Cómo la mosca azul hace señales de humo: sobre la presentación de un texto seri

Stephen A. Marlett

doi:10.19130/iifl.tlalocan.2013.229

Resumen

Este trabajo presenta una versión actualizada de un texto corto en lengua seri,acerca de cómo la mosca azul se sienta en la carroña y hace señales de humo que atraen alos buitres. El texto era una de las dos narraciones originalmente publicadas en E. Moser(1968). En esta versión se entrega una discusión sobre la evolución del texto y su análisis,así como una nueva interlinearización detallada en la que se muestra la composición morfológicade las palabras.

Introduction

This paper is about a very short Seri^¹ text (51 seconds long in one of the early recordings) that has been published in more than one form. The text is by no means the most interesting one to be analyzed, but there is value in comparing the different forms in which it has appeared. Some phonetic detail presented here has still not been addressed in linguistic descriptions. Furthermore, the place of texts such as this one dealing with differences between early stages of the history of the world and present times has not been addressed in anthropological studies of Seri culture. We do not have an adequate context in which to discuss the continued interest that such stories have in the language community.

In the section History, the history of publication is reviewed. The text is given in monolingual format in the section Text, using the community-based orthography, and in interlinearized format in the section Glossed Text. In the section Comments, I briefly compare the versions (apart from orthographical issues) and discuss the notable differences. One difference is mentioned here, however. The word /ˈχkoomox/ ‘fly’ (Musca domestica in other contexts but referring to some other kind of fly here -see below) was written with a final /k/ after the /x/ in E. Moser (1968); this is anomalous since the word occurs without that final /k/ in all of the paper file slips that Moser used. The word is written here as it occurs in the Seri dictionary, M. Moser & Marlett (2010), including with a long vowel in the first syllable (as in the 1968 and 1976 versions, but unlike on the paper slips). Facsimile versions of earlier presentations of the text are given in appendices A-C.

A short summary of the contents of the text is given here: The reason why vultures can find carcasses of animals in the desert is because the blue bottlefly is sitting on them making smoke signals.

The free translation given in E. Moser (1968) is the following:^²

This story happened almost at the beginning of the world. The fly, by rubbing his front legs together, makes fire by friction-making-motions just like a person. Thus when the fly is with an animal carcass and makes fire by friction and makes smoke signals, the bird flying along finds the carcass on the desert. That is why it happens like that. Even today when any carcass is out of sight on the desert, the bird, due to the fly making fire by friction and making smoke signals, as it were, finds it and finally gets to it. That is how it happens.

The fly is identified in the title used in 1976 as xcoomoj cooil, which is the blue bottlefly (Calliphora spp.) according to M. Moser & Marlett (2010: 581). Some species, such as Calliphora vomita, are known to be attracted to rotting meat, where eggs are laid and larvae then develop. The flies can be observed rubbing their forelegs together, and this action evidently prompted the comparison with the human activity of starting a fire through friction. See Felger & M. Moser (1985: 123-125) for a description of the process. The verbs for this action are químatox (transitive) and coomatox (intransitive, unspecified object form); see M. Moser & Marlett (2010: 514, 224). The intransitive verb figures into the text under consideration here.

Kroeber (1931: 13) includes the following “myth fragment” from his short time of interaction with the Seris: “Fire is from the fly, who made it by rubbing his hands together, as he still does (fide R. Thomson).”^³ It may be that this myth fragment (which may not have been accurately recorded) prompted Edward W. Moser, who began to learn and analyze Seri twenty years after Kroeber’s visit to the area, to ask for and record the text presented here.

History of the publication

The text was recorded by Edward Moser sometime prior to 1968, according to the first footnote to the first published form, which was for an academic audience, as E. Moser (1968: 364-365). That presentation utilized Americanist symbols to represent what was thought to be a phonemic transcription of the text; see appendix A. A recording made in 1966 by Edward Moser is part of the collection of Seri recordings available through the Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America, resource ID: SEI003R002, and is evidently the one that is the basis for the 1968 printed version. (An mp3 version of this recording is available on this journal’s website.^⁴) The first footnote in the 1968 publication said that the text was told by Roberto Herrera T[homson], a man locally known as Cmiique Roberto and also known later as Roberto Herrera Marcos (1916-1988).^⁵

However, the next presentation of the text, as Morales (1976), for the Seri community and also under the sponsorship of Moser, ascribes it to Jesús Morales, and there is little doubt that we are dealing with the same text. See appendix B. In unarchived typed notes by Edward or Mary Moser, it is indicated that various recordings were made in 1964 by Edward Moser, Mary Moser, and Bernard L. Fontana, the latter from the University of Arizona. The notes say the recordings were made of Jesús Morales, who was 58 years old at the time. The recordings were made in Desemboque (place of residence of the Mosers and of Morales). In these notes it is mentioned that the story “The Fly Legend” was recorded, on R[eel] 79. That recording is part of the collection deposited by the Mosers at the Arizona State Museum but the specific recording of this text has not been located.

The story was published again for the Seri community as Morales (1983) with updating of the spelling conventions; see appendix C.

Neither of the narrators (Herrera or Morales) was a writer of the language. As one compares the versions of the text, one can appreciate the fact that the shape of the written language was being slowly developed from its first steps (in the early 1950’s, through the research of Edward and Mary Moser) through gradual improvements as various people in the community became interested and involved in reading and writing the language, through the early twenty-first century as confident writers helped to bring the writing of Seri into its present form. (Some of this history is traced in Marlett 2006.)

The presentation of the text here, in the section Text, updates the story once more to agree with the conventions used in the Seri dictionary, now in its second edition as M. Moser & Marlett (2010), which resulted from long interaction with Seri men and women who served on the editorial committee for that work. The present version was done with the editorial help of René Montaño Herrera in 2007. Word breaks are slightly different than those used previous to 2005. A few examples of these are given in (1), with reference to the text itself as shown in the section Glossed Text.

a. The switch reference markers are separated off, and thus cotama in the first sentence is now written cota ma.

b. The declarative enclitic is separated off, and thus caahcaha in the first sentence is now written caahca ha.

c. The ubiquitous morpheme x, glossed as ‘UT’ (‘unspecified time’), written as a suffix in the versions published previous to 2005, is separated off; thus tahcamax in the third sentence is now written tahca ma x.

d. The definite article quih (one of several articles in the language) is written that way always now, and as a separate word, unlike in the 1976 version.

e. The complex demonstratives (composed of a deictic and a definite article), written as two words in 1976, are written as one word today; see the example tiquij in the second sentence, which was written as ti quij in 1976 and earlier.

Commas are also used now, unlike in the 1976 and 1983 versions -a development that was made even more necessary because of the changes in word divisions. Other small differences may also be observed, mostly dealing with when and how to represent vowel length.

The current presentation is less phonetically-oriented than previous versions. For example, the word in sentence 3.1 was written as tijma because the clause has reduced stress and the vowel loses some of its underlying length; today that word is written tiij ma, the reading of which does require some additional background on the part of the reader.

TEXT IN SERI

Hant com cmaa ipaxi quih iihax cota ma, hant com iti tahca ma, taax ano caahca ha. Xcoomoj tiquij, tiix cmiique quih yámatox. Ox isoj itáh toc cötiij ma, ziix cooxi com itacoxl, toomatox, hamác cötootni ma x, hant quih iti tahca ma x, ziix quih cooxi quih hehe quih iicot cocom quih hant quih iti toom ma x, ziic quih haquix mota x, imiiho tax. Taax ah oo cötpacta x, ox tpacta, yoque.

Ox cöiiha hizac xox, ziix quih cooxi quih heecot cotom, haquix toom ma x, haa tmaco xox, ziic quih imiiho tax; xcoomoj tiquij ah haa tiij x, mos taa oo cöitapacta x, toomatox, xah hax tahii hax taa ma x, hamác cöhaisx xah ziix cmis quih haa tap ma, itaho x, haptco cöcaafp iha. Taax oo cötpacta, hant quih iti caahca ha.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Shortly after the creation of the world, the bluefly was sitting on the carcass of a dead animal, as usual, but he was lighting a fire and making smoke signals. Although the dead animal was between bushes and out of view, the vultures were able to spot it because they saw the smoke signals.

That’s the way it still is. A dead animal may be there in the desert, perhaps out of view, but the bluefly is there making a fire and smoke signals, as it were, and so the vultures spot the carcass right away and arrive to it. That’s how it happens.

GLOSSED TEXT

The text is presented in five word-aligned lines plus a (rather wooden) free translation in a sixth line.

The first line is the text as it is written using local writing conventions, as documented and utilized in M. Moser & Marlett (2010). (Written accents are not always used in locally written materials, but they are used consistently here; see discussion of the analysis in Marlett 2008a.)

The second line presents a phonemic transcription, following the analysis presented in Marlett, Moreno Herrera & Herrera Astorga (2005) and the conventions of the IPA (1999).

The third line presents a narrow, or allophonic, transcription. The publication of this text in E. Moser (1968) included a transcription that is quite comparable to the narrow transcription (although it was not intended that way). Our understanding of Seri phonology and phonetics has progressed since that time and so it seems appropriate to include here a narrow transcription. This is especially important since there are phonetic facts, such as the question of unstressed clauses, that are not easily presented using an automated word-by-word interlinearization program. In this narrow transcription, vowels and consonants marked with a half-length mark are phonetically lengthened as a result of stress on the preceding vowel (and even so the phonetic details are not fully represented). To date, no one has given an account of stress above the word level in Seri, and this makes Moser’s transcription valuable since it documented the phrasal stress. In the present narrow transcription, secondary stress is used to mark the place where primary stress would fall in a word-level transcription; vowel length in such syllables is very much reduced, and this is indicated here by a breve above each of the geminate vowels. Words that cliticize are preceded or followed by a bottom tiebar.

The fourth line presents a morphological analysis of the words, generally following the so-called Leipzig Glossing Rules.^⁶ Morpheme breaks are not indicated in the text itself for various reasons. In fact, not all derived stems (such as causatives) are fully explicated; they are just glossed with appropriate meanings. For detailed information on the morphology -derivational as well as inflectional- see Marlett (2012). Morpheme glossing in this text represents the latest analysis, including the fact that three realis forms are no longer given meaningful labels since the earlier labels (still to be changed in the grammatical description in progress) are now deemed misleading.

The fifth line gives the citation form of the word in question, to facilitate use of the dictionary, M. Moser & Marlett (2010). The special abbreviations “+if ” (for “inflected form of”) and “+pos. var” (for “positional variant”) appear in this line.

And the sixth line gives a relatively free translation of that unit of text. It attempts to provide a clear translation that nonetheless closely reflects the structure of the original text.

MosHum:1.1
1.	Hant com cmaa ipaxi quih iihax cota ma,
	ˈʔant	kom	ˈkmaa	iˈpaχi	kiʔ	ˈiiʔaχ	ˈkota	ma
	ˈʔant	koŋ	ˈkw̃ãã	iˈpaχˑiˑ	kʔ‿	ˌı̆ı̆ʔaχ	ˌkota	‿ma
	land	DEF;HZ	now	3POSS:[PROP.OBL.NMLZ:]finish	DEF;FL	3POSS:with	3.IO:RLT:happen	DS
	hant	com	cmaa	quixi+if	quih	iihax	coha+if	ma
	When the earth was recently made,

MosHum:1.2
2.	hant com iti tahca ma,
	ˈʔant	kom	iti	ˈtaʔka	ma
	ˈʔant	kom	ˌiti‿	ˌtaʔka	‿ma
	land	DEF;HZ	3POSS:on	RLT:be_located	DS
	hant	com	iti	caahca+if	ma
	it happened;

MosHum:1.3
3.	taax ano caahca ha.
	ˈtaaχ	ano	ˈkaaʔka	ʔa
	ˈtaaχ	ˌano‿	ˈkaaʔka	‿ʔa
	DEM;DT;PL	[3POSS:]in/from	SBJ.NMLZ:be_located	DCL
	taax	ano	caahca	ha.
	it happened then

MosHum:2
4.	Xcoomoj tiquij, tiix cmiique quih yámatox.
	ˈχkoomox	tikix	ˈtiiχ	ˈkmiikɛ	kiʔ	ˈjamatoχ
	ˈχkoomˑoˑx	tikix	ˈtiiχ	ˈkw̃ı̃ı̃kˑɛˑ	kiʔ‿	ˈjamˑaˑtoχ
	Musca_domestica	MD:CM	DEM;DT;SG	person_(Seri)	DEF;FL	RLYO:UNSP.OBJ:use_firedrill
	xcoomoj	tiquij	tiix	cmiique	quih	coomatox+if
	That fly was making fire [using a firedrill] like a person.

MosHum:3.1
5.	Ox isoj itáh toc cötiij ma,
	ˈoχ	ˈisox	iˈtaʔ	tok	ˈkʷtiix	ma
	ˈoχ	ˌisox‿	iˌtaʔ	tok‿	ˌkʷtı̆ı̆x	‿ma
	thus	3POSS:body	3SBJ:RLT:say/do/put	there	3.IO:RLT:sit	DS
	ox	isoj	quih+if	toc	quiij+if	ma
	He was sitting there as was his custom,

MosHum:3.2
6.	ziix cooxi com itacoxl,
	ˈʃiiχ	ˈkooχi	kom	itaˈkoχɬ
	ˌʃı̆ı̆χ	ˈkooχˑiˑ	kom	itaˌkoχɬ
	thing	SBJ.NMLZ:die.(animal)	DEF;HZ	3SBJ:RLT:accompany
	ziix	cooxi	com	cacoxl+if
	he was staying with the carcass of a dead animal

MosHum:3.3
7.	toomatox,
	ˈtoomatoχ
	ˈtoomˑaˑtoχ
	RLT:UNSP.OBJ:use_firedrill
	coomatox+if
	he was lighting a fire

MosHum:3.4
8.	hamác cötootni ma x,
	ʔaˈmak	ˈkʷtootni	ma	χ
	ʔaˈmak	ˌkʷtŏŏtni	‿ma	‿χ
	fire	3.IO:RLT:UNSP.OBJ:touch	DS	UT
	hamác	cootni+if	ma	x
	he was making smoke signals;

MosHum:3.5
9.	hant quih iti tahca ma x,
	ˈʔant	kiʔ	ˈiti	ˈtaʔka	ma	χ
	ˈʔant	kʔ‿	ˌiti‿	ˌtaʔka	‿ma	‿χ
	land	DEF;FL	3POSS:on	RLT:be_located	DS	UT
	hant	quih	iti	caahca+if	ma	x
	it happened,

MosHum:3.6
	ziix quih cooxi quih hehe quih iicot cocom quih hant quih iti toom ma x,
10.	ˈʃiiχ	kiʔ	ˈkooχi	kiʔ	ˈʔɛʔɛ	kiʔ	ˈiikot
	ˈʃiiχ	kʔ‿	ˈkooχˑiˑ	kʔ‿	ˈʔɛʔˑɛˑ	kʔ‿	ˈiikˑoˑt
	thing	DEF;FL	SBJ.NMLZ:die.(animal)	DEF;FL	plant	DEF;FL	3POSS:place_between
	ziix	quih	cooxi	quih	hehe	quih	iicot

ˈkokom	kiʔ	ˈʔant	kiʔ	ˈiti	ˈtoom	ma	χ
ˈkokˑoˑm	kʔ‿	ˈʔant	kʔ‿	ˌiti‿	ˌtŏŏm	‿ma	‿χ
3.IO:SBJ.NMLZ:lie	DEF;FL	land	DEF;FL	3POSS:on	RLT:lie	DS	UT
cocom	quih	hant	quih	iti	coom+if	ma	x
the dead animal lying between the bushes was on the ground,

MosHum:3.7
11.	ziic quih haquix mota x,
	ˈʃiik	kiʔ	ˈʔakiχ	ˈmota	χ
	ˈʃiik	kʔ‿	ˈʔakˑiˑχ	ˌmota	‿χ
	bird	DEF;FL	somewhere	TWD:RLT:move	UT
	ziic	quih	haquix	moca+if	x
	a bird came along,

MosHum:3.8
12.	imiiho tax.
	iˈmiiʔo	taχ
	iˈmiiʔˑoˑ	‿taχ
	3SBJ:RLMI:see	SBRD
	quiho+if	tax
	because he saw them.

MosHum:4.1
13.	Taax ah oo cötpacta x,
	ˈtaaχ	aʔ	oo	ˈkʷtpakta	χ
	ˈtaaχ	‿aʔ	‿ŏŏ	ˌkʷtpakta	‿χ
	DEM;DT;PL	FOC	LIM	3.IO:RLT:be_in_appearance	UT
	taax	ah	oo	hapacta+if	x
	It was like that,

MosHum:4.2
14.	ox tpacta, yoque.
	ˈoχ	ˈtpakta	jokɛ
	ˈoχ	ˈtpakta	jokɛ
	thus	RLT:be_in_appearance	RLYO:UNSPSBJ:say
	ox	hapacta+if	teeque+if
	that’s how it was, they say.

MosHum:5.1
15.	Ox cöiiha hizac xox,
	ˈoχ	ˈkʷiiʔa	ʔiʃak	χoχ
	ˌoχ	ˈkʷiiʔˑaˑ	ʔiʃak	‿χoχ
	thus	3.IO:3POSS:PROP.OBL.NMLZ:happen	PROX:LOC	although
	ox	coha+if	hizac	xox
	Although that’s the way it is nowadays,

MosHum:5.2
16.	ziix quih cooxi quih heecot cotom,
	ˈʃiiχ	kiʔ	ˈkooχi	kiʔ	ˈʔɛɛkot	ˈkotom
	ˈʃiiχ	kiʔ‿	ˈkooχˑiˑ	kʔ‿	ˈʔɛɛkˑoˑt	ˌkotom
	thing	DEF;FL	SBJ.NMLZ:die.(animal)	DEF;FL	desert_area	3.IO:RLT:lie
	ziix	quih	cooxi	quih	heecot	cocom+if
	the dead animal lies in the desert,

MosHum:5.3
17.	haquix toom ma x,
	ˈʔakiχ	ˈtoom	ma	χ
	ˈʔakˑiˑχ	ˌtŏŏm	‿ma	‿χ
	somewhere	RLT:lie	DS	UT
	haquix	coom+if	ma	x
	it lies somewhere,

MosHum:5.4
18.	haa tmaco xox,
	ˈʔaa	ˈtmako	χoχ
	ˈʔaa	ˌtmako	‿χoχ
	there	RLT:?	although
	haa	cmaco+if	xox
	although it may not be visible,

MosHum:5.5
19.	ziic quih imiiho tax;
	ˈʃiik	kiʔ	iˈmiiʔo	taχ
	ˈʃiik	kʔ‿	iˈmiiʔˑoˑ	‿taχ
	bird	DEF;FL	3SBJ:RLMI:see	SBRD
	ziic	quih	quiho+if	tax
	the bird sees it;

MosHum:5.6
20.	xcoomoj tiquij ah haa tiij x,
	ˈχkoomox	tikix	aʔ	ˈʔaa	ˈtiix	χ
	ˈχkoomˑoˑx	tikix	‿aʔ	ˈʔaa	ˌtı̆ı̆x	‿χ
	Musca_domestica	MD:CM	FOC	there	RLT:sit	UT
	xcoomoj	tiquij	ah	haa	quiij+if	x
	that fly is sitting there,

MosHum:5.7
21.	mos taa oo cöitapacta x,
	mos	ˈtaa	oo	kʷitaˈpakta	χ
	mos	ˈtaa	‿ŏŏ	kʷitaˌpakta	‿χ
	also	DEM;MD;PL	LIM	3.IO:3SBJ:RLT:do	UT
	mos	taa	oo	capacta+if	x
	he is also doing it like that,

MosHum:5.8
22.	toomatox, xah hax tahii hax taa ma x,
	ˈtoomatoχ	χaʔ	ʔaχ	taˈʔii	ʔaχ	ˈtaa	ma	χ
	ˈtoomˑaˑtoχ	‿χaʔ	ʔaχ‿	taˈʔii	ʔaχ‿	ˌtăă	‿ma	‿χ
	RLT:UNSP.OBJ:use_firedrill	?	rather/very	RLT:PASS:feel	rather/very	RLT;AUX	DS	UT
	coomatox+if	xah	hax	cquii+if	hax	taa	ma	x
	it is just as if he were starting fire with a firedrill,

MosHum:5.9
23.	hamác cöhaisx xah ziix cmis quih haa tap ma,
	ʔaˈmak	ˈkʷʔaisχ	χaʔ	ˈʃiiχ	ˈkmis	kiʔ	ˈʔaa	ˈtap	ma
	ʔaˈmak	ˈkʷʔaisχ	‿χaʔ	ˌʃı̆ı̆χ	ˈkw̃ı̃s	kʔ‿	ˌʔăă	ˌtap	‿ma
	fire	injured	?	thing	SBJ.NMLZ:[TR:]resemble	DEF;FL	there	RLT:stand	DS
	hamác	cöhaisx	xah	ziix	cmis	quih	haa	tap	ma
	something resembling a smoke signal is there;

MosHum:5.10
24.	itaho x,
	iˈtaʔo	χ
	iˈtaʔˑoˑ	‿χ
	3SBJ:RLT:see	UT
	quiho+if	x
	when he sees it,

MosHum:5.11
25.	haptco cöcaafp iha.
	ˈʔaptko	ˈkʷkaaɸp	iʔa
	ˈʔaptko	ˈkʷkʷaaɸp	‿iʔa
	already	3.IO:SBJ.NMLZ:arrive	DCL
	haptco	caafp+if	ha+pos. var.
	he arrives to it right away.

MosHum:6.1
26.	Taax oo cötpacta,
	ˈtaaχ	oo	ˈkʷtpakta
	ˈtaaχ	ŏŏ	ˌkʷtpakta
	DEM;DT;PL	LIM	3.IO:RLT:be_in_appearance
	taax	oo	hapacta+if
	It is like that,

MosHum:6.2
27.	hant quih iti caahca ha.
	ˈʔant	kiʔ	ˈiti	ˈkaaʔka	ʔa
	ˈʔant	kʔ‿	ˌiti‿	ˈkaaʔka	‿ʔa
	land	DEF;FL	3POSS:on	SBJ.NMLZ:be_located	DCL
	hant	quih	iti	caahca	ha
	it happens like that.

Comments

In the following subsections I present comments on the text itself, primarily comparing published versions, and then comments about grammatical points.

Textual comments

In this section I briefly compare the actual text of three versions: 1968, 1976 and the present one. For this comparison, I use the community-based orthography and the unit numbers that appear in the section Text above.

In 1.1, the word ipaxi was just that in 1968 but was changed to cöipaxi (adding the prefix cö-) in 1976, probably because Jesús Morales gave it that way. The current version excludes the prefix.

In 1.1, the word transcribed quihax in 1968 and 1976 is taken as quih iihax; the word iihax is part of more than one idiom based on the irregular verb coha, as shown in M. Moser & Marlett (2010: 206).

In sentence 2, the word yámatox was cöyámatox in 1968, but was yámatox in 1976. I have no explanation for why this finite verb changed its form to drop the prefix cö- in the 1976 version except that probably Jesús Morales gave it that way. It would seem to make sense for the prefix to occur to agree with the nominal of comparison cmiique quih, but the prefix was nonetheless dropped.

The words toc cötiij ma in 3.1 were transcribed without the prefix cö- in 1968 and 1976. In this case, we know that it was simply a matter of not hearing the obviously non-salient consonant cö- /kʷ/ in this context. We now know that the locative toc always requires that prefix (or its allomorph co-) on the verb that follows, as is obvious from all of the phonological contexts that permit it to be heard well.

The nominalized verb cocom in 3.6, now in a relative clause, was originally the finite verb cotom and not in a relative clause.

The definite article quih in 5.2 (and elsewhere) wrong-way cliticizes with whatever follows the noun phrase and is typically pronounced as [kʔ] when it precedes a vowel or a glottal stop and a vowel. This article is etymologically related to the nominalized verb quiih /kiiʔ/; see Marlett & M. Moser (1994). It is likely that reanalysis has taken place and now the presence of [i] in the occasional allomorph [kiʔ] of the article is due to a postlexical epenthesis rule. In the 1976 version of the text, the article is written attached to the verb on which it leans, and so ziic quih imiiho [ˈʃiik kʔ iˈmiiʔˑoˑ] (‘bird the it.sees.it’) in 5.5 was written ziic chimíihhoo. By 1983, the custom was to write this article always as quih, regardless of how it was actually pronounced.

Each of the presentations utilize six sentences, although the most recent version uses a semicolon in the middle of the fifth sentence as there is a fairly major break there (which could have been represented with a period). The most recent version uses commas in crucial ways that have proven to be helpful to readers for appropiate “chunking” of the text. Commas are used after dependent clauses, as in sentence 1. They have also been used after noun (or determiner) phrases that are then followed by the demonstrative pronoun, as at the beginning of sentence 2. Commas have been placed after the subordinater xox, as in sentence 5.

Other differences between the versions of the text are primarily matters of orthography -dealing with extremely knotty issues of the representation of phonetic and phonological facts, but there are a few other small differences such as the inclusion of an additional article or enclitic x.

Grammatical comments

The use of the “horizontal” article com with the word for ‘land’ in 1.1 indicates that the land in its broad expanse is being referred to, not the earth as a sphere (which would use the “compact” article quij). More information on the use of articles can be found in Marlett & M. Moser (1994) and Marlett (2012).

The combination iihax cota is an idiom that indicates the simultaneity of the events mentioned.

The expressions with the verb caahca (in its different forms) in 1.2 and 1.3 have to do with the matter of an event happening.

The demonstrative tiquij in 2 is appropriate for insects of this type (not too long, not too tall); they are all prototypically presented as sitting rather than standing unless in motion.

The phrase ox isoj itáh in 3.1 is an idiom that indicates customary action or habit. I believe that there is some kind of construction illustrated here -seen in many other texts- of a relatively informative clause such as the one just mentioned that is followed by a positional verb in a fairly formulaic way (toc cötiij ma) that should be translated in a way that combines the two clauses. This construction has not been investigated in detail, but the intonational contour is similar to that of the phasal verb construction discussed in Marlett (2008b), a fact that supports an analysis that combines the two clauses in some way. (For this reason, a comma does not follow the verb itáh in 3.1.)

Only one sentence, 4, includes the main verb yoque ‘one says’, which is often used as an evidential marker in texts such as this (and actually very weakly articulated -unstressed, and sometimes virtually unheard), indicating that we are dealing with information that is not first-hand.

The expression haa tmaco in 5.4 is an idiom that indicates that something is hidden, hard to see, or difficult and complicated. The verb tmaco is inflected with the realis t- prefix. While one might think that the m is the negative prefix, it is not (at least synchronically; see Marlett, 2002 for discussion). The verb may be negated: tommaco. Since the verb only occurs in this and one other idiom, we do not know what it means in itself.

The expression hamác cöhaisx in 5.9 means ‘smoke signal’, but is literally ‘injured fire’.

Two main clause finite verbs in this text, the verbs imiiho in 3.9 and 5.5, are in the mi-realis form. The use of this form (rather than the yo-realis form) is appropriate since the author is not asserting personal observation of the events. It is curious, however, that the first main-clause finite verb in the text is actually in the yo-realis form; see yámatox in 2. It might be noted that some other main (final) clauses have non-finite verbs -a rather common situation- followed by a modal enclitic. These all happen to be subject nominalized forms. See caahca in 1.3 and 6.2, and cöcaafp in 5.11.

The text seems to be relating the modern world and the world as it was first made. The first paragraph (sentences 1-4), as currently formatted, tell what happened when the world was first made. The second paragraph (sentences 5-6) indicates that the modern situation is parallel to what happened back then. As an anonymous reviewer pointed out, the current translation differs in some key ways from the 1968 translation. The verb forms do not provide the difference between past and present (a topic that needs much more research). The current translation pivots significantly on the difference between the introductory phrase (“Shortly after the creation of the world”) and the beginning of sentence 5 that transitions to the modern world.

Lines 3.9 and 5.5 end with the word tax, identified as a weak subordinator in Marlett (2012). This analysis does not make much sense here but an alternative analysis has not been offered. The similarity of this word to the demonstrative pronoun taax may or may not be accidental, but the similarity does require the writer to think carefully about how to write the word and how to punctuate a sentence that contains one of these words.

Appendix A. The 1968 version

A facsimile version of the text as it was published in E. Moser (1968) is included here. (Only the text itself is presented; the two pages on which it appears are spliced together in this reproduction.)

Appendix B. The 1976 version

A facsimile version of the text as it was published in Morales (1976) is included here without the illustration that followed it.

Appendix C. The 1983 version

A facsimile version of the text as it was published in Morales (1983) is included here with one of the illustrations done by Cathy Moser [Marlett] that accompanied it. (The two pages on which it appears are spliced together in this reproduction.)

[1] Felger, R., Moser, M. (1985). . . Tucson: University of Arizona Press. .

[2] IPA (International Phonetic Association) (1999). . . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .

[3] Kroeber, A. The Seri. 6. Southwest Museum Papers

[4] Marlett, S. (2002). “Reanalysis of passive and negative prefixes in Seri.”. Linguistic Discovery.

[5] Marlett, S. (2006). . . Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. .311-329. María del Carmen Morúa, editorVol. 3

[6] Marlett, S. (2008). “Stress, extrametricality and the minimal word in Seri.”. Linguistic Discovery.

[7] Marlett, S. (2008). . . Austin: University of Texas. .1-19.

[8] Marlett, S. “A grammar of Seri.”. Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of North Dakota. ms

[9] Marlett, S., Moreno Herrera, F., Herrera Astorga, G. (2005). “Seri.”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35, 117-121.

[10] Marlett, S., Moser, M. (1994). . . Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora & Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. .97-103. Gerardo López Cruz & José Luis Moctezuma Zamarrón, editors

[11] Morales, J. (1976). . . Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. .15. Roberto Herrera T., Jesús Morales & Juan Topete, narrators

[12] Morales, J. (1983). . . Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. .31-32. Roberto Herrera T. & Jesús Morales, narrators

[13] Moser, E. (1968). “Two Seri myths.”. Tlalocan 5(4), 364-367.

[14] Moser, M., Marlett, S. (2010). . . Mexico City & Hermosillo: Plaza y Valdés Editores & Universidad de Sonora. . compilers2nd Edition

[15] O’Meara, C., Morales Herrera, F., Morales Romero, A., Montaño Herrera, R. (2013). “Donde fue tirado el pantalón y cómo se llega a esa bahía.”. Tlalocan 18, 125-140.

Cómo la mosca azul hace señales de humo: sobre la presentación de un texto seri

Resumen

Descargas

Métricas

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a

Artículos similares

Introduction

History of the publication

TEXT IN SERI

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

GLOSSED TEXT

Comments

Textual comments

Grammatical comments

Appendix A. The 1968 version

Appendix B. The 1976 version

Appendix C. The 1983 version

Barra lateral del artículo

Contenido principal del artículo

Resumen

Descargas

Métricas

Detalles del artículo

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a

Artículos similares

Introduction

History of the publication

TEXT IN SERI

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

GLOSSED TEXT

Comments

Textual comments

Grammatical comments

Appendix A. The 1968 version

Appendix B. The 1976 version

Appendix C. The 1983 version