n4) and -Ø for inflecting nouns that refer to body parts that
can be moved voluntarily (n1). The following examples illustrate the use of -el with b’àak ‘bone’ and k’íʔik’
‘blood’:
(17a) yan ʔòorah k inw úʔuyik b’ey k u kačk’ahal u b’àakel im pàačeʔ
‘sometimes it feels like the bones in my back will snap’ (Blair and Vermont-Salas 1967:746)
(17b) yáʔab’ wá a k’íʔik’el hóok’ táan a tàal wayeʔ
‘did much of your blood come out while you were coming here?’ (Blair and Vermont-Salas 1967:751)
In (18a–b), appear some examples of the use of -Ø for inflecting ʔòok ‘foot’ and pòol ‘head’ for possession
in Modern Yucatec:
194 NOUNS
(18a) yah
inw òok
‘my foot hurts’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:16)
(18b) táan u k’íʔinam im pòol
‘my head is throbbing [from wound]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:219)
A third example, based on pàaĉ ‘back,’ occurs in the possessive nominal phrase in (17a).
Inalienable nouns occasionally appear with -Ø when they are inflected for possession, as when blood
(k’íʔik’) is removed from the body and placed in a test tube (compare [19b] with [19a]):
(19a) u k’íʔik’el h wàan
‘John’s blood [in his veins]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:152)
(19b) u k’íʔik’_ h wàan
‘John’s blood [in test tube]’ (V. Bricker et al. 1998:152)
1.2.2. KINSHIP TERMS. Twenty-three noun roots that refer to kinship relations are listed as entries in the
Calepino de Motul, and all of them took no suffix (-Ø) when inflected for possession (n1), as the following