Mixe/Other notes

From LING073
Jump to: navigation, search


This case is sometimes ambiguous. Guzman sometimes uses different spellings for the definite determiner and the demonstrative determiner ja (underlying form: ja'a). That is, the latter is variably spelled and ja. And in the coffee story, Suslak either doesn't differentiate between definite and demonstrative determiners, or there are just no tokens of the latter. Both occupy the same position in a sentence, and they both seem to affect their surroundings in the same way. So, I'm not sure how to choose between the two possibilities.

  • jaꞌa (jèꞌè in corpus)
    • <dem>
      • Guzman (221) (p108)
        ^ku/ku<cnjc>$ ^ja/jaꞌa<dem><det>/jaꞌa<prn>$ ^pöjxïn/pöx<n>$ ^ti/të<enc><perf>$ ^nyëjkxnï/nëkx<v><dep><cpl><p3>$ ^nëjootm/nëjoot<n><loc>$
    • <prn>
      • Guzman (224) (p109)
        ^ꞌuk/ꞌuk<cnjc>$ ^nänööx/nööx<adj><aug>$ ^jaꞌa/jaꞌa<prn>/jaꞌa<dem><det>/$


I thought this was going to be an ambiguous analysis case, but it wasn't, really.

What I think is happening:

juuꞌ is always a relativizer. When introducing a relative clause, one juuꞌ is required at the beginning of that relative clause. For emphasis, focalization, or other discourse-y things, you can have another juuꞌ right before the main noun phrase. This juuꞌ is mostly (or maybe always; I haven't seen any cases not like this) followed by discourse enclitics like =ts ASSERTIVE and =veꞌe FOC

... juuꞌ=enclitic NP juuꞌ relative-clause ...

Both uses are relativizers, but only the first is required. Furthermore, the second type is more accurately translated as "that" or "which" in English, whereas the first type may or may not be translated.


We'll tag both as relativizers, but only the second type will have the lemma "that". We will need to change the juuꞌ morphTest and remove the <dem> possibility from the transducer.


  • ex. (238) in Guzman (p 114 | 148/312)
  • ex. (112.b) in Guzman (p 69 | 103/312)
  • ex. (185) in Guzman (p 99 | 133/312)
  • ex. (238) in Guzman (p114) -includes both
    • ꞌäx juuꞌts yë piꞌkꞌöktä juuꞌ tëꞌktsïnipä ꞌöktä
      ^ꞌäx/ꞌäx<cnjcoo> ^juuꞌts/juuꞌ<rlt><asrt> ^yë/yëꞌë<dem> ^piꞌkꞌöktä/ꞌök<n><pl><?> ^juuꞌ/juuꞌ<rlt> ^tëꞌktsïnipä/tëktsëën<v><tv><nmn><asun> ^ꞌöktä/ꞌök<n><pl>
      • pi'k is a diminutive, but I don't know whether I should tag it, and if I do, what to tag it as.

cnjcoo = coordinating conjunction rlt = relativizers asrt = assertive asum = assumptive mood (indicates a statement is assumed to be true, because it usually is under similar circumstances) nmn = nominalizer

  • -pa, specifically, is used in a copula-ish sort of way, it seems. Guzman writes, "-pä se sufija a verbos para referirse a la entidad

que desarrolla la actividad que predica la raíz" (119).

The examples from the coffee story (which is mainly what we're using for our corpus) are generally more complicated than the examples in Guzman. (We could add some Guzman examples to the corpus, I guess.)

(juu' "which" is referring to earlier mentioned "coffee") -- A relative pronoun here, I think

  • juuꞌts viijnk kajpün jayuda, vèꞌèts, ?oytyunükts jè jyèꞌè du tumpivda. (Suslak p85)
  • ꞌax kutseꞌe yakmujùydat, ꞌakijpxa cheꞌe nmujùꞌyumdat, veꞌem juuꞌ laata tü dü ꞌapivꞌùtsta, nay veꞌem juuꞌ kajha tü dü apivꞌùtstup. (Suslak p87)