R: Teoti:-hua-0-ca:-n

[Accounts Clerk]

>Notice, however, that your basic argument could be splitte in two relevant
>parts, namely:

I am not actually arguing that teoti:-hua-0-ca:n is the correct translation.
I am merely trying to understand the mechanics behind it. It is one of the
two argued translations that I have seen on this list. To me,
teoti:-hua-0-ca:-n can only be possible if there is a preterite agentive
noun form present i.e. teoti:-hua-0-ca:. If it doesn't exist here and there
is only a verb form here then the suffix ca:-n is out of place. From what I
understand, ca:-n can only affix to a noun or a preterite theme (thus making
a preterite agentive noun, courtesy of ca:tl),  NOT a verb.

The other translation teo-ti-huah-can (ie God Possessor Place) makes sense
except that the ligature "ti" is out of place. The suffix ca:-n belongs here
because it attaches to a noun.  The etymology of this second translation is
easier to determine than that of teoti:-hua-0-ca:-n. Does teoti:-hua-0-ca:-n
contain a preterite agentive noun or not? Is it just a verb? A simple yes or
no doesn't seem forthcoming. What is it that makes this hard to determine if
there is a noun-ified verb or not? Is it the -hua suffix? To me that seems
to be the main difference from other words like michnamaca-0-ca:-n.

My aim is not to determine which is the correct translation (I'll leave that
to the experts) but just to understand the mechanics behind the two
translations.



>It doesn't really matter which is your option, since
>the real meaning of the nahuatl form is someting in-between the two, say, a

I'm not sure about this because, from what I understand, the locative suffix
ca:-n must attach to a  noun or preterite agentive noun, not to a verb.


Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Russell Coleman