draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

wiSani =puRa tenepeta 290 muRa
be.dishonest =foc forgive 3sg.ms
Roaya
neg
yene= sawaiti 291 maRai 292 mapa =supe 293 patiRi =sui
1pl.incl= receive thing honeycomb =goal priest =abl
‘[He] forgave it [our debt] disingenuously. 294 We didn’t receive anything from the priest
for [the collection of] the wax.’
original: ‘De chanza diría el Padre que nos perdonaba las deudas; nada nos dió para
buscar cera.’
(Uriarte [1776]1986:348)
8.7 Part IV, Section 16
In the beginning of 1765, Uriarte was ordered to relocate from Santa Bárbara de Iquitos (on the
upper Nanay River) to San Joaquín de Omaguas while Franz Veigl, then Superior, was away. Upon
Uriarte’s departure for Santa Bárbara in September, an Omagua resident at San Joaquín reportedly
uttered (8.8).
(8.8) a. Patiriquera uri uyauera.
b. Patiriquera uri uyauera.
c. patiRik1Ra, uRi uyaw1R1.
patiRi =k1Ra uRi uyaw1R1
priest =dim come again
‘Come again, Father.’
original: ‘Padre Chiquito, vuelve otra vez.’
(Uriarte [1776]1986:414)
8.8 Part IV, Section 58
Uriarte attributes the utterance in (8.9) to a group of Omagua who hoped that Uriarte might
provide them with tools during a visit he made to San Joaquín in the early months of 1767 (before
April), from his residence at San Pablo de Napeanos.
(8.9) a. ye ne Patiri quera; umeucu.
b. yenePatiriquera; ume ucu.
290 Here tenepeta ‘forgive’ lacks a subject Ra=, just as epekata does in (8.4).
291 Note that we reverse in our transliteration of , as we understand this to be the same form
as sawaiti in the full catechism (see footnote 228). Interestingly, the orthographic representation of phonemic
/w/ here involves , whereas in the full catechism this segment is represented as (see Table 3.1).
This suggests that the manuscript of the full catechism was not written by Uriarte (see footnote 286 for other
intertextual orthographic similarities).
292 In modern Omagua, we would expect the negative indefinite pronoun nimaRi ‘nothing’, rather than maRai ‘thing’.
It is possible, of course, that the use of nimaRi in such grammatical contexts results from Spanish influence (cf.,
no nos dio nada ‘he didn’t give us anything’).
293 See footnote 289.
294 Here we translate wiSanipuRa as ‘disingenuously’ as a closest approximation to a frustrative. Note that neither Old
or modern Omagua exhibit a morphological frustrative, but that wiSani forms part of an adverbial frustrative in
modern Omagua, wiSaniati ‘in vain’.
114