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

[Henry Kammler]

> >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.

Place name translations are often tentative. I don't know (probably
somebody does) for how long the name Teotihuacan had been in use
before the "conquest". It could reflect (1) an older layer of language
history, (2) a regional variant that was replaced later or (3) a word
in which certain affixes disappeared by assimilation [it can well be a
shortened form of a once longer name]. Try and translate English
placenames... Why should there be consistency in this case?

Henry