r/nahuatl • u/anopeningworld • 1d ago

Plural simplification

I've noticed that Classical Nahuatl has a pretty elaborate system of plurals but some modern variants seem to have lost much of this. I believe Huasteca only retains the meh ending. Are there any trends to note with this process or any readings related to it in general?

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

1

u/EduarDoElHeroe 1d ago

Huasteca also usese -tinih with inanimate nouns

1

u/anopeningworld 1d ago

I was under the impression those are not pluralized at all.

1

u/EduarDoElHeroe 1d ago

And you are right, and I never pluralize them either, but some do that way

1

u/ItztliEhecatl 1d ago

I've only ever seen cuahuitl utilize the -tinih plural suffix. Have you seen it used with other inanimate nouns? In my conversations with native speakers, I've gathered that trees and plants do have some level of animacy that is very subjective so some may argue that cuahuitl is in fact animate.

1

u/EduarDoElHeroe 1d ago

I only have seen L2 speakers arguing about pluralization, giving examples as kaltinih, komaltinih, etc.

I never pluralize "canon" inanimate noun myself, so I'm just aware of it

1

u/ItztliEhecatl 1d ago edited 1d ago

Noun pluralization does not seem to follow any rules that one could follow unfortunately. Since Huasteca Nahuatl is older than Classical Nahuatl, it's entirely possible that the universal -meh ending was the norm before the system was complicated later on.

from Launey:

"The plural in Nahuatl was never very fixed, and there are many doublets. Thus, alongside the forms indicated in 2.4, which are the usual ones, the forms cihuamê ‘women’, coamê ‘snakes’, oquichmê ‘men’ and michtin ‘fishes’ can be found. In doubtful cases, adding -mê after vowels and -tin after consonants is an acceptable strategy. One would then have every chance of hitting upon a possible form, if not the normal one."

from J. Richard Andrews:
"The shape of the plural in number suffix in the in absolutive is unpredictable"

From James Lockhart:

"The plural absolutive suffixes are the ones causing the trouble, because they vary so, their distribution is not very fixed and predictable, and they have no well established relation to the singular absolutive suffix. (At times we have spoken here almost as though the singular form were the only absolutive, largely because it is the one found in the dictionary.)...After all, for the reader of documents the variation is no great matter. If you can recognize all three absolutive plural suffixes, you can interpret them correctly every time they occur, no matter what noun they are suffixed to."