Peter Tarson (He/Him)

Student, University of Oxford
  • People
  • United States of America

I am a/an:

Undergraduate Leadership & Research Scholar

University

University of Oxford

Laidlaw Cohort Year

2025

Area of Expertise

Economics Politics

I am from:

United States of America

I speak:

English Latin

My hobbies/interests are:

Volunteering

Influencer Of

Popular Content

Topics

Channels contributed to:

Social Sciences Research

Rooms participated in:

University of Oxford - SDG Impact Lab

Recent Comments

Jul 24, 2026

Hi!! Thank you so much for reaching out. I think I'd put it in the category of an initial miscommunication due to the fairly inevitable and honestly justifiable wariness of stakeholders introducing outsiders to a vulnerable community. I honestly am not sure I would do anything differently, other than asking more clarifying questions and attempting to make a one-on-one, informal connection first (especially about academic literature on poverty and development) because I am strongest in that environment.

And yeah I'd love to talk about -hua. For clarity, it's pronounced -wa and all of the related suffixes in other Uto-Aztecan languages are spelled that way, Nahuatl is just written with a spelling system closely imitating 1500s colonial Mexican Spanish. We're stuck with it. Basically, the descendants of Proto-Uto-Aztecan **-wa: are found filling two functions throughout the family. First, they are markers of nouns possessed alienably (that is, the possessor could lose or sell them freely, unlike a body part or blood relative) by other nouns in a sentence.

Nahuatl example:

Cihua:-tl = wife

no-cihua:-uh (uh = reduced form of original hua) = my-wife

Eudeve (California) example:

no-chin-wa = my-cotton

(From: https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/stable/3519714?seq=1)

Additionally, they are regularly used to form "derived verbs of possession": when suffixed to a noun, they form verbs with the meaning "having Noun". Usually the descendant of the **-wa: suffix in a particular language that does this job is less likely to be shortened than the descendant used on nouns modified by their possessors. 

That these suffixes are etymologically related seems to me pretty unquestionable. The question of whether the suffix originally indicated a possessed noun and then became used for verb formation, or visa versa, is a very intriguing one, because we can find examples of suffixes used in the derivation of nouns being repurposed to produce verbs meaning "have/make/do Noun" (rGyalrongic antipassive prefixes come to mind), and equally we can find examples of suffixes that transform nouns into "have Noun" type verbs becoming the dominant way to talk about nouns being possessed (Wichita, if I recall). I don't have enough evidence to say.

(From: https://www.academia.edu/35118474/Derived_Verbs_of_Possession_in_Uto_Aztecan_Reconstructions_and_Paths_of_Change)

Jul 21, 2026

Oh heck yeah, please share with us!!

I hope you're having a lovely day.

Comment on LIA Blog: Week 2
Jul 18, 2026

I absolutely adore this, Albee, thank you so much for the excellent storytelling!!

I love the circular causation between Aristotle and Corey Crossan...

Best,

Peter

Comment on LIA Blog: Week 1
Jul 18, 2026

Dear Albee,

Oh lovely we are both learning new programming systems for our organization! 

I never knew Harry Frankfurt wrote an essay on that topic! Prompted me to look into him more. Do you agree with his vision of compatibilism and moral responsibility? I am quite skeptical of any attempt to tie moral responsibility to concepts of praise and blame. 

Best,
Peter Tarson

Jul 18, 2026

I'm so happy for you!!! How are the amenities in your apartment for cooking?

Jul 18, 2026

Thank you for being an amazing teammate and going to the pyramids with us!

Jul 10, 2026

It's been lovely getting to know you! Welcome to Mexico!!

Details