Content created: 2001-01-06
File last modified:

Lesson 7: Object Prefixes

Even as Nahuatl verbs always take subject prefixes, transitive verbs always also take object prefixes. The object prefix follows the subject prefix.

Object Prefixes for Verbs
nëch- = me	tëch- = us
mitz- = you (s)	amëch- = you (p)
c-, qui- = him/her/it	quim-/quin- = them

The third-person singular prefix is c (spelt qu before e or i) when there is a vowel already adjacent to it (before, after, or both); otherwise it is qui.

Examples

Itta Vt* = to see
* Vt = transitive verb, Vi = intransitive verb

ni.mitz.itta

ti.quin.itta

tiquinittah

tiquittah

quinitta

mitzittah

caqui Vt = to hear
ocelotl = ocelot; jaguar

ni.c.caqui

-.qui.caqui

ti.mitz.caqui.h

tiquincaqui

tiquincaquih

ticcaquih in ocelotl

tiquittah in ocelotl

ana Vt = to take

c.ana

c.ana.h

nëchanah

namëchana

nicana in metlatl

nehhuatl nicana in pilli

yehhuatl nicana in pilli

yehhuän niquinana in pïpiltin

Some verbs take more than one object. The clearest example is "give":

I give	the tamal	to Juan	for his mother.
	direct object	indirect object	benefactive object

In Nahuatl only one object prefix is used on a verb. The object prefix agrees with the benefactive object if one is stated; if not then it agrees with the indirect object. If there is not one of those either, then it agrees with the direct object. (If there is any language outside the Americas that does this, I have yet to hear of it.) Consider the following examples, using maca = to give:

ni.c.maca in tamal.li = I give tamales
ni.mitz.maca in tamal.li = I give you tamales
ni.quim.maca in tamal.li to.pïpil.huän = I give (you?) tamales for/to your children

Obviously there can be ambiguities.

ni.c.maca in tamal.li = I give tamales: the direct object
ni.c.maca in tamal.li = I give him tamales: the indirect object
ni.mitz.maca in tamal.li = I give you tamales: the indirect object
ni.quim.maca in tamal.li to.pïpil.huän = I give tamales to our children: indirect object
ni.quim.maca in tamal.li to.pïpil.huän = I give [you] tamales for our children: benefactive object

ichtequi Vt = to steal

-.mitz.ichtequi

-.qu.ichtequi.h in tamalli

ti.qu.ichtequi in tamalli in cihuatl

-.qu.ichtequi

Return to top.

Challenge: In the example, ni.quim.maca in tamal.li to.pïpil.huän was translated as "I give you tamales for our children." Is there any reason why it can't be translated as "I give tamales to our children?" (Answer: No, except that benefactive agreement is superior to indirect object agreement and presumably more likely.)

So would one of the following sentences be any clearer? Why (not)?

tehuatl niquimmaca in tamalli topïpilhuän
nehuatl niquimmaca in tamalli topïpilhuän
yehhuäntin niquimmaca in tamalli topïpilhuän

Return to top.