MASON, TE PEC A NO, A I' I MAN LANGUAGE OF MEXICO 373 



aoituma'hina I am going to hunt 



pianra'hisda do not shoot it! 



aniso'Rna I will extend it 



nat.i'nituha - 'na that we may examine what is here 



nahb'maituhi'woina (in order) to bewitch one 



apinhi'voinda kindly bewitch me this man 



anigamituko'hina I am going to take a step 



Naturally a small number of cases were found in which a stem 

 varies in form and meaning but where corroborative evidence is 

 lacking to afford cause for hypothesis of the existence of an ety- 

 mological or morphological suffix or of stem composition. A few 

 such instances are : 



tan beg tane - tit lend 



ton be hot tono-m be thirsty 



da, dadar be seated dai-wa, daraiwa sit down 



kbhin, kohis trample, tread koit-pak kick 



Pronouns 



The pronominal relations of Tepecano are ordinarily expressed 

 by means of pronominal particles attached to the nominal complex 

 as possessive regent or to the verbal complex as subject or object. 

 There are however, fuller forms which are occasionally used inde- 

 pendently for the sake of emphasis. These are the more interesting 

 from an historical point of view since, at least in the case of the 

 first person plural, there is a phonetic element not found in the 

 dependent forms. These independent forms, as well as the depen- 

 dent ones, are given in the table below. Definite independent forms 

 for the third person are wanting but this lacuna is filled by the 

 use of the demonstratives hog'a, "that" and hog'am, "those". 



The dependent subjective pronominal forms (p. 338) are frequently 

 identical with the independent ones, a fact which suggests that 

 originally the full independent forms were thus used more or less 

 in the nature of proclitics. Today they occur with equal frequency 

 as reduced or abbreviated forms. 



The oblique forms of pronominal object and possessive regent 

 are practically identical and invariably dependent. They belong to 

 an entirely different series from the independent-subjective forms 

 though the general phonetic resemblance between them is evident 

 (pp. 331, 350). 



