The Mochica part of Oré (1607)

Some explanatory notes about the editing and analysis of the texts by Even Hovdaugen.

General remarks

The Mochica text in Oré 1607 is, together with the texts in Carrera Daza (1644), the only substantial textual sources for the old Mochica languages.

The translators of the Mochica texts in Oré 1607 had a different dialect from the one we find described in Carrera Daza (1644). There are differences in the vocabulary as well as a few grammatical variants. The extensive use of the word mux (since it is not attested in Carrera Daza, we do not know the exact pronunciation) meaning ‘that means, that is, that is called, etc.’ and often functioning as a colon is a characteristic feature of the Oré-texts, and is totally absent in Carrera Daza.

There are some variations between the Mochica texts in Oré. This may be due to individual differences between the translators, but it also clearly indicates that there did not exist any established orthography for Mochica at that time. Fortunately Carrera Daza, a generation later, established an excellent phonological orthography for the language, although the phonetic interpretation of it is still controversial (Adelaar 2004:321-329, Hovdhaugen 2005). I have used Carrera Daza’s orthography when analysing the texts, and transferred all words being attested in Carrera Daza (1644) to this orthography. Words in Oré not attested in Carrera Daza are given in the original orthography.

The translators in Oré used the Latin alphabet without any changes or additions. That is why they had problems in coping with the sixth vowel /æ/ as well as the numerous affricates and fricatives in Mochica. A consequence is an extensive orthographic variation in such cases. There are also differences between the texts in the use of specific signs (in some texts c and ç are distinguished while in other texts only c is used). Furthermore, there are in some texts numerous misspellings. In some cases it is difficult to decide if we have to do with a misspelling or a different dialectal form not attested in Carrera Daza.

It is clear from the spelling and phonological variations that the copula particles fe/f, e, (a/æ)ng are clitic particles. It is likely that other particles, and especially some of the postpositions, were clitics too. But the material is not conclusive and I have adopted the solution that when in doubt, write them as separate words. I have analysed them as clitics only in cases where there is substantial evidence for their clitic status. In some cases a certain element of arbitrariness seems unavoidable.

Footnotes

Footnotes are used to indicate possible misprints and emendations as well as comparisons with related but slightly different forms in Carrera Daza (1644). It is not clear if the footnotes should be in the texts or in the tables. Accordingly, most footnotes are inserted in both places and I leave it to the editors to decide where they are to be in the final edition.

Grammatical analysis

There are several differences both in terminology and analysis between Adelaar (2004:319-359) and Hovdhaugen (2004), two recent studies of Mochica grammar written independently of each other. In some cases I prefer the terminology and analysis used by Adelaar:

  1. The suffix –næm is now labelled future supinum (F.SP) and not purposive.
  2. The case form labelled oblique is now called genitive G).
  3. The verbal derivational suffix –c- is now labelled applicative and not benefactive.

In other cases I have not adapted Adelaar’s solutions:

  1. The verbal suffix –top is labelled remote past (RP) by Adelaar but I find sequential (SQ) a better term for indicating the basic function of this morpheme.
  2. What Adelaar calls agentive and stative nominalisation is here as in Hovdhaugen 2004 analysed as present participle and past participle.
  3. What Adelaar call genitive agent (-en) is analysed as two morphemes: –e-n (genitive + ergative).
  4. Adelaar distinguishes between two suffixes: –ō attributive (AR) and –o adjectiviser (AJ). There is no evidence for this distinction in Oré, 1607, and Carrera Daza 1644 is very inconsistent in his spelling on this point. It may well be that Adelaar is right, but I have not dared to introduce the difference in my notation especially since there are too many unclear cases. I have chosen the label attributive for all cases of the suffix –o in Oré.

The two particles chæm and the suffix -cçæm represent another problem. The two are not distinguished in spelling in Oré , being used for both ch and cç. In contrast to the general future particle ca, chæm refers to something that must take place, that is promised, and that most certainly will happen. It is by Adelaar labelled OB (obligation), a term I’ll keep. However, it is interesting to observe that in some cases when Oré and Carrera Daza have the same texts, Daza uses ca where Oré has chæm. As far as cçæm is concerned it is by Carrera Daza defined as being a combination of progressive aspect and politeness. The aspect of politeness is not obvious from the texts, but it clearly indicates progressive aspect and is frequently combined with the future particle ca. Accordingly, I have labelled it just (PR). In some cases I am not certain if we have to do with chæm or cçæm.

The abbreviations used in the morphological analysis are based on Adelaar 2004, but a few terms have been added or used in a different way:

Semantics

In the tabular translation I have had two principles:

  1. Normally a morpheme is always translated with a general basic meaning. An example is ssap which means ‘mouth (primarily as an organ for speaking)’, ‘word’, ‘order’, ‘will’, etc.’. I have chosen ‘saying’ as the basic meaning.
  2. As far as possible I have chosen a morpheme by morpheme analysis which in some cases may be important to the understanding of how Mochica (as well as other languages in Oré) developed a Christian terminology. A word like efquecmænæm ‘in order to be saved’ is analysed as ef-qu-ec-mæ-næm ‘free-CA-AP-PA-F.SP’.

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning
A absolute
AB ablative
AP applicative
AR attributive
AV adverbialiser
B benefactive
BE copula
CA causative
COM complementiser
DA dative
DE desiderative
E ergative
EM emphatic
F future
G genitive
GR gerund
IM imperative mood
L locative
N nominaliser
NE negation
OB obligation
OR ordinal suffix
P participle
PA past tense
PL plural
PN present tense
PR progressive
PS passive
RL relational/possessed
SG singular
SP supine
SQ sequential
1 first person
2 second person
3 third person

Bibliography