The Categorial Status of Body Part Prepositions in Valley Zapotec ...

constructions are nouns, one would assume that there must be a referent for every NP that
arises through the construction of BP term followed by a noun, and the locative meaning
of this NP would be derived through metaphorical extension. If the phrase is a NP, then
it should be a possible NP even when not used in a locative construction. However, as
can be seen in (9) below, this is not the case. Although ni'ih is used in the locative
expression in (9a), there is no such independent referent as ni'ih ca'rr 'the car's foot/feet'
(9b), although syntactically ca'rr could be functioning as the possessor of the body part it
follows. The problem with (9b) is not syntactic, rather semantic. Speakers rejected the
possibility that the wheels or tires might be called ni'ih ca'rr; I was told that those are not
'the car's feet' (9b), but are called ya'annt 'tires' (9c). (I use # to mark sentences which,
though syntactically well-formed, are semantically infelicitous.)
(9) a. N-u'uh bèe'elld ni'ih ca'rr. (SJGZ)
NEU-be.loc snake under car
'The snake is under the car.'
b. # ni'ih ca'rr (SJGZ)
foot car
'the car's foot'
c. ya'annt (SJGZ)
'tires'
If one were to analyze (9a) assuming that the BP preposition was a noun, the result would
be similar to that presented below in (10), in which the verb includes a locational notion
and takes a NP complement.
(10) N-u'uh bèe'elld ni'ih ca'rr. (SJGZ)
NEU-be.loc.AT snake foot car
'The snake is located by the car's foot.' (= 'The snake is under the car.')
19