This document summarizes research on isomorphism in Nahua dialectal morphology. It makes three main points: 1. Modern Nahua dialects are becoming more regular and less irregular compared to older dialects like Classical Nahuatl. 2. Some features identified as characteristic of "Urban Nahuatl" by Canger may actually be older features that predate the Aztec period. 3. Irregularities in Classical Nahuatl could date back to when the Mexica people were nomadic before founding Tenochtitlan. The document examines specific morphological examples like reflexive prefixes and the verb 'to go' to support these arguments. It aims to re-evaluate the idea that Urban

1. Isomorphism in
Nahua dialectal morphology
1
Mitsuya SASAKI
XIV Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste,
Hermosillo, Sonora
November 16, 2016
JSPS Research Fellow, Guest Researcher at UNAM

2. Starting point
Classical Nahuatl (16–17c) had more
irregularity and allomorphy than any
modern Nahua language/dialect
2

3. Canger’s “Urban Nahuatl” hypothesis
Canger (2011)
– Classical Nahuatl as the
“Urban Nahuatl”
– A metropolitan koine
due to the dialect contact
in Mexico-Tenochtitlan
– Nahuatl was once
simpler, isomorphic
3
Photo by Wolfgang Sauber
via Wikimedia Commons

4. My suggestions
1. Modern Nahua dialects are becoming more
isomorphic – they were once more irregular
2. Some of Canger’s “Urban” features are older
than the age of Classical Nahuatl
3. Some irregularities of Classical Nahuatl date
back when Mexica people were nomads
4

5. Modern tendency toward
isomorphism
Suggestion #1
5

6. Vowel elision in reflexives
Classical Nahuatl: Reflexive o→Ø/_V
– mo- (REFL) + tlāliā ‘set’
→ mo-tlālia ‘s/he sits’
– mo- (REFL) + īxnāmiki ‘quarrel with s.o.’
→ m-īxnāmiki-h ‘they quarrel’
Huasteca Nahuatl
– Reflexive mo- retains its vowel
6

7. Huasteca Nahuatl regular reflexives
mo-ahsi / *m-ahsi
‘it is reached, it is found’ (REFL-reach)
mo-oni [mo.óni] / *m-oni
‘it is drunk, it is drinkable’ (REFL-reach)
mo-ihkwiloa / *m-ihkwiloa
‘it is written’ (REFL-write)
(Victoriano de la Cruz and IDIEZ, p.c.)
7

8. Huasteca Nahuatl lexical reflexives
m-āwiltia (REFL-play) ‘s/he plays’
m-ēwa (REFL-raise) ‘s/he gets up’
m-ēwa (REFL-raise) ‘s/he gets up’
m-ihtōtia (REFL-dance) ‘s/he dances’
(Victoriano de la Cruz and IDIEZ, p.c.)
8

9. Pipil lexical reflexives
mu-īxmūtia (REFL-frighten) ‘to be frightened’
mu-ulīnia (REFL-stir) ‘to be stirred’
but:
m-ihtutia (REFL-dance) ‘to dance’
m-īnaya (REFL-hide) ‘to hide’
m-āwiltia (REFL-play) ‘s/he plays’
(Campbell, 1982, 31–32)
9

10. Solidification of former epenthetic i
in Huasteca Nahuatl (1)
Central k- ~ ki- (3SGO) → Huasteca ki-
– Classical
• ki-namaka ‘s/he sells it’
• k-āna ‘s/he grabs it’
– Huasteca
• ki-namaka ‘s/he sells it’
• ki-āmati ‘s/he likes it’
10

11. Solidification of former epenthetic i
in Huasteca Nahuatl (2)
Central iCC- ~ V-CC- → Huasteca V-iCC-
– Classical:
• ikxi- ‘foot’ / no-kxi ‘my foot’
• k-itta ‘s/he sees it’ / mo-tta ‘it is seen’
– Huasteca:
• ikxi- ‘foot’ / no-ikxi
• ki-itta [ki.ít(:)a] ‘s/he sees it’ / mo-itta ‘it is seen’
11

12. Rethinking the Urban Nahuatl
hypothesis
Suggestion #2
12

13. Core or “Urban” Nahuatl
Core (Nuclear) Nahuatl
(Lastra de Suárez,1986; Canger, 1988a; etc.)
– Milpa Alta, D.F.
– Amanalco (Texcoco), Estado de México
– Tepoztlán, Morelos
– Tetelcingo, Morelos
– Acaxochitlán, Hidalgo
– Classical Nahuatl (?)
etc.
13

14. Valley of Mexico
14
©Google

15. Canger’s “Urban Nahuatl” hypothesis
Core dialects have several features in common
which cannot be found in other dialects, nor in
Colonial non-Core dialectal texts
Core Nahuatl can be characterized as “Urban
Nahuatl,” a new metropolitan mixed variant
which emerged from dialect contact
15

16. Core features by Canger (2011)
1. Vowel elision in possessive prefixes before a vowel
– no-āma-w (1SGP-paper-POSS) > n-āma-w ‘my paper’
2. Alliterative reflexive prefixes in the first person
– ni-mo- (1SGS-REFL), ti-mo- (1PLS-REFL) > ni-no-, ti-to-
3. Use of the short stem wi in the verb yawi ‘go’
4. Metathesis in certain applicative forms
5. Use of short stems in the preterit
6. Use of the plural marker -tin in common nouns
– okich-tin ‘men,’ tōtol-tin ‘hens’
7. Lexical variation
16

17. Alliterative reflexives
Core Non-Core
SG PL SG PL
1 ni-no- ti-to- ni-mo- ti-mo-
2 ti-mo- am-mo- ti-mo- am-mo-
3 Ø-mo- Ø-mo- Ø-mo- Ø-mo-
17

18. Classical Nahuatl: Allomorphy in reflexives
ni-no-tolīnia (1SGS-REFL-suffer)
‘I suffer’
ti-to-tolīnia-h (1PLS-REFL-suffer-PL)
‘we suffer’
ti-mo-tolīnia (2SGS-REFL-suffer)
‘you suffer’
mo-tolīnia (3SGS-REFL-suffer)
‘s/he suffers’
18

19. Ixquihuacan Nahuatl: Reflexives
ni-mo-tlāliya (1SGS-REFL-set)
‘I sit’
ti-mo-tlāliya-h (1PLS-REFL-set-PLS)
‘we sit’
ti-mo-tlāliya (2SGS-REFL-set)
‘you sit’
mo-tlāliya (3SGS-REFL-set)
‘s/he sits’
19

20. Origin of alliterative reflexives
Some southern UA languages have corresponding
inflecting reflexives (Steele 1979, 479–481; Dakin, 2013)
– Cora, Huichol, Yaqui, O’odham, Tepehuan
20
SG PL
1 ñ- t-
2 ’e- ’e-
3 ’e- ’e-
Totono O’odham reflexive prefixes (Zepeda, 1983, 41–42)

21. Alliterative reflexives in Proto-Uto-Aztecan
Sg. Pl.
1 *nɨ- *ta-
2 *ʔɨ- *mo-
3 *mo- *mo-
21
(Langacker 1977, 47; Steele 1979, 447)

22. Alliterative reflexives: Calque or retention?
1SG/PL alliterative reflexives are sometimes
reconstructed to Proto-Uto-Aztecan (Langacker
1977, Steele 1979)
Dakin (2013) attributes Nahuatl ni-no- to a
later calque from Cora/Huichol
22

23. Alliterative reflexives in older verses
Archaic songs in Primeros memoriales
(cf. Sullivan and Dakin, 1980)
ni-n-axka (fol. 280v.)
‘I burn myself’ (~ Classical ni-n-ixka)
no-mati (fol. 274r)
‘it seems that...’ (< ni-no-mati ‘I know myself’)
23

24. Short stem of the verb ‘go’
Classical Nahuatl has an irregular verb stem
alternation: yaw (sg.) ~ wi (pl.) ‘go’
Non-core Nahuatl has yaw ~ yawi
Canger (2011, 248): wi as a “reduced” form
24

25. Short stem of the verb ‘go’
25
Classical Nahuatl
Sg. Pl.
1 ni-yaw ti-wi-’
2 ti-yaw an-wi-’
3 Ø-yaw Ø-wi-’
Non-core Nahuatl
Sg. Pl.
1 ni-yawi ti-yawi-h
2 ti-yawi (n)an-yawi-h
3 Ø-yawi Ø-yawi-h
(Canger 2011, 248; modified by me)

26. Short stem of the verb ‘go’
Stem alternation: Classical Nahuatl
26
Sg. Pl.
Present indicative yaw wi-’
Preterit ya’ ya’-ke’
Future yā-s yā-s-ke’
Pluperfect /
imperfect indicative
wi-a wi-a-’
Optative yaw wi

27. Ixquihuacan Nahuatl: ‘go’
Present indicative: yow / yuwi
Pluperfect indicative: wiya / wiyah
– ō-ni-wiya (PST-1SGS-go.PLUP)
‘I went (and came back)’
– cf. Classical Nahuatl wi-a
27

28. Short stems of ‘go’
Huasteca Nahuatl (Victoriano de la Cruz and IDIEZ, p.c.)
– Present: yah / yowi
– Imperfect/pluperfect: ihwiya / ihwiyah
• cf. Classical Nahuatl wi-a
• The origin of ih- is unknown
Sierra Negra Nahuatl
– xi-wia / xi-wia-h ‘Go!’
– cf. Tetelcingo Nahuatl xïbïya ‘Go!’
28

29. Summary: Short stem of ‘go’
The alternation between yaw ~ wi in present
indicative is limited to the Core area
However, wi is found in other tenses/moods
outside of the Core area
29

30. Summary
Some Core features may date back before the
Aztec period
– Alliterative reflexives: ni-no-
– Use of short stems of ‘go’: wi-
30

31. Irregular noun pluralization
Classical Nahuatl: various pluralization patterns
– āltepē-tl ‘city’ → āltepē-me’
– tōtol-in ‘turkey hen’ → tōtol-tin
– kōwā-tl ‘snake’ → kō-kōwa-’
– okich-tli ‘man’ → okich-tin
– tlāka-tl ‘person’ → tlāka-’
– mochi ‘all’ → moch-īn-tīn
31

32. Ixquihuacan Nahuatl noun pluralization
Nahuatl of Ixquihuacan, Puebla (non-Core dialect)
Regularized plural with -meh:
tlāka-meh ‘men’; tōtol-meh ‘turkey hens’;
kōwā-meh ‘snakes’; tēlpōch-meh ‘young guys’ ...
But:
– tlāka-h ‘men’
– kō-kone-h ‘children’;
– nochiteh (< *nochi-tīn) ‘all’;
– sikeh < *sek-īn ‘some’
32

33. More irregular plurals in the periphery
Michoacán Nahual:
– moxtin ‘all’ cf. Classical moch(-īn)-tīn
Sierra Nahuat of Tzinacapan, Cuetzalan:
– tāka-meh ~ tāka-h ‘men’
Huasteca Nahuatl inanimate plural -tinih
(Kimball, 1990; Canger 2011, 251–252)
33

34. Typological and historical remarks
Suggestion #3
34

35. Core features as irregularization
1. Contraction of possessive prefixes
2. Alliterative (“assimilated”) reflexive prefixes
3. Use of the “reduced” stem of ‘go’
4. Metathesis in certain applicative forms
5. Use of short stems in the preterit
6. Use of plural -tin in common nouns
7. Lexical variation
(Canger, 2011)
35

36. Core features as irregularization
1. Allomorphy in possessive prefixes
2. Allomorphy in reflexive prefixes
3. Allomorphy in the verb ‘go’
4. Allomorphy in certain applicative forms
5. Allomorphy of verb stems the preterit
6. Allomorphy of plural marker
7. Lexical variation
(cf. Sasaki, 2015)
36

37. Dialect mixing?
37
Photo by Wolfgang Sauber via Wikimedia Commons

38. Typology of mixed dialects
“Regional koine” (Siegel, 1985, 363–364)
“Interdialect” (Trudgill, 1986, 62–65)
“This reduction [of variability] takes place through
the process of koinéization, which consists of the
levelling (...) and of simplification, which involves,
crucially, a reduction in irregularities.”
(Trudgill, 1986, 102)
38

39. History of Mexicas
39
ca. 800? Migration of the Pipils
ca. 1100? Fall of Tula
ca. 1300? Settlement of the Mexicas
ca. 1325? Foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan
1391–1415? King Huitzilíhuitl
1428
Independence from the Tepanecs
Triple Alliance
1521 Spanish conquest

40. A Pre-Tenochtitlan Mexica speech
community?
40
Códice Boturini via Wikimedia Commons

41. Remaining questions (1)
Q. Why do colonial dialectal sources generally
lack Core features?
A . Only Core Nahuatl retained those features.
41

42. Remaining questions (2)
Q. Why are the conservative Core features limited
to a small social-cultural center?
It is against the center–periphery typology of
historical linguistics!
A . Because Core Nahuatl was not center.
Its speakers were newcomers.
42

43. What part of Core Nahuatl is “urban”?
Lexical (free) variations
– Canger and Dakin (1985):
centli ~ cintli ‘maize,’ etc.
– Canger (1988b, 55–56):
wāllaw ~ wīts ‘come,’ etc.
Grammatical (free) variations
– Pharao Hansen (2014):
ah= ~ ahmō (NEG), etc.
43

44. Conclusion
(At least some) modern Nahua dialects have a tendency
towards isomorphism. Their morphology once more
irregular, and they are becoming more systematic.
Some of Canger’s “new” irregularities are actually the
retension of older features.
Core (“Urban”) Nahuatl might be a rather conservative
dialect with an elaborated allomorphy.
The urban-ness of Core Nahuatl is found not in obligatory
alternations, but in lexical and grammatical free variations.
44

45. ¡Ōannēchmoknēlili’ke’! (Classical)
¡Tlasohkāmati! (Modern)
¡Muchas gracias!
45

46. Bibliography (1/3)
Campbell, Lyle. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Canger, Una. 1988a. Subgrupos de los dialectos nahuas. In J. J. Kathryn
and K. Dakin, eds., Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of
Thelma D. Sullivan, Oxford: B.A.R., vol. 2, pp. 473–498.
Canger, Una. 1988b. Nahuatl dialectology: A survey and some
suggestions. International Journal of American Linguistics 54: 28–72.
Canger, Una. 2011. El náhuatl urbano de Tlatelolco/Tenochtitlan,
resultado de convergensia entre dialectos. Estudios de cultura náhuatl 42:
243–258.
Canger, Una and Karen Dakin. 1985. An inconspicuous basic split in
Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 51: 358–361.
Dakin, Karen. 2013. Western and Central Nahua dialects: Possible
influences from contact with Cora and Huichol. Paper presented at the
21st Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, August 5, 2013.
46

47. Bibliography (2/3)
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Studies in Uto-Azteacan Grammar, Volume
1: An Overview of Uto-Aztecan Grammar. SIL and University of Texas in
Arlington.
Kimball, Geoffrey. 1990. Noun pluralization in Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl.
International Journal of American Linguistics 56: 196–216.
Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda. 1986. Las áreas dialectales del náhuatl
moderno. Mexico City: UNAM.
Pharao Hansen, Magnus. 2014. The East-West split in Nahuan
dialectology: Reviewing the evidence and consolidating the grouping.
Paper presented at the Friends of Uto-Aztecan Workshop, Universidad
Autónoma de Nayarit.
Sasaki, Mitsuya. 2015. Origins of alternation and variation: Rethinking
the “Urban Nahuatl” hypothesis. Proceedings of the 150th Meeting of
Linguistic Society of Japan, pp. 332–337.
Siegel, Jeff. 1985. Koines and koineization. Language in Society 14: 357–
383.
47

48. Bibliography (3/3)
Steele, Susan M. 1979. Uto-Aztecan: An assessment for historical and
comparative linguistics. In L. Campbell and M. Mithun, eds., The
Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment,
Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 444–544.
Sullivan, Thelma D. and Karen Dakin. 1980. Dialectología del náhuatl de
los siglos XVI y XVII. Rutas de intercambio en Mesoamérica y el norte
de México, XVI, pp. 291–301.
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Zepada, Ofelia. 1983. Totono O’odham Grammar. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
48