From arbyrne at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU  Sun Jun 13 23:27:00 2004
From: arbyrne at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU (Roger Byrne)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:27:00 -0700
Subject: In the Field (was Re: cuacholote)
In-Reply-To: <001a01c43db2$cefbd4a0$d3a05b40@o9l8c6>
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUN.2004.162700.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

I will be in Mexico from May 17 through June 30 and during this time
will only be responding to email on an infrequent basis.  If you need
to reach me urgently please contact Natalia Vonnegut
<nat at socrates.Berkeley.EDU> for instructions.

Roger Byrne
--
Dr. Roger Byrne
Associate Professor
Geography Department
501 Mc Cone Hall
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720

Phones: 510 643 9170 (office)
510 643 1834 (lab)
510 642 3903 (secretary)
Fax: 510 642 3370
Email: arbyrne at uclink4.berkeley.edu


From Amapohuani at AOL.COM  Mon Jun 14 00:53:33 2004
From: Amapohuani at AOL.COM (Amapohuani at AOL.COM)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:53:33 EDT
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20=A0=20FYI?=
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUN.2004.205333.EDT.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Listeros:

For those who are interested in the progress of the four-volume NAHUATL
THEATER set being prepared by Louise Burkhart and myself, the University of
Oklahoma Press now has volume one (due out in November this year) posted on its
website under 'New Titles.' There is also a flyer put out by U of O Press
advertising the new volume.

The very latest U of Oklahoma Press catalogue also has volume one of NAHUATL
THEATER listed and, on the facing page, Bob Haskett's forthcoming excellent
study VISIONS OF PARADISE: PRIMORDIAL TITLES AND MESOAMERICAN HISTORY IN
CUERNAVACA.

Ye ixquich.
Barry D. Sell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040613/1c1e89a2/attachment.html>

From lemarc at ATTGLOBAL.NET  Mon Jun 14 08:00:00 2004
From: lemarc at ATTGLOBAL.NET (Marc Eisinger)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:00:00 +0200
Subject: Matritenses
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUN.2004.100000.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Listeros,
I would like to find a readable copy of the Sahagun's codices
matritenses
and, if I can, make a machine readable version of them, the copy of the
Paso y Troncoso edition I already have is of no use for my purpose.
Any hint ?
Thanks,
Marc

--
Qu'es pas fenian qu'es pa grouman qu'un tron de dieou lou curé
(qui n'est pas faineant, qui n'est pas gourmand, que Dieu le guérisse)
(proverbe provençal)


From idiez at MAC.COM  Mon Jun 14 14:26:08 2004
From: idiez at MAC.COM (idiez at MAC.COM)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:26:08 -0500
Subject: terminology
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUN.2004.092608.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Listeros:
        I just thought I'd throw out some of the things we are working on here 
in Zacatecas with regards to the grammatical terminology for the 
monolingual nahuatl dictionary.

Tlahtoltecpantli (language structure)
Tlahcuilolli (letters)
Tlahtolli (phrases)
Achitlahtolli (morphemes)

        It seems to me that nahuatl units of meaning are phrases and that 
these phrases are built around subjects. So it doesn't do any good to 
talk about nouns, verbs or prepositions.
1. There is a phrase (tlahtolli) which is built around a named thing 
(tlatocaxtilli). This kind of phrase, such as "nicihuatl", could be 
called a "tlatocaxtiltlahtolli". The subject (ni-, ti-, in- or -Ø) is 
the "tlatocaxtilli (named thing)", while the noun root, "-cihua-, is 
"itocah", "its name". The "tlatocaxtilli" can have "iteco", "its 
possessor" (no-, to-, mo-, inmo-, i-, inin-). We haven't decided on 
terminology for the absolutive and possessive endings (tlen ica 
tzontlami), other than "cetzin (singular)" and "miyaquin (plural)".
2. There is another phrase which is built around a "doer" subject 
(tlachiuhquetl) and could be called a "tlachiuhcatlahtolli". Some of 
the parts (achitlahtolli) of this phrase could be:
tlachiuhquetl (doer subject)
tlachihuililli (a thing to which something is done: object)
Types of objects (catlia: ¿which object?: specific object), 
(motlachihuililli: a thing to which something is done by itself: 
reflexive object) (acahya: someone: non-specific human); (tlenhueli: 
something: non-specific non-human)
Tlachihualiztli (the action)
Tenses and some compounds with rough equivalents: tlen pano (present), 
tlen panoz (future), tlen panozquia (would or about to happen), tlen ma 
pano (imperative), tlen panoyaya (imperfect), tlen panoco (purposive), 
tlen panoqui (purposive), tlen panoto (purposive), tlen panoti 
(purposive), tlen panoc (preterite), tlen panotoc (has happened), tlen 
panotoz (will have happened), tlen panotoya (had happened), tlen 
panotozquia (should have happened).
We`re still working on names for the directionals (bad name) and the 
ending morphemes.
3. I think that the relational phrase really is like a possessed noun. 
"nonacaztlan", [something is] next to my ear = next to me. This example 
is an easily recognizable compound. But, perhaps the "pa-" of "-pan" 
was at some point a noun root which was stuck to the locative "-n". The 
only problem with the relational compound being a phrase is that it 
seems to lack a subject. It's possible that the subject is the Ø third 
person. In this way, the relational phrase would relate to another 
"named" or "doer" phrase as if these latter elements were an "it", an 
entity or an event. Needless to say, we haven't come to any conclusions 
yet regarding the relational phrase or whatever it is. Right now I 
think I would called its Ø subject a "situated thing", and the whole 
phrase, a situated-thing phrase (We are having trouble deciding on the 
terminology). The reason for "situated" is that, in my opinion, all of 
the relational words are built on locatives, which then either keep 
their locative sense, or are used metaphorically (many times by 
compounding) to express other kinds of relationships (time, purpose, 
etc.)
4. Particles could be called "piltlahtoltzin", "mini-phrase".
        If I'm saying things that other people have said, please let me know. 
And all suggestions and contributions to the dictionary project will be 
acknowledged in the work.
John

John Sullivan, Ph.D.
Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
Unidad Académica de Idiomas
Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
Director
Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas, A.C.
Tacuba 152, int. 47
Centro Histórico
Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
México
Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
idiez at mac.com
www.idiez.org.mx or http://homepage.mac.com/idiez/idiezweb/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3995 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040614/b7720a11/attachment.bin>

From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Tue Jun 15 14:41:23 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Subject: agents and possessive
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUN.2004.164123.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

    I have a doubt. How do you form the agentive noun from a verb ending in NI like PATLANI and TZECUINI? platanini? (flyer, volador)? and tzecuinini (runner, corredor)?

    And what is the correct way to say "I am her friend"? NEHUATL NIICNIUH? (double I?) or "I am her mother" NIINAN???

    I'd appreciate any help.
    Thanks,
    Susana


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040615/d8e4e9b0/attachment.html>

From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Tue Jun 22 23:04:02 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:04:02 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.010402.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

  Hello,
  I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!). The complete text is:

  Can a nicuicanitl huiya
  xochitl in noyollo ya
  nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
  o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.

  Thanks for your help.

  Susana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040623/d186277a/attachment.html>

From idiez at MAC.COM  Wed Jun 23 03:01:15 2004
From: idiez at MAC.COM (idiez at MAC.COM)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:01:15 -0500
Subject: maya de los chen
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.220115.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

I have a couple of questions:
1. What is the mayan dialect called which is spoken in Campeche, close 
to the border with Yucatán? It's the -chen area; Bolonchen, etc.
2. Can anybody recommend grammars, vocabularies, etc.?
3. Is there any consensus regarding spelling conventions?
John

John Sullivan, Ph.D.
Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
Unidad Académica de Idiomas
Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
Director
Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas, A.C.
Tacuba 152, int. 47
Centro Histórico
Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
México
Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
idiez at mac.com
http://www.idiez.org.mx or http://homepage.mac.com/idiez/idiezweb

From tepeyac at MINDSPRING.COM  Wed Jun 23 12:30:27 2004
From: tepeyac at MINDSPRING.COM (Robert M Robinson)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:30:27 -0400
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <02bb01c458ad$57d99400$e2a3d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.083027.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Susana Moraleda-Dragotto wrote:

>     Hello,
>     I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an
>     incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!).
>     The complete text is:
>
>     Can a nicuicanitl huiya
>     xochitl in noyollo ya
>     nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
>     o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.
>
>     Thanks for your help.
>
>     Susana
>
>
A very poetic word probably from a version of Angel Garibay's Romances.
(Please correct me someone).

John Bierhorst lists the word Xoxo:pan  freq. of xopan.
1) in summer, every summer; freely, in sping (when referringto new growth).

He gives a great example:

Xoxo:pan xihuitl i:pan tochi:huaco[h] = we come to do as herbs in
spring, 14v:5 (Cantares Mexicanos)

Xo:pan  is green place, green time, as opposed to the dry season. If you
have seen Mexico in the dry season you would see the glaring absence of
greenery.

Xo:tl  means green.

I would guess that x:o:co means "by means of green" .

I could not imagine how to translate a word with green in it three
times. The sound is incredible soft like flowiing water.

I  am looking forward to what more experienced listeros make of it.

R M Robinson


From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Wed Jun 23 13:46:59 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:46:59 -0400
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <02bb01c458ad$57d99400$e2a3d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.094659.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

on 6/22/04 7:04 PM, Susana Moraleda-Dragotto at susana at DRAGOTTO.COM wrote:

Hello,
I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an incredible word
I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!). The complete text is:

Can a nicuicanitl huiya
xochitl in noyollo ya
nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.

Thanks for your help.

Susana



Can you tell us more about the source/context?  This looks like a verse from
one of the xopancuicatl 'songs of the green time.'  If we could look up the
whole song, it would help.

Robinson tried to add -co to xo:- 'green' to form an instrumental, but that
doesn't really work. It's better to look further.  Xo:coh is 'youngest
child' and xoco-tl is 'fruit.'




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040623/eb664f33/attachment.html>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Wed Jun 23 13:59:16 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:59:16 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <40D977E3.6010709@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.085916.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

I think Mr/Ms Robinson is on the trail.

xo-pan  'green-time'
xo-xo-pan 'green-green time'

-xoco  seems to be xocotl 'fruit', although I don't understand the lack of
the absolutive suffix -- unless this is a noun that "is allowed" to come
in two forms, one with an absolutive suffix and one without an absolutive
suffix, without any change in its meaning. Practically any noun can appear
in an as-if absolutive form without an absolutive suffix (and without any
possessive prefixes), but the meaning of the noun takes on a depreciative
meaning. Mazatl ohtlican 'it is a deer in the road'/ Maza ohtlican 'it is
a dirty ol' deer in the road'. Something like that.

I'd say, off-hand, that your term is, freely translated, 'fruit from the
heart of summer/spring'.

Michael

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Robert M Robinson wrote:

> Susana Moraleda-Dragotto wrote:
>
> >     Hello,
> >     I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an
> >     incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!).
> >     The complete text is:
> >
> >     Can a nicuicanitl huiya
> >     xochitl in noyollo ya
> >     nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
> >     o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.
> >
> >     Thanks for your help.
> >
> >     Susana
> >
> >
> A very poetic word probably from a version of Angel Garibay's Romances.
> (Please correct me someone).
>
> John Bierhorst lists the word Xoxo:pan  freq. of xopan.
> 1) in summer, every summer; freely, in sping (when referringto new growth).
>
> He gives a great example:
>
> Xoxo:pan xihuitl i:pan tochi:huaco[h] = we come to do as herbs in
> spring, 14v:5 (Cantares Mexicanos)
>
> Xo:pan  is green place, green time, as opposed to the dry season. If you
> have seen Mexico in the dry season you would see the glaring absence of
> greenery.
>
> Xo:tl  means green.
>
> I would guess that x:o:co means "by means of green" .
>
> I could not imagine how to translate a word with green in it three
> times. The sound is incredible soft like flowiing water.
>
> I  am looking forward to what more experienced listeros make of it.
>
> R M Robinson
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From M.Swanton at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL  Wed Jun 23 14:02:34 2004
From: M.Swanton at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Swanton, M.)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:02:34 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.160234.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

<?fontfamily><?param Arial>
Hello Susana,
Xoxopanxoco means 'fruit of Spring'. I believe it is used as a personal name
in the early 16th century Morelos census. I also believe the name
Xoxopanxoco was also used in the Castaneda mythology, though I know that
literature very poorly.
I hope this helps,
Mike Swanton

-----Original Message-----
From: Susana Moraleda-Dragotto [mailto:susana at DRAGOTTO.COM]
Sent: woensdag 23 juni 2004 1:04
To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: translation




Hello,
I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an incredible word
I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!). The complete text is:

Can a nicuicanitl huiya
xochitl in noyollo ya
nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.

Thanks for your help.

Susana




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040623/d6b535db/attachment.html>

From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Wed Jun 23 17:36:57 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:36:57 -0400
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.133657.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Michael's explanation sounds good to me. And if it is a name as Mike
Swanton suggests, then that may explain the lack of the absolutive
suffix. I think personal names often--although not always--leave off the
absolutive suffix, don't they?
Galen



Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> I think Mr/Ms Robinson is on the trail.
>
> xo-pan  'green-time'
> xo-xo-pan 'green-green time'
>
> -xoco  seems to be xocotl 'fruit', although I don't understand the lack of
> the absolutive suffix -- unless this is a noun that "is allowed" to come
> in two forms, one with an absolutive suffix and one without an absolutive
> suffix, without any change in its meaning. Practically any noun can appear
> in an as-if absolutive form without an absolutive suffix (and without any
> possessive prefixes), but the meaning of the noun takes on a depreciative
> meaning. Mazatl ohtlican 'it is a deer in the road'/ Maza ohtlican 'it is
> a dirty ol' deer in the road'. Something like that.
>
> I'd say, off-hand, that your term is, freely translated, 'fruit from the
> heart of summer/spring'.
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Robert M Robinson wrote:
>
>
>>Susana Moraleda-Dragotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    Hello,
>>>    I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an
>>>    incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!).
>>>    The complete text is:
>>>
>>>    Can a nicuicanitl huiya
>>>    xochitl in noyollo ya
>>>    nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
>>>    o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.
>>>
>>>    Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>>    Susana
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A very poetic word probably from a version of Angel Garibay's Romances.
>>(Please correct me someone).
>>
>>John Bierhorst lists the word Xoxo:pan  freq. of xopan.
>>1) in summer, every summer; freely, in sping (when referringto new growth).
>>
>>He gives a great example:
>>
>>Xoxo:pan xihuitl i:pan tochi:huaco[h] = we come to do as herbs in
>>spring, 14v:5 (Cantares Mexicanos)
>>
>>Xo:pan  is green place, green time, as opposed to the dry season. If you
>>have seen Mexico in the dry season you would see the glaring absence of
>>greenery.
>>
>>Xo:tl  means green.
>>
>>I would guess that x:o:co means "by means of green" .
>>
>>I could not imagine how to translate a word with green in it three
>>times. The sound is incredible soft like flowiing water.
>>
>>I  am looking forward to what more experienced listeros make of it.
>>
>>R M Robinson
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "...and cicadas sing
> a rare and different tune..."
>
> R. Hunter
>


From lemcia at UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU  Wed Jun 23 20:36:26 2004
From: lemcia at UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU (Monika Jarosz)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:36:26 -0700
Subject: maya de los chen
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.133626.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Hi John,
My advisor professor Hanks is a mayanist. He probably will be able to answer
to your question. His email address is: wfhchair at sscl.berkeley.edu

Good luck
Monika Jarosz

>===== Original Message From Nahua language and culture discussion
<NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU> =====
>I have a couple of questions:
>1. What is the mayan dialect called which is spoken in Campeche, close
>to the border with Yucatán? It's the -chen area; Bolonchen, etc.
>2. Can anybody recommend grammars, vocabularies, etc.?
>3. Is there any consensus regarding spelling conventions?
>John
>
>John Sullivan, Ph.D.
>Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
>Unidad Académica de Idiomas
>Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
>Director
>Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas, A.C.
>Tacuba 152, int. 47
>Centro Histórico
>Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
>México
>Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
>Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
>Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
>Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
>idiez at mac.com
>http://www.idiez.org.mx or http://homepage.mac.com/idiez/idiezweb


From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Wed Jun 23 23:22:33 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:22:33 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.012233.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Re: translationThank you all for your comments. That was surely useful and enlightening. 
    However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place" XOPAN and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN? What part of the word is the removable one? I imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC) Or else, is XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC? Sorry, I'm confused.

    As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of the other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to judge anything)...

    Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...

    By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought agentives didn't.

    Susana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040624/ca2bc72e/attachment.html>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Thu Jun 24 18:32:15 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:32:15 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.133215.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

Susana,

These are rather involved questions with no one simple answer, but with
several interrelated answers. I'll try to answer this tomorrow when I have
more time, although maybe someone else will answer you before I get a
chance. In any event, I'll write again tomorrow with the analyses of these
terms.

Michael


> Re: translationThank you all for your comments. That was surely useful and
> enlightening.
>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN? What part of the word is the removable one?
I
> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC) Or else,
is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?
> Sorry, I'm confused.
>
>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of
the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position
to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.
>
>     Susana
>
>


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Thu Jun 24 18:33:31 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:33:31 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.133331.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Sorry, nahuatlahtos, I thought I was answering Susana directly with my most
recent missive. Still learning how to drive a computer. Everyone, get out of
the road!!

Michael

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

> Re: translationThank you all for your comments. That was surely useful and
> enlightening.
>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN? What part of the word is the removable one? I
> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC) Or else,
is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?
> Sorry, I'm confused.
>
>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of
the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.
>
>     Susana
>
>


From rich_photos at YAHOO.COM  Thu Jun 24 19:01:38 2004
From: rich_photos at YAHOO.COM (rick dosan)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:01:38 -0700
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <smtpd.6c49.40d83297.7ec4b.21@mhub-w6.tc.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.120138.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc?  Any interesting texts in which it appears?

Do any of these seem right?


Ueli --                   Poder

Ueli �lo                Se Puede

Ueli-lo-c               Posible
A-ueli-lo-c            Imposible

Tl(a)-a-ueli.lo.c    Quien no es posible/ quien es imposible




Tlauelia-            Estar irritado

Tlaueli(a)-lo      Se est� irritado
Tlaueli(a)-lo-c  Uno que est� irritado




Uelia  (Bueno)

A-Uelia  (malo)
Tlaueliloc  (Un malvado)

Thank you,
Richard Dorfsman


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040624/46da8894/attachment.html>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 10:48:19 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:48:19 -0500
Subject: metztlahtolli
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.054819.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Could someone tell me what the word for "crescent" is in Nahuatl?

Thank you,

Michael


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 11:29:12 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 06:29:12 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.062912.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

>>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN?

Xoxopan is certainly grammatical, but the *name* for the time is "set in
stone," so to speak in the form xopan.


What part of the word is the removable one?

Susana,

**Everything** is removable. :)

But sometimes when you remove something, all you have in your hands is
*parts*.

I'm not sure exactly how to approach your question but I'll throw out some
ideas and perhaps others will join in.

There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing', but it seems to
appear most commonly in the reduplicated form /xoxo:-/ (note with a short
vowel in the first syllable. This reduplicated initial stem forms common
verbs, such as xoxo:hui 'to become green', with its own derived terms, such
the agentive noun xoxo:uhqui, constructed on the preterit stem, meaning 'a
green thing' (literally 'it has become green').

Now, there is also, as you note above, "xoxoc-". We see this in, for example,
xoxoctic (where,note, both o's are short vowels).  Xoxoctic, often
translated "green," as if an adjective, actually means 'it has become green'.

-ti is a very productive verb suffix in Nahuatl. It is joined to noun stems to
create "millions" of verbs that essentially express the idea of "similar".
For example, cihua:tl 'woman' -> cihua:- + -ti -> cihua:ti 'to become (like) a
woman'. With the addition of the past tense suffix -c, you get
cihua:tic 'he/she/it has become (like) a woman'. This translates in English
to "effeminate".

(Now, at this point, the territory gets a bit shakey underfoot for me, so I'd
appreciate anyone's joining in who has a more solid understanding of what
follows.)

What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time,
maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.

> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC)

Susana, I'm not sure what "it" means in your question.


 Or else, is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?

"Xoctic" may be possible, but I don't remember seeing it. I only know the
reduplicated form. Some stems are only used in their reduplicated forms.


>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.

I've seen them do it on occasion. It's not a common thing, and it may be
mostly a poetic practice. In this connection, it's probably important to
remember, though, that every language has **immense flexibility**. It's almost
impossible to see that quality when you're learning a foreign language as an
adult. To the adult learner, a second language may appear, in the beginning,
to be composed of concrete building blocks, when in fact it's very much like a
liquid, or silly putty.   :-)




Michael


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 11:32:23 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 06:32:23 -0500
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <20040624190138.12908.qmail@web90009.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.063223.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Rick,

This is tlahue:l- as in the verb tlahue:lia 'to hate', 'to despise'.

tlahue:liloc literally means 'he/she/it has been hated'.

tlahue:li-lo-c  'despise' + non-active ("passive") marker + past tense marker

Michael




Quoting rick dosan <rich_photos at YAHOO.COM>:

> Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc?  Any
> interesting texts in which it appears?
>
> Do any of these seem right?
>
>
> Ueli --                   Poder
>
> Ueli –lo                Se Puede
>
> Ueli-lo-c               Posible
> A-ueli-lo-c            Imposible
>
> Tl(a)-a-ueli.lo.c    Quien no es posible/ quien es imposible
>
>
>
>
> Tlauelia-            Estar irritado
>
> Tlaueli(a)-lo      Se está irritado
> Tlaueli(a)-lo-c  Uno que está irritado
>
>
>
>
> Uelia  (Bueno)
>
> A-Uelia  (malo)
> Tlaueliloc  (Un malvado)
>
> Thank you,
> Richard Dorfsman
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.


From schwallr at mrs.umn.edu  Fri Jun 25 13:30:12 2004
From: schwallr at mrs.umn.edu (John F. Schwaller)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:30:12 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <1088162952.40dc0c88b995d@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.083012.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
>a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',

[stuff cut out]


>What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
>(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
>homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time,
>maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.


Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."  Your construction analysis is
absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?  I think the
critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
/xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.





John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 14:44:12 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:44:12 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040625082420.01faab00@schwallr.email.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.094412.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:

> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
> >There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
> >a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>
> [stuff cut out]
>
>
> >What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
> >(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
> >homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time
> >maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>
>
> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."

They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
other.

 Your construction analysis is
> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?

The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
you know.


  I think the
> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>

Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.

Michael


>
>
>
>
> John F. Schwaller
> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
> 315 Behmler Hall
> University of Minnesota, Morris
> 600 E 4th Street
> Morris, MN  56267
> 320-589-6015
> FAX 320-589-6399
> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Fri Jun 25 17:32:51 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:32:51 -0400
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <20040624190138.12908.qmail@web90009.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.133251.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

on 6/24/04 3:01 PM, rick dosan at rich_photos at YAHOO.COM wrote:

> Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc?

Not every initial tla- in Nahuatl is a prefix.  In this case, it's part of
the stem: tlahue:l-

Tlahue:lli is 'rage, indignation."

Tlahue:lia: is a transitive verb meaning to become angry at someone, so it
takes the human object prefix te:-. Te:tlahue:liztli would be generalized
irascibility.

Tlahue:lilo:c (tlahue:lilo:ca-) means someone enraged or malicious. (Because
it's formed on the nonactive stem, it doesn't have the te:- object prefix.)

Joe Campbell can provide lots of citations.


From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Fri Jun 25 17:53:08 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:53:08 -0400
Subject: xoxoctic
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.135308.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
"-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
iztac, tliltic, etc.
Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
noun.
Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
object that is prototypically green.
In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
"xoctli" as the root.
Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
therefore more easily classified as a noun.
I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
was talking about.
Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
Galen






Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>
>
>>At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>
>>>There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
>>>a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>>
>>[stuff cut out]
>>
>>
>>
>>>What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
>>>(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
>>>homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time
>>>maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>>
>>
>>Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
>>these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>
>
> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
> other.
>
>  Your construction analysis is
>
>>absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
>>a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>
>
> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
> you know.
>
>
>   I think the
>
>>critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>/xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>
>
>
> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>John F. Schwaller
>>Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>315 Behmler Hall
>>University of Minnesota, Morris
>>600 E 4th Street
>>Morris, MN  56267
>>320-589-6015
>>FAX 320-589-6399
>>schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "...and cicadas sing
> a rare and different tune..."
>
> R. Hunter
>


From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Fri Jun 25 17:52:12 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:52:12 -0400
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <1088162952.40dc0c88b995d@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.135212.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

>> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC)
>
> Susana, I'm not sure what "it" means in your question.


It looks to me as though Susana is asking about the regular derivations you
just described:

chi:chi:l-ti-c 'It has become like peppers (i.e., red)'

coz-ti-c 'It has become like something golden (i.e. yellow)'

nex-ti-c 'it has become like ashes (i.e. gray)'

tli:l-ti-c 'it has become like ink (i.e. black)'

So Susana is looking for a free-standing word to which to attach -ti-c, but
the little family of 'green' elements is frustrating her.

(Note that although coz- is found in a number of compounds, it doesn't turn
up on its own as a freestanding word as far as I know.  Words can be like
that.  Think of the English "berry" words:  blackberry, blueberry OK;
cranberry, raspberry problematical.  And what does a strawberry have to do
with straw?)


From micc2 at COX.NET  Fri Jun 25 18:12:16 2004
From: micc2 at COX.NET (micc2)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:12:16 -0700
Subject: xoxoctic   off of left field
In-Reply-To: <40DC6684.7010001@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.111216.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think)
but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used.
she was from Amozoc, Puebla.

she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"  poxcahui?

mario

Galen Brokaw wrote:

> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
> iztac, tliltic, etc.
> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
> noun.
> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
> object that is prototypically green.
> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
> "xoctli" as the root.
> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
> was talking about.
> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
> Galen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does
>>>> appear in
>>>> a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>>>
>>>
>>> [stuff cut out]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form
>>>> of /xoc-/
>>>> (/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this
>>>> stem is either
>>>> homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the
>>>> same time
>>>> maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an
>>> expert in
>>> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>>
>>
>>
>> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
>> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
>> other.
>>
>>  Your construction analysis is
>>
>>> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so
>>> there is
>>> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>>
>>
>>
>> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
>> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
>> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
>> you know.
>>
>>
>>   I think the
>>
>>> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
>> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John F. Schwaller
>>> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>> 315 Behmler Hall
>>> University of Minnesota, Morris
>>> 600 E 4th Street
>>> Morris, MN  56267
>>> 320-589-6015
>>> FAX 320-589-6399
>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> "...and cicadas sing
>> a rare and different tune..."
>>
>> R. Hunter
>>
>


From dfrye at UMICH.EDU  Fri Jun 25 19:54:23 2004
From: dfrye at UMICH.EDU (Frye, David L)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:54:23 -0400
Subject: apoxcahuarse
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.155423.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Santamaria's Diccionario de mexicanismos has (for what it's worth): 
 
Aposcahuarse. (De la preposicion a, y el azt. poxcauhqui, cosa mohosa.) pr. Enmohecerse, oxidarse, crear orin una cosa.
                              2. En general, pudrirse.
 
Frances Karttunen's Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl has:
 POXCAHU(I), to get moldy, dank / enmohecerse o henchirse alguna cosa de orin (M). See POXCAHUIYA.
 
 POXCAHUIYA, to get covered with slime / se enlama (T). See POXCAHU(I).
 
 

________________________________

From: Nahua language and culture discussion on behalf of micc2
Sent: Fri 6/25/2004 2:12 PM
To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: xoxoctic off of left field



This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think) 
but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used. 
she was from Amozoc, Puebla. 

she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"  poxcahui? 

mario 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040625/2722afa4/attachment.html>

From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Fri Jun 25 19:55:56 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:55:56 -0400
Subject: xoxoctic   off of left field
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.155556.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Mario,
Fran's dictionary lists "poxcahui" as "dank, moldy". So, it seems to me
that if "esta apoxcahuado" means "it is all dank or moldy" or something
similar, then it surely derives from poxcahui.
Galen




micc2 wrote:
> This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think)
> but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used.
> she was from Amozoc, Puebla.
>
> she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"
> poxcahui?
>
> mario
>
> Galen Brokaw wrote:
>
>> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
>> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
>> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
>> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
>> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
>> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
>> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
>> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
>> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
>> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
>> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
>> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
>> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
>> iztac, tliltic, etc.
>> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
>> noun.
>> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
>> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
>> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
>> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
>> object that is prototypically green.
>> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
>> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
>> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
>> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
>> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
>> "xoctli" as the root.
>> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
>> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
>> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
>> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
>> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
>> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
>> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
>> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
>> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
>> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
>> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
>> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
>> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
>> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
>> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
>> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
>> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
>> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
>> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
>> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
>> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
>> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
>> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
>> was talking about.
>> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
>> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
>> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
>> Galen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does
>>>>> appear in
>>>>> a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [stuff cut out]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form
>>>>> of /xoc-/
>>>>> (/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this
>>>>> stem is either
>>>>> homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the
>>>>> same time
>>>>> maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an
>>>> expert in
>>>> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>>> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
>>> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
>>> other.
>>>
>>>  Your construction analysis is
>>>
>>>> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>>> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so
>>>> there is
>>>> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>>> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
>>> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
>>> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
>>> you know.
>>>
>>>
>>>   I think the
>>>
>>>> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>>> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
>>> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John F. Schwaller
>>>> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>>> 315 Behmler Hall
>>>> University of Minnesota, Morris
>>>> 600 E 4th Street
>>>> Morris, MN  56267
>>>> 320-589-6015
>>>> FAX 320-589-6399
>>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "...and cicadas sing
>>> a rare and different tune..."
>>>
>>> R. Hunter
>>>
>>
>


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Mon Jun 28 13:11:20 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:11:20 -0500
Subject: xoxoctic
In-Reply-To: <40DC6684.7010001@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.081120.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Galen's verb theory is inviting. The suffix -hui does appear on verbs that
end in /o/, e.g., from  tlapo 'open' (trans.) derives tlapohui 'to become
open'. Of course, a big dif between tlapo and *(xo)xo:- is that, while
*(xo)xo- would go to *xoxoc-, tlapo goes to tlapoh for the preterite.

Michael


On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Galen Brokaw wrote:

> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
> iztac, tliltic, etc.
> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
> noun.
> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
> object that is prototypically green.
> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
> "xoctli" as the root.
> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
> was talking about.
> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
> Galen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
> >
> >
> >>At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
> >>>a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
> >>
> >>[stuff cut out]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
> >>>(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
> >>>homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time
> >>>maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
> >>
> >>
> >>Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
> >>these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
> >>have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
> >
> >
> > They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
> > different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
> > other.
> >
> >  Your construction analysis is
> >
> >>absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
> >>consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
> >>a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
> >>since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
> >
> >
> > The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
> > structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
> > a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
> > you know.
> >
> >
> >   I think the
> >
> >>critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
> >>/xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
> > around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>John F. Schwaller
> >>Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
> >>315 Behmler Hall
> >>University of Minnesota, Morris
> >>600 E 4th Street
> >>Morris, MN  56267
> >>320-589-6015
> >>FAX 320-589-6399
> >>schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > "...and cicadas sing
> > a rare and different tune..."
> >
> > R. Hunter
> >
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Mon Jun 28 22:36:28 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavar=EDa?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:36:28 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.173628.0500.>

Untitled Document

    Anyone can help mi with the transalation of the color: violet (violeta)
and the form: square (cuadrado)???




Thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040628/7f77464f/attachment.html>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Mon Jun 28 23:22:15 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:22:15 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
In-Reply-To: <JKEIIDCODLBBBLCPIFDBCECOCBAA.juan@papaqui.com>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.182215.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

ayopaltic = violet-color

I don't remember the word for "square" off hand. Sorry. I'm sure someone
will be able to help.

Michael

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, [iso-8859-1] Ing. Juan Manuel Chavar�a wrote:

> Untitled Document
> 
>     Anyone can help mi with the transalation of the color: violet (violeta)
> and the form: square (cuadrado)???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET  Tue Jun 29 01:37:19 2004
From: cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET (Roland Trevino)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:37:19 -0700
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.183719.0700.CLOUDJAGUAR@EARTHLINK.NET>

Hello, i am new to studying Nahuatl and i have been working extensively with
Campbell and Karttunen's foundation course books (vols. 1 and 2).  I am
getting some command of the vocabulary but i am woefully feeble at
contracting words.

Please help with the following words:

CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix (any other words for this?) / jaguar is Ocelotl
or Tecuani
    --- so would this word then be Mixocelotl? or Mixtecuani ?  (that just
seems wrong to me :)

SMOKE BUTTERFLY -- butterfly is Papalotl / smoke is Poctli
   --- so would this word then be Poctlipapalotl (again, this just seems
wrong)

Thank you,
~Roland Trevino, Esq.


From cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET  Tue Jun 29 02:24:40 2004
From: cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET (Roland Trevino)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:24:40 -0700
Subject: Please Help
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.192440.0700.CLOUDJAGUAR@EARTHLINK.NET>

Hello, i am new to studying Nahuatl and i have been working extensively with
Campbell and Karttunen's foundation course books (vols. 1 and 2).  I am
getting some command of the vocabulary but i am woefully feeble at
contracting words.

Please help with the following words:

CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040628/7e8fa18a/attachment.html>

From rich_photos at YAHOO.COM  Tue Jun 29 03:54:19 2004
From: rich_photos at YAHOO.COM (rick dosan)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:54:19 -0700
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <BD01DA03.2D5F%karttu@nantucket.net>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.205419.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

How could you determine whether the root of tlahueliloc is tlaue: l , or ahuelia?  One means rage, and the other evil(malo), and they both can be applied to the meaning of tlahueliloc.  Sometimes the texts use it to describe someone enranged, and other times it's translated as malvado in other texts.
Thanks,
Richard Dorfsman




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040628/38c05c78/attachment.html>

From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Tue Jun 29 12:35:59 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:35:59 -0400
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <20040629035419.38259.qmail@web90005.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.083559.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

on 6/28/04 11:54 PM, rick dosan at rich_photos at YAHOO.COM wrote:

> How could you determine whether the root of tlahueliloc is tlaue: l , or
ahuelia?
> One means rage, and the other evil(malo), and they both can be applied to
> the meaning of tlahueliloc.  Sometimes the texts use it to describe someone
> enraged, and other times it's translated as malvado in other texts.


I am skeptical about citations of "ahuelia" in the sense of 'evil.'

There is ahhuel(i), composed of the negative element ah- and huel
'possible,' which literally means '(to be) impossible.'  Molina has "auel
monotza.incorregible," which follows from the sense of impossibility.
Andrews goes so far as to extend the connotation to being unsuccessful and
"bad" in that sense, but that's not evil.

The difference between tlahue:l- derivations and ahhuel- derivations is
obvious when you look beyond spelling to phonology and morphology.

Fran Karttunen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040629/31d29c28/attachment.html>

From david at GLOSTER.NET  Tue Jun 29 13:12:13 2004
From: david at GLOSTER.NET (David Gloster)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:12:13 +0200
Subject: tlahueliloc
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.151213.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040629/68a8f435/attachment.html>

From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Tue Jun 29 14:24:32 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:24:32 -0400
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <476767307@web.de>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.102432.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

> The difference between the derivations may be "obvious" to the experts
> (who don't need an answer to Rick's question anyway) but there are thousands
> of mere mortal Nahuatl enthusiasts (like me for instance) to whom it's not at
> all obvious.



OK.  Conventional Nahuatl spelling, that originated in the 1500s, when
Franciscan friars applied Spanish/Latin spelling conventions to a language
with a very different sound system than Spanish or Latin, doesn't
consistently mark contrastive vowel length or the syllable-final consonant
that they called "saltillo."  When they DID indicate saltillo, they did so
with the letter "h."  In some varieties of Nahuatl, this is pronounced as a
very h-like aspiration at the end of the syllable.  In other varieties it
was/is a sharp glottal stop.  Whatever the pronunciation, saltillo functions
as a consonant.  Omitting it altogether in spelling makes numbers of stems
LOOK as through they are the same when, if you just heard them, you would
notice that they sound different.

Sometime later Jesuit grammarians, notably Horacio Carochi, modified Nahuatl
spelling to indicate which vowels are long and where the saltillos are, but
the spelling reform didn't catch on.  Hence, most Nahuatl dictionaries
under-differentiate entries in such a way that several different things fall
together as one when they are not.

In the case of tlahue:l- versus ahhuel, in the first case you have no
saltillo in the first syllable and a long vowel in the second.  In the
latter, you have a saltillo in the first syllable and a short vowel in the
second.  Furthermore, ahhuel is transparently the negation of huel, whereas
in tlahue:l-, the first syllable is not a prefix but an integral part of the
stem.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040629/6cd62bb4/attachment.html>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Tue Jun 29 18:27:48 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:27:48 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <000801c45d79$9e536cf0$049fb2d1@rolandcrmw4dhe>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.132748.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Roland Trevino wrote:

> Hello, i am new to studying Nahuatl and i have been working extensively with
> Campbell and Karttunen's foundation course books (vols. 1 and 2).  I am
> getting some command of the vocabulary but i am woefully feeble at
> contracting words.
>
> Please help with the following words:
>
> CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix (any other words for this?) / jaguar is Ocelotl
> or Tecuani
>     --- so would this word then be Mixocelotl? or Mixtecuani ?  (that just
> seems wrong to me :)

Mixocelotl is perfectly grammatical. *Mixtecuani is odd. I don't know if
you can affix a noun stem to the verb as noun te-cua-ni.

>
> SMOKE BUTTERFLY -- butterfly is Papalotl / smoke is Poctli
>    --- so would this word then be Poctlipapalotl (again, this just seems
> wrong)


Pocpapalotl works grammatically. However, with personal names there is
also the possibility for Poctli papalotl, 'it is smoke, it is a butterly,
written Poctlipapalotl.

Michael



> Thank you,
> ~Roland Trevino, Esq.
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Tue Jun 29 18:50:20 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:50:20 -0400
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.145020.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

>>CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix (any other words for this?) / jaguar is Ocelotl
>>or Tecuani
>>    --- so would this word then be Mixocelotl? or Mixtecuani ?  (that just
>>seems wrong to me :)


Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.

Galen


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Tue Jun 29 19:14:58 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:14:58 -0500
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <476767307@web.de>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.141458.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Quoting David Gloster <david at GLOSTER.NET>:

> p {margin: 0px}I don't like to be a bore (I just can't help it!), but the
> difference between the derivations may be "obvious" to the experts (who
don't
> need an answer to Rick's question anyway) but there are thousands of mere
> mortal Nahuatl enthusiasts (like me for instance) to whom it's not at all
> obvious.I know that you're all very busy, but is there anyone out there with
> a little sympathy, time and patience who would deign to enlighten us on this
> matter?We would be most humbly grateful  ;-) Thanks for all your wonderful
> contributions. It always makes my day when something arrives from the
> list. David GlosterOttobrunn, nr. Munich, Germanyp {margin:
>
Well, Fran's explanation below is very good. And I believe she sent an earlier
message about this (or did I imagine it?), which was also quite good.

Let me point out a couple of things. Like Fran said, the original orthography
created by the Spaniards for Nahuatl did not mark vowel length, e.g., short
/a/ and long /a:/ were both written "a". This is a major problem that befell
many languages of the Americas. It occurred big time in the recordings of the
Illinois language, e.g., the Jesuits wrote <nipi> for both 'water' and 'my
arrow', the first being /nipi/, the second /ni:pi/. Now, for speakers of
Europeans languages, this distinction in vowel length seems meaningless, but
for speakers of American languages that have vowel length distinctions, it's
absolutely of paramount importance in terms of *meaning*. The same goes, as
Fran pointed, out for the sound /h/ ~ the glottal stop. Early historical
Europeans just glossed right over this sound, in Nahuatl, in Illinois, all
over the place, but it is a *phonemic characteristic* of these languages. In
other words, if you leave it out where it should be or put it in where it
shouldn't be, you're making yourself essentially unintelligible. Illinois
examples are coming to me quicker right now than Nahuatl examples: /ka:wiahki/
'thorn land' but  /ka:wiaki/ 'thorns'. That /h/ draws a distinction in
Illinois that is as great as that between "catnip" and "cats" in English. See
what I mean? In Nahuatl metzli is 'thigh' but me:tzli is 'moon'. Big dif.

So, if I may paraphrase Fran's message, what's going on is that even though
certain words may have been written the same by the Spaniards, one cannot
presume that those words are the same. One must be very careful.

Michael
o
0px}..........................................................................
.......Frances
> Karttunen <karttu at NANTUCKET.NET> schrieb am 29.06.04 14:44:02:
> on 6/28/04 11:54 PM, rick dosan at rich_ph!
>  otos at YAHOO.COM wrote:> How could you determine whether the root of
> tlahueliloc is tlaue: l , or ahuelia?
> > One means rage, and the other evil(malo), and they both can be applied to
> > the meaning of tlahueliloc.  Sometimes the texts use it to describe
someone
>
> > enraged, and other times its translated as malvado in other texts.
>
>
> I am skeptical about citations of "ahuelia" in the sense of evil.
>
> There is ahhuel(i), composed of the negative element ah- and huel possible,
> which literally means (to be) impossible.  Molina has "auel
> monotza.incorregible," which follows from the sense of impossibility.
Andrews
> goes so far as to extend the connotation to being unsuccessful and "bad" in
> that sense, but thats not evil.
>
> The difference between tlahue:l- derivations and ahhuel- derivations is
> obvious when you look beyond spelling to phonology and morphology.
>
> Fran Karttunen
>
>
>
>
>


From schwallr at mrs.umn.edu  Tue Jun 29 19:21:27 2004
From: schwallr at mrs.umn.edu (John F. Schwaller)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:21:27 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <40E1B9EC.5010506@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.142127.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

At 01:50 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
>generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
>tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.


The other important thing is that while "tecuani" functions as a noun for
us, it is technically the customary form of the verb.  Taken apart it is
"te:-cua:-ni"
"te:" direct object - someone
"cua:" verb stem - eat
"ni" customary tense

"he/she/it customarily eats someone (i.e. people)





John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Tue Jun 29 19:24:11 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:24:11 -0400
Subject: Transaltion
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.152411.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

One possibility for square is "nauhcampa nacace". The "nauhcampa" is
composed of nahui meaning four and campa as a generic locative. The
nacace is made up of nacaztli meaning "ears" with a metaphoric meaning
of "corners" and "e" which is a suffix refering to one who owns or
possesses. So, literally, the phrase means "one (or something) that
possesses ears/corners in four places."
In a sixteenth century document, I have also seen square referred to as
"nauhcan ixtin" literally meaning something like "faces in four places".

Galen


From rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU  Tue Jun 29 20:24:59 2004
From: rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU (Richley Crapo)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:24:59 -0600
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.142459.0600.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
Richley 

>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu 06/29/04 13:22 PM >>>
At 01:50 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
>generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
>tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.


The other important thing is that while "tecuani" functions as a noun for
us, it is technically the customary form of the verb.  Taken apart it is
"te:-cua:-ni"
"te:" direct object - someone
"cua:" verb stem - eat
"ni" customary tense

"he/she/it customarily eats someone (i.e. people)





John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From schwallr at mrs.umn.edu  Tue Jun 29 20:38:04 2004
From: schwallr at mrs.umn.edu (John F. Schwaller)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:38:04 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <s0e17bcb.008@hass.usu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.153804.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

At 03:24 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
>Richley


Andrews refers to it as the "customary-present tense morph" and as part of
"Nominalization VNC"



John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU  Tue Jun 29 20:40:42 2004
From: rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU (Richley Crapo)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:40:42 -0600
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.144042.0600.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Thanks.
Richley 

>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu 06/29/04 14:38 PM >>>
At 03:24 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
>Richley


Andrews refers to it as the "customary-present tense morph" and as part of
"Nominalization VNC"



John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Wed Jun 30 12:23:21 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:23:21 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <s0e17bcb.007@hass.usu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.072321.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Yes, basically. What is interesting about verbal -ni and its evolutionary
product nounal -ni (I just couldn't help tossing in the Andrewsian term
"nounal"! :) is that you'll find both alive and well in the texts. In
other words -ni words behave like nouns sometimes and like verbs
sometimes.

Michael


On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Richley Crapo wrote:

> Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
> Richley
>
> >>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu 06/29/04 13:22 PM >>>
> At 01:50 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
> >Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
> >generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
> >tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.
>
>
> The other important thing is that while "tecuani" functions as a noun for
> us, it is technically the customary form of the verb.  Taken apart it is
> "te:-cua:-ni"
> "te:" direct object - someone
> "cua:" verb stem - eat
> "ni" customary tense
>
> "he/she/it customarily eats someone (i.e. people)
>
>
>
>
>
> John F. Schwaller
> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
> 315 Behmler Hall
> University of Minnesota, Morris
> 600 E 4th Street
> Morris, MN  56267
> 320-589-6015
> FAX 320-589-6399
> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Wed Jun 30 14:34:14 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?US-ASCII?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavaria?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:34:14 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1040628182105.26551D-100000@ariel.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.093414.0500.>

        Tlazohcamatitzin

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nahua language and culture discussion
[mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU]En nombre de Michael Mccafferty
Enviado el: Lunes, 28 de Junio de 2004 06:22 p.m.
Para: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Asunto: Re: Transaltion


ayopaltic = violet-color

I don't remember the word for "square" off hand. Sorry. I'm sure someone
will be able to help.

Michael

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, [iso-8859-1] Ing. Juan Manuel Chavarma wrote:

> Untitled Document
>
>     Anyone can help mi with the transalation of the color: violet
(violeta)
> and the form: square (cuadrado)???
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Wed Jun 30 14:34:15 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?US-ASCII?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavaria?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:34:15 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
In-Reply-To: <40E1C1DB.4000907@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.093415.0500.>

        Tlazohcamatitzin


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nahua language and culture discussion
[mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU]En nombre de Galen Brokaw
Enviado el: Martes, 29 de Junio de 2004 02:24 p.m.
Para: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Asunto: Re: Transaltion


One possibility for square is "nauhcampa nacace". The "nauhcampa" is
composed of nahui meaning four and campa as a generic locative. The
nacace is made up of nacaztli meaning "ears" with a metaphoric meaning
of "corners" and "e" which is a suffix refering to one who owns or
possesses. So, literally, the phrase means "one (or something) that
possesses ears/corners in four places."
In a sixteenth century document, I have also seen square referred to as
"nauhcan ixtin" literally meaning something like "faces in four places".

Galen


From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Wed Jun 30 15:14:32 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:14:32 +0200
Subject: Postpositions
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.171432.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

    In analyzing postpositions, and after having consulted various sources, I find myself confused (again!), about the difference between the following:

      1.. PA and HUIC (towards)
      2.. ICAMPA and TEPOTZCO (behind)
      3.. ICPAC and PAN (on)
      4.. IXPAN and IXCO (in front of  [in the face of])
      5.. NAHUAC, TITLAN, HUAC and TECH (near)
      6.. NEPANTLA and TZALAN (between)




    And, further, what happens when you add a possessive prefix ending in "O" (or "I") to a postposition starting with "I"? MOICAMPA, TOIXPAN, NOIXCO.... and IICPAC...

    This looks a bit odd to me.

     

    Occepa, tlazohcamati huel  huel miac!!!! 

     

    Susanatontli



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/9b3bf658/attachment.html>

From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Wed Jun 30 15:11:01 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:11:01 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.171101.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

  Thank you. Your explanations are wonderful. I now have something puzzling
to think of tonight...  :-))

  Susana


From rich_photos at YAHOO.COM  Wed Jun 30 19:30:27 2004
From: rich_photos at YAHOO.COM (rick dosan)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:30:27 -0700
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <1088163143.40dc0d47c83cd@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.123027.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

 So, my understanding so far is that tlahueliloc is not from ahuelia, but from tlahuel.  And that the meaning of tlahuel is related to Hate or "irrascible ".  And ahhuel would have more to do with Impossible, or Bad.  And I take it that tlahueliloc is related to tlahuel because the phonetics of Tlahueliloc would have no saltillo in the first syllable and a long vowel in the second.  If this is so, could it still be possible that tlahueliloc sometime back originally came from ahhuel (bad)?  The reason I'm thining this, is that in Molina it's defined as Malvado...  Thanks for all the feedback.
Rich

mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU wrote:
Rick,

This is tlahue:l- as in the verb tlahue:lia 'to hate', 'to despise'.

tlahue:liloc literally means 'he/she/it has been hated'.

tlahue:li-lo-c 'despise' + non-active ("passive") marker + past tense marker

Michael




Quoting rick dosan :

> Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc? Any
> interesting texts in which it appears?
>
> Do any of these seem right?
>
>
> Ueli -- Poder
>
> Ueli �lo Se Puede
>
> Ueli-lo-c Posible
> A-ueli-lo-c Imposible
>
> Tl(a)-a-ueli.lo.c Quien no es posible/ quien es imposible
>
>
>
>
> Tlauelia- Estar irritado
>
> Tlaueli(a)-lo Se est� irritado
> Tlaueli(a)-lo-c Uno que est� irritado
>
>
>
>
> Uelia (Bueno)
>
> A-Uelia (malo)
> Tlaueliloc (Un malvado)
>
> Thank you,
> Richard Dorfsman
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/abad41de/attachment.html>

From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Wed Jun 30 20:25:54 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:25:54 -0400
Subject: Postpositions
In-Reply-To: <005801c45eb4$f81c8780$5698d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.162554.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

> the difference between the following:
-PA and -HUI:C (towards)  These are synonymous.  Not only are they
interchangeable, but they sometimes occur together: -pahui:c
-I:CAMPA and -TEPOTZCO (behind) Again, they are synonymous.
-ICPAC and -PAN (on) -icpac has more of the sense of 'on top of' and -pan
'on the surface of.' -pan is also used with time expressions (i:pan xihuitl
1562 'in the year 1562'), but -icpac is not.
-I:XPAN and -I:XCO (in front of  [in the face of]) -i:xpan is used for 'in
the presence of.'  -i:xco means 'on one's face, on the surface of something'
-NA:HUAC, -TITLAN, -HUAC and -TECH (near) -na:huac means 'adjacent to,
within hearing distance of.' -titlan is used in place names and means 'at
the base of, next to, among' (Tepe:titlan  would be a place in the
foothills, for instance.)  I don't think you will find any -huacs.  -tech
has to do with things being together.
-NEPANTLAH and -TZA:LAN (between) -nepantlah is 'in the middle.' -tza:lan is
'between.'  That is, something is -nepantlah when it stands between two
other entities.  -tza:lan refers more to the space between two entities.

And, further, what happens when you add a possessive prefix ending in "O"
(or "I") to a postposition starting with "I"? MOICAMPA, TOIXPAN, NOIXCO....
and IICPAC...

It's a matter of relative strength of vowels.  Long vowels are stronger than
short vowels, so if the postposition begins with a long vowel (-i:campa,
-i:xpan, -i:xco), the o of mo-/to- loses and drops out (mo-i:xpan >
mi:xpan). If you add possessive i:- to a postposition beginning with either
i- or i:-, you really can't get a "longer" i:-, so you end up with, for
instance, i:-i:xco > i:xco; i:-icpac > i:cpac.

If the postposition begins with a short i, the o of mo-/to- wins out:
mo-icpac > mocpac.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/09bf4c6d/attachment.html>

From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Wed Jun 30 22:48:50 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavar=EDa?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:48:50 -0500
Subject: Another Translation
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.174850.0500.>

Untitled Document
    Thank you for the previous translations; we're trying to make a abook
for children, in spanish, with some concepts in nahuatl.

    Other words we need are: the five sens (vista, olfato, gusto, tacto y
oido)



Thanks in advance, for your help.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/ea4b22d5/attachment.html>

From arbyrne at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU  Sun Jun 13 23:27:00 2004
From: arbyrne at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU (Roger Byrne)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:27:00 -0700
Subject: In the Field (was Re: cuacholote)
In-Reply-To: <001a01c43db2$cefbd4a0$d3a05b40@o9l8c6>
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUN.2004.162700.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

I will be in Mexico from May 17 through June 30 and during this time
will only be responding to email on an infrequent basis.  If you need
to reach me urgently please contact Natalia Vonnegut
<nat at socrates.Berkeley.EDU> for instructions.

Roger Byrne
--
Dr. Roger Byrne
Associate Professor
Geography Department
501 Mc Cone Hall
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720

Phones: 510 643 9170 (office)
510 643 1834 (lab)
510 642 3903 (secretary)
Fax: 510 642 3370
Email: arbyrne at uclink4.berkeley.edu


From Amapohuani at AOL.COM  Mon Jun 14 00:53:33 2004
From: Amapohuani at AOL.COM (Amapohuani at AOL.COM)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:53:33 EDT
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20=A0=20FYI?=
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUN.2004.205333.EDT.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Listeros:

For those who are interested in the progress of the four-volume NAHUATL
THEATER set being prepared by Louise Burkhart and myself, the University of
Oklahoma Press now has volume one (due out in November this year) posted on its
website under 'New Titles.' There is also a flyer put out by U of O Press
advertising the new volume.

The very latest U of Oklahoma Press catalogue also has volume one of NAHUATL
THEATER listed and, on the facing page, Bob Haskett's forthcoming excellent
study VISIONS OF PARADISE: PRIMORDIAL TITLES AND MESOAMERICAN HISTORY IN
CUERNAVACA.

Ye ixquich.
Barry D. Sell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040613/1c1e89a2/attachment.htm>

From lemarc at ATTGLOBAL.NET  Mon Jun 14 08:00:00 2004
From: lemarc at ATTGLOBAL.NET (Marc Eisinger)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:00:00 +0200
Subject: Matritenses
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUN.2004.100000.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Listeros,
I would like to find a readable copy of the Sahagun's codices
matritenses
and, if I can, make a machine readable version of them, the copy of the
Paso y Troncoso edition I already have is of no use for my purpose.
Any hint ?
Thanks,
Marc

--
Qu'es pas fenian qu'es pa grouman qu'un tron de dieou lou cur?
(qui n'est pas faineant, qui n'est pas gourmand, que Dieu le gu?risse)
(proverbe proven?al)


From idiez at MAC.COM  Mon Jun 14 14:26:08 2004
From: idiez at MAC.COM (idiez at MAC.COM)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:26:08 -0500
Subject: terminology
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUN.2004.092608.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Listeros:
        I just thought I'd throw out some of the things we are working on here 
in Zacatecas with regards to the grammatical terminology for the 
monolingual nahuatl dictionary.

Tlahtoltecpantli (language structure)
Tlahcuilolli (letters)
Tlahtolli (phrases)
Achitlahtolli (morphemes)

        It seems to me that nahuatl units of meaning are phrases and that 
these phrases are built around subjects. So it doesn't do any good to 
talk about nouns, verbs or prepositions.
1. There is a phrase (tlahtolli) which is built around a named thing 
(tlatocaxtilli). This kind of phrase, such as "nicihuatl", could be 
called a "tlatocaxtiltlahtolli". The subject (ni-, ti-, in- or -?) is 
the "tlatocaxtilli (named thing)", while the noun root, "-cihua-, is 
"itocah", "its name". The "tlatocaxtilli" can have "iteco", "its 
possessor" (no-, to-, mo-, inmo-, i-, inin-). We haven't decided on 
terminology for the absolutive and possessive endings (tlen ica 
tzontlami), other than "cetzin (singular)" and "miyaquin (plural)".
2. There is another phrase which is built around a "doer" subject 
(tlachiuhquetl) and could be called a "tlachiuhcatlahtolli". Some of 
the parts (achitlahtolli) of this phrase could be:
tlachiuhquetl (doer subject)
tlachihuililli (a thing to which something is done: object)
Types of objects (catlia: ?which object?: specific object), 
(motlachihuililli: a thing to which something is done by itself: 
reflexive object) (acahya: someone: non-specific human); (tlenhueli: 
something: non-specific non-human)
Tlachihualiztli (the action)
Tenses and some compounds with rough equivalents: tlen pano (present), 
tlen panoz (future), tlen panozquia (would or about to happen), tlen ma 
pano (imperative), tlen panoyaya (imperfect), tlen panoco (purposive), 
tlen panoqui (purposive), tlen panoto (purposive), tlen panoti 
(purposive), tlen panoc (preterite), tlen panotoc (has happened), tlen 
panotoz (will have happened), tlen panotoya (had happened), tlen 
panotozquia (should have happened).
We`re still working on names for the directionals (bad name) and the 
ending morphemes.
3. I think that the relational phrase really is like a possessed noun. 
"nonacaztlan", [something is] next to my ear = next to me. This example 
is an easily recognizable compound. But, perhaps the "pa-" of "-pan" 
was at some point a noun root which was stuck to the locative "-n". The 
only problem with the relational compound being a phrase is that it 
seems to lack a subject. It's possible that the subject is the ? third 
person. In this way, the relational phrase would relate to another 
"named" or "doer" phrase as if these latter elements were an "it", an 
entity or an event. Needless to say, we haven't come to any conclusions 
yet regarding the relational phrase or whatever it is. Right now I 
think I would called its ? subject a "situated thing", and the whole 
phrase, a situated-thing phrase (We are having trouble deciding on the 
terminology). The reason for "situated" is that, in my opinion, all of 
the relational words are built on locatives, which then either keep 
their locative sense, or are used metaphorically (many times by 
compounding) to express other kinds of relationships (time, purpose, 
etc.)
4. Particles could be called "piltlahtoltzin", "mini-phrase".
        If I'm saying things that other people have said, please let me know. 
And all suggestions and contributions to the dictionary project will be 
acknowledged in the work.
John

John Sullivan, Ph.D.
Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
Unidad Acad?mica de Idiomas
Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas
Director
Instituto de Docencia e Investigaci?n Etnol?gica de Zacatecas, A.C.
Tacuba 152, int. 47
Centro Hist?rico
Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
M?xico
Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
idiez at mac.com
www.idiez.org.mx or http://homepage.mac.com/idiez/idiezweb/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3995 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040614/b7720a11/attachment.bin>

From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Tue Jun 15 14:41:23 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:41:23 +0200
Subject: agents and possessive
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUN.2004.164123.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

    I have a doubt. How do you form the agentive noun from a verb ending in NI like PATLANI and TZECUINI? platanini? (flyer, volador)? and tzecuinini (runner, corredor)?

    And what is the correct way to say "I am her friend"? NEHUATL NIICNIUH? (double I?) or "I am her mother" NIINAN???

    I'd appreciate any help.
    Thanks,
    Susana


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040615/d8e4e9b0/attachment.htm>

From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Tue Jun 22 23:04:02 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:04:02 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.010402.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

  Hello,
  I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!). The complete text is:

  Can a nicuicanitl huiya
  xochitl in noyollo ya
  nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
  o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.

  Thanks for your help.

  Susana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040623/d186277a/attachment.htm>

From idiez at MAC.COM  Wed Jun 23 03:01:15 2004
From: idiez at MAC.COM (idiez at MAC.COM)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:01:15 -0500
Subject: maya de los chen
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.220115.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

I have a couple of questions:
1. What is the mayan dialect called which is spoken in Campeche, close 
to the border with Yucat?n? It's the -chen area; Bolonchen, etc.
2. Can anybody recommend grammars, vocabularies, etc.?
3. Is there any consensus regarding spelling conventions?
John

John Sullivan, Ph.D.
Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
Unidad Acad?mica de Idiomas
Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas
Director
Instituto de Docencia e Investigaci?n Etnol?gica de Zacatecas, A.C.
Tacuba 152, int. 47
Centro Hist?rico
Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
M?xico
Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
idiez at mac.com
http://www.idiez.org.mx or http://homepage.mac.com/idiez/idiezweb

From tepeyac at MINDSPRING.COM  Wed Jun 23 12:30:27 2004
From: tepeyac at MINDSPRING.COM (Robert M Robinson)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:30:27 -0400
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <02bb01c458ad$57d99400$e2a3d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.083027.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Susana Moraleda-Dragotto wrote:

>     Hello,
>     I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an
>     incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!).
>     The complete text is:
>
>     Can a nicuicanitl huiya
>     xochitl in noyollo ya
>     nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
>     o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.
>
>     Thanks for your help.
>
>     Susana
>
>
A very poetic word probably from a version of Angel Garibay's Romances.
(Please correct me someone).

John Bierhorst lists the word Xoxo:pan  freq. of xopan.
1) in summer, every summer; freely, in sping (when referringto new growth).

He gives a great example:

Xoxo:pan xihuitl i:pan tochi:huaco[h] = we come to do as herbs in
spring, 14v:5 (Cantares Mexicanos)

Xo:pan  is green place, green time, as opposed to the dry season. If you
have seen Mexico in the dry season you would see the glaring absence of
greenery.

Xo:tl  means green.

I would guess that x:o:co means "by means of green" .

I could not imagine how to translate a word with green in it three
times. The sound is incredible soft like flowiing water.

I  am looking forward to what more experienced listeros make of it.

R M Robinson


From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Wed Jun 23 13:46:59 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:46:59 -0400
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <02bb01c458ad$57d99400$e2a3d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.094659.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

on 6/22/04 7:04 PM, Susana Moraleda-Dragotto at susana at DRAGOTTO.COM wrote:

Hello,
I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an incredible word
I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!). The complete text is:

Can a nicuicanitl huiya
xochitl in noyollo ya
nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.

Thanks for your help.

Susana



Can you tell us more about the source/context?  This looks like a verse from
one of the xopancuicatl 'songs of the green time.'  If we could look up the
whole song, it would help.

Robinson tried to add -co to xo:- 'green' to form an instrumental, but that
doesn't really work. It's better to look further.  Xo:coh is 'youngest
child' and xoco-tl is 'fruit.'




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040623/eb664f33/attachment.htm>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Wed Jun 23 13:59:16 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:59:16 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <40D977E3.6010709@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.085916.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

I think Mr/Ms Robinson is on the trail.

xo-pan  'green-time'
xo-xo-pan 'green-green time'

-xoco  seems to be xocotl 'fruit', although I don't understand the lack of
the absolutive suffix -- unless this is a noun that "is allowed" to come
in two forms, one with an absolutive suffix and one without an absolutive
suffix, without any change in its meaning. Practically any noun can appear
in an as-if absolutive form without an absolutive suffix (and without any
possessive prefixes), but the meaning of the noun takes on a depreciative
meaning. Mazatl ohtlican 'it is a deer in the road'/ Maza ohtlican 'it is
a dirty ol' deer in the road'. Something like that.

I'd say, off-hand, that your term is, freely translated, 'fruit from the
heart of summer/spring'.

Michael

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Robert M Robinson wrote:

> Susana Moraleda-Dragotto wrote:
>
> >     Hello,
> >     I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an
> >     incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!).
> >     The complete text is:
> >
> >     Can a nicuicanitl huiya
> >     xochitl in noyollo ya
> >     nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
> >     o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.
> >
> >     Thanks for your help.
> >
> >     Susana
> >
> >
> A very poetic word probably from a version of Angel Garibay's Romances.
> (Please correct me someone).
>
> John Bierhorst lists the word Xoxo:pan  freq. of xopan.
> 1) in summer, every summer; freely, in sping (when referringto new growth).
>
> He gives a great example:
>
> Xoxo:pan xihuitl i:pan tochi:huaco[h] = we come to do as herbs in
> spring, 14v:5 (Cantares Mexicanos)
>
> Xo:pan  is green place, green time, as opposed to the dry season. If you
> have seen Mexico in the dry season you would see the glaring absence of
> greenery.
>
> Xo:tl  means green.
>
> I would guess that x:o:co means "by means of green" .
>
> I could not imagine how to translate a word with green in it three
> times. The sound is incredible soft like flowiing water.
>
> I  am looking forward to what more experienced listeros make of it.
>
> R M Robinson
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From M.Swanton at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL  Wed Jun 23 14:02:34 2004
From: M.Swanton at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL (Swanton, M.)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:02:34 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.160234.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

<?fontfamily><?param Arial>
Hello Susana,
Xoxopanxoco means 'fruit of Spring'. I believe it is used as a personal name
in the early 16th century Morelos census. I also believe the name
Xoxopanxoco was also used in the Castaneda mythology, though I know that
literature very poorly.
I hope this helps,
Mike Swanton

-----Original Message-----
From: Susana Moraleda-Dragotto [mailto:susana at DRAGOTTO.COM]
Sent: woensdag 23 juni 2004 1:04
To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: translation




Hello,
I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an incredible word
I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!). The complete text is:

Can a nicuicanitl huiya
xochitl in noyollo ya
nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.

Thanks for your help.

Susana




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040623/d6b535db/attachment.htm>

From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Wed Jun 23 17:36:57 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:36:57 -0400
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.133657.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Michael's explanation sounds good to me. And if it is a name as Mike
Swanton suggests, then that may explain the lack of the absolutive
suffix. I think personal names often--although not always--leave off the
absolutive suffix, don't they?
Galen



Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> I think Mr/Ms Robinson is on the trail.
>
> xo-pan  'green-time'
> xo-xo-pan 'green-green time'
>
> -xoco  seems to be xocotl 'fruit', although I don't understand the lack of
> the absolutive suffix -- unless this is a noun that "is allowed" to come
> in two forms, one with an absolutive suffix and one without an absolutive
> suffix, without any change in its meaning. Practically any noun can appear
> in an as-if absolutive form without an absolutive suffix (and without any
> possessive prefixes), but the meaning of the noun takes on a depreciative
> meaning. Mazatl ohtlican 'it is a deer in the road'/ Maza ohtlican 'it is
> a dirty ol' deer in the road'. Something like that.
>
> I'd say, off-hand, that your term is, freely translated, 'fruit from the
> heart of summer/spring'.
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Robert M Robinson wrote:
>
>
>>Susana Moraleda-Dragotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    Hello,
>>>    I came across a Nahuatl text written in a book, and found an
>>>    incredible word I was not able to decipher: XOXOPANXOCO (??!!).
>>>    The complete text is:
>>>
>>>    Can a nicuicanitl huiya
>>>    xochitl in noyollo ya
>>>    nicmana nocuic a ohuaya ohuaya
>>>    o xoxopanxoco o xoxopanxoco.
>>>
>>>    Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>>    Susana
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A very poetic word probably from a version of Angel Garibay's Romances.
>>(Please correct me someone).
>>
>>John Bierhorst lists the word Xoxo:pan  freq. of xopan.
>>1) in summer, every summer; freely, in sping (when referringto new growth).
>>
>>He gives a great example:
>>
>>Xoxo:pan xihuitl i:pan tochi:huaco[h] = we come to do as herbs in
>>spring, 14v:5 (Cantares Mexicanos)
>>
>>Xo:pan  is green place, green time, as opposed to the dry season. If you
>>have seen Mexico in the dry season you would see the glaring absence of
>>greenery.
>>
>>Xo:tl  means green.
>>
>>I would guess that x:o:co means "by means of green" .
>>
>>I could not imagine how to translate a word with green in it three
>>times. The sound is incredible soft like flowiing water.
>>
>>I  am looking forward to what more experienced listeros make of it.
>>
>>R M Robinson
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "...and cicadas sing
> a rare and different tune..."
>
> R. Hunter
>


From lemcia at UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU  Wed Jun 23 20:36:26 2004
From: lemcia at UCLINK.BERKELEY.EDU (Monika Jarosz)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:36:26 -0700
Subject: maya de los chen
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.133626.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Hi John,
My advisor professor Hanks is a mayanist. He probably will be able to answer
to your question. His email address is: wfhchair at sscl.berkeley.edu

Good luck
Monika Jarosz

>===== Original Message From Nahua language and culture discussion
<NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU> =====
>I have a couple of questions:
>1. What is the mayan dialect called which is spoken in Campeche, close
>to the border with Yucat?n? It's the -chen area; Bolonchen, etc.
>2. Can anybody recommend grammars, vocabularies, etc.?
>3. Is there any consensus regarding spelling conventions?
>John
>
>John Sullivan, Ph.D.
>Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
>Unidad Acad?mica de Idiomas
>Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas
>Director
>Instituto de Docencia e Investigaci?n Etnol?gica de Zacatecas, A.C.
>Tacuba 152, int. 47
>Centro Hist?rico
>Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
>M?xico
>Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
>Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
>Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
>Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
>idiez at mac.com
>http://www.idiez.org.mx or http://homepage.mac.com/idiez/idiezweb


From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Wed Jun 23 23:22:33 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:22:33 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.012233.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Re: translationThank you all for your comments. That was surely useful and enlightening. 
    However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place" XOPAN and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN? What part of the word is the removable one? I imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC) Or else, is XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC? Sorry, I'm confused.

    As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of the other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to judge anything)...

    Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...

    By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought agentives didn't.

    Susana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040624/ca2bc72e/attachment.htm>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Thu Jun 24 18:32:15 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:32:15 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.133215.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

Susana,

These are rather involved questions with no one simple answer, but with
several interrelated answers. I'll try to answer this tomorrow when I have
more time, although maybe someone else will answer you before I get a
chance. In any event, I'll write again tomorrow with the analyses of these
terms.

Michael


> Re: translationThank you all for your comments. That was surely useful and
> enlightening.
>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN? What part of the word is the removable one?
I
> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC) Or else,
is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?
> Sorry, I'm confused.
>
>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of
the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position
to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.
>
>     Susana
>
>


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Thu Jun 24 18:33:31 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:33:31 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.133331.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Sorry, nahuatlahtos, I thought I was answering Susana directly with my most
recent missive. Still learning how to drive a computer. Everyone, get out of
the road!!

Michael

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

> Re: translationThank you all for your comments. That was surely useful and
> enlightening.
>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN? What part of the word is the removable one? I
> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC) Or else,
is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?
> Sorry, I'm confused.
>
>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of
the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.
>
>     Susana
>
>


From rich_photos at YAHOO.COM  Thu Jun 24 19:01:38 2004
From: rich_photos at YAHOO.COM (rick dosan)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:01:38 -0700
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <smtpd.6c49.40d83297.7ec4b.21@mhub-w6.tc.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUN.2004.120138.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc?  Any interesting texts in which it appears?

Do any of these seem right?


Ueli --                   Poder

Ueli ?lo                Se Puede

Ueli-lo-c               Posible
A-ueli-lo-c            Imposible

Tl(a)-a-ueli.lo.c    Quien no es posible/ quien es imposible




Tlauelia-            Estar irritado

Tlaueli(a)-lo      Se est? irritado
Tlaueli(a)-lo-c  Uno que est? irritado




Uelia  (Bueno)

A-Uelia  (malo)
Tlaueliloc  (Un malvado)

Thank you,
Richard Dorfsman


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040624/46da8894/attachment.htm>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 10:48:19 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:48:19 -0500
Subject: metztlahtolli
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.054819.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Could someone tell me what the word for "crescent" is in Nahuatl?

Thank you,

Michael


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 11:29:12 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 06:29:12 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <01f201c45979$65f4e680$e8a1d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.062912.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

>>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN?

Xoxopan is certainly grammatical, but the *name* for the time is "set in
stone," so to speak in the form xopan.


What part of the word is the removable one?

Susana,

**Everything** is removable. :)

But sometimes when you remove something, all you have in your hands is
*parts*.

I'm not sure exactly how to approach your question but I'll throw out some
ideas and perhaps others will join in.

There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing', but it seems to
appear most commonly in the reduplicated form /xoxo:-/ (note with a short
vowel in the first syllable. This reduplicated initial stem forms common
verbs, such as xoxo:hui 'to become green', with its own derived terms, such
the agentive noun xoxo:uhqui, constructed on the preterit stem, meaning 'a
green thing' (literally 'it has become green').

Now, there is also, as you note above, "xoxoc-". We see this in, for example,
xoxoctic (where,note, both o's are short vowels).  Xoxoctic, often
translated "green," as if an adjective, actually means 'it has become green'.

-ti is a very productive verb suffix in Nahuatl. It is joined to noun stems to
create "millions" of verbs that essentially express the idea of "similar".
For example, cihua:tl 'woman' -> cihua:- + -ti -> cihua:ti 'to become (like) a
woman'. With the addition of the past tense suffix -c, you get
cihua:tic 'he/she/it has become (like) a woman'. This translates in English
to "effeminate".

(Now, at this point, the territory gets a bit shakey underfoot for me, so I'd
appreciate anyone's joining in who has a more solid understanding of what
follows.)

What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time,
maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.

> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC)

Susana, I'm not sure what "it" means in your question.


 Or else, is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?

"Xoctic" may be possible, but I don't remember seeing it. I only know the
reduplicated form. Some stems are only used in their reduplicated forms.


>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.

I've seen them do it on occasion. It's not a common thing, and it may be
mostly a poetic practice. In this connection, it's probably important to
remember, though, that every language has **immense flexibility**. It's almost
impossible to see that quality when you're learning a foreign language as an
adult. To the adult learner, a second language may appear, in the beginning,
to be composed of concrete building blocks, when in fact it's very much like a
liquid, or silly putty.   :-)




Michael


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 11:32:23 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 06:32:23 -0500
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <20040624190138.12908.qmail@web90009.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.063223.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Rick,

This is tlahue:l- as in the verb tlahue:lia 'to hate', 'to despise'.

tlahue:liloc literally means 'he/she/it has been hated'.

tlahue:li-lo-c  'despise' + non-active ("passive") marker + past tense marker

Michael




Quoting rick dosan <rich_photos at YAHOO.COM>:

> Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc?  Any
> interesting texts in which it appears?
>
> Do any of these seem right?
>
>
> Ueli --                   Poder
>
> Ueli ?lo                Se Puede
>
> Ueli-lo-c               Posible
> A-ueli-lo-c            Imposible
>
> Tl(a)-a-ueli.lo.c    Quien no es posible/ quien es imposible
>
>
>
>
> Tlauelia-            Estar irritado
>
> Tlaueli(a)-lo      Se est? irritado
> Tlaueli(a)-lo-c  Uno que est? irritado
>
>
>
>
> Uelia  (Bueno)
>
> A-Uelia  (malo)
> Tlaueliloc  (Un malvado)
>
> Thank you,
> Richard Dorfsman
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.


From schwallr at mrs.umn.edu  Fri Jun 25 13:30:12 2004
From: schwallr at mrs.umn.edu (John F. Schwaller)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:30:12 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <1088162952.40dc0c88b995d@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.083012.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
>a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',

[stuff cut out]


>What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
>(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
>homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time,
>maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.


Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."  Your construction analysis is
absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?  I think the
critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
/xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.





John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Fri Jun 25 14:44:12 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:44:12 -0500
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040625082420.01faab00@schwallr.email.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.094412.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:

> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
> >There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
> >a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>
> [stuff cut out]
>
>
> >What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
> >(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
> >homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time
> >maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>
>
> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."

They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
other.

 Your construction analysis is
> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?

The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
you know.


  I think the
> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>

Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.

Michael


>
>
>
>
> John F. Schwaller
> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
> 315 Behmler Hall
> University of Minnesota, Morris
> 600 E 4th Street
> Morris, MN  56267
> 320-589-6015
> FAX 320-589-6399
> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Fri Jun 25 17:32:51 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:32:51 -0400
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <20040624190138.12908.qmail@web90009.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.133251.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

on 6/24/04 3:01 PM, rick dosan at rich_photos at YAHOO.COM wrote:

> Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc?

Not every initial tla- in Nahuatl is a prefix.  In this case, it's part of
the stem: tlahue:l-

Tlahue:lli is 'rage, indignation."

Tlahue:lia: is a transitive verb meaning to become angry at someone, so it
takes the human object prefix te:-. Te:tlahue:liztli would be generalized
irascibility.

Tlahue:lilo:c (tlahue:lilo:ca-) means someone enraged or malicious. (Because
it's formed on the nonactive stem, it doesn't have the te:- object prefix.)

Joe Campbell can provide lots of citations.


From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Fri Jun 25 17:53:08 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:53:08 -0400
Subject: xoxoctic
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.135308.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
"-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
iztac, tliltic, etc.
Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
noun.
Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
object that is prototypically green.
In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
"xoctli" as the root.
Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
therefore more easily classified as a noun.
I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
was talking about.
Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
Galen






Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>
>
>>At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>
>>>There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
>>>a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>>
>>[stuff cut out]
>>
>>
>>
>>>What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
>>>(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
>>>homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time
>>>maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>>
>>
>>Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
>>these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>
>
> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
> other.
>
>  Your construction analysis is
>
>>absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
>>a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>
>
> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
> you know.
>
>
>   I think the
>
>>critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>/xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>
>
>
> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>John F. Schwaller
>>Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>315 Behmler Hall
>>University of Minnesota, Morris
>>600 E 4th Street
>>Morris, MN  56267
>>320-589-6015
>>FAX 320-589-6399
>>schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "...and cicadas sing
> a rare and different tune..."
>
> R. Hunter
>


From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Fri Jun 25 17:52:12 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:52:12 -0400
Subject: translation
In-Reply-To: <1088162952.40dc0c88b995d@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.135212.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

>> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC)
>
> Susana, I'm not sure what "it" means in your question.


It looks to me as though Susana is asking about the regular derivations you
just described:

chi:chi:l-ti-c 'It has become like peppers (i.e., red)'

coz-ti-c 'It has become like something golden (i.e. yellow)'

nex-ti-c 'it has become like ashes (i.e. gray)'

tli:l-ti-c 'it has become like ink (i.e. black)'

So Susana is looking for a free-standing word to which to attach -ti-c, but
the little family of 'green' elements is frustrating her.

(Note that although coz- is found in a number of compounds, it doesn't turn
up on its own as a freestanding word as far as I know.  Words can be like
that.  Think of the English "berry" words:  blackberry, blueberry OK;
cranberry, raspberry problematical.  And what does a strawberry have to do
with straw?)


From micc2 at COX.NET  Fri Jun 25 18:12:16 2004
From: micc2 at COX.NET (micc2)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:12:16 -0700
Subject: xoxoctic   off of left field
In-Reply-To: <40DC6684.7010001@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.111216.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think)
but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used.
she was from Amozoc, Puebla.

she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"  poxcahui?

mario

Galen Brokaw wrote:

> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
> iztac, tliltic, etc.
> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
> noun.
> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
> object that is prototypically green.
> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
> "xoctli" as the root.
> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
> was talking about.
> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
> Galen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does
>>>> appear in
>>>> a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>>>
>>>
>>> [stuff cut out]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form
>>>> of /xoc-/
>>>> (/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this
>>>> stem is either
>>>> homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the
>>>> same time
>>>> maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an
>>> expert in
>>> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>>
>>
>>
>> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
>> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
>> other.
>>
>>  Your construction analysis is
>>
>>> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so
>>> there is
>>> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>>
>>
>>
>> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
>> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
>> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
>> you know.
>>
>>
>>   I think the
>>
>>> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
>> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John F. Schwaller
>>> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>> 315 Behmler Hall
>>> University of Minnesota, Morris
>>> 600 E 4th Street
>>> Morris, MN  56267
>>> 320-589-6015
>>> FAX 320-589-6399
>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> "...and cicadas sing
>> a rare and different tune..."
>>
>> R. Hunter
>>
>


From dfrye at UMICH.EDU  Fri Jun 25 19:54:23 2004
From: dfrye at UMICH.EDU (Frye, David L)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:54:23 -0400
Subject: apoxcahuarse
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.155423.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Santamaria's Diccionario de mexicanismos has (for what it's worth): 
 
Aposcahuarse. (De la preposicion a, y el azt. poxcauhqui, cosa mohosa.) pr. Enmohecerse, oxidarse, crear orin una cosa.
                              2. En general, pudrirse.
 
Frances Karttunen's Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl has:
 POXCAHU(I), to get moldy, dank / enmohecerse o henchirse alguna cosa de orin (M). See POXCAHUIYA.
 
 POXCAHUIYA, to get covered with slime / se enlama (T). See POXCAHU(I).
 
 

________________________________

From: Nahua language and culture discussion on behalf of micc2
Sent: Fri 6/25/2004 2:12 PM
To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: xoxoctic off of left field



This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think) 
but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used. 
she was from Amozoc, Puebla. 

she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"  poxcahui? 

mario 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040625/2722afa4/attachment.htm>

From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Fri Jun 25 19:55:56 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:55:56 -0400
Subject: xoxoctic   off of left field
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.155556.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Mario,
Fran's dictionary lists "poxcahui" as "dank, moldy". So, it seems to me
that if "esta apoxcahuado" means "it is all dank or moldy" or something
similar, then it surely derives from poxcahui.
Galen




micc2 wrote:
> This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think)
> but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used.
> she was from Amozoc, Puebla.
>
> she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"
> poxcahui?
>
> mario
>
> Galen Brokaw wrote:
>
>> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
>> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
>> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
>> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
>> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
>> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
>> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
>> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
>> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
>> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
>> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
>> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
>> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
>> iztac, tliltic, etc.
>> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
>> noun.
>> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
>> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
>> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
>> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
>> object that is prototypically green.
>> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
>> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
>> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
>> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
>> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
>> "xoctli" as the root.
>> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
>> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
>> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
>> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
>> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
>> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
>> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
>> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
>> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
>> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
>> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
>> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
>> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
>> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
>> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
>> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
>> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
>> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
>> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
>> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
>> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
>> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
>> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
>> was talking about.
>> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
>> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
>> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
>> Galen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does
>>>>> appear in
>>>>> a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [stuff cut out]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form
>>>>> of /xoc-/
>>>>> (/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this
>>>>> stem is either
>>>>> homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the
>>>>> same time
>>>>> maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an
>>>> expert in
>>>> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>>> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
>>> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
>>> other.
>>>
>>>  Your construction analysis is
>>>
>>>> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>>> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so
>>>> there is
>>>> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>>> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
>>> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
>>> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
>>> you know.
>>>
>>>
>>>   I think the
>>>
>>>> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>>> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
>>> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John F. Schwaller
>>>> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>>> 315 Behmler Hall
>>>> University of Minnesota, Morris
>>>> 600 E 4th Street
>>>> Morris, MN  56267
>>>> 320-589-6015
>>>> FAX 320-589-6399
>>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "...and cicadas sing
>>> a rare and different tune..."
>>>
>>> R. Hunter
>>>
>>
>


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Mon Jun 28 13:11:20 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:11:20 -0500
Subject: xoxoctic
In-Reply-To: <40DC6684.7010001@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.081120.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Galen's verb theory is inviting. The suffix -hui does appear on verbs that
end in /o/, e.g., from  tlapo 'open' (trans.) derives tlapohui 'to become
open'. Of course, a big dif between tlapo and *(xo)xo:- is that, while
*(xo)xo- would go to *xoxoc-, tlapo goes to tlapoh for the preterite.

Michael


On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Galen Brokaw wrote:

> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
> iztac, tliltic, etc.
> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
> noun.
> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
> object that is prototypically green.
> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
> "xoctli" as the root.
> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
> was talking about.
> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
> Galen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
> >
> >
> >>At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
> >>>a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing',
> >>
> >>[stuff cut out]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
> >>>(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
> >>>homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time
> >>>maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.
> >>
> >>
> >>Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an expert in
> >>these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
> >>have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
> >
> >
> > They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
> > different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
> > other.
> >
> >  Your construction analysis is
> >
> >>absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
> >>consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so there is
> >>a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
> >>since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
> >
> >
> > The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
> > structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
> > a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
> > you know.
> >
> >
> >   I think the
> >
> >>critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
> >>/xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
> > around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>John F. Schwaller
> >>Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
> >>315 Behmler Hall
> >>University of Minnesota, Morris
> >>600 E 4th Street
> >>Morris, MN  56267
> >>320-589-6015
> >>FAX 320-589-6399
> >>schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > "...and cicadas sing
> > a rare and different tune..."
> >
> > R. Hunter
> >
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Mon Jun 28 22:36:28 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavar=EDa?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:36:28 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.173628.0500.>

Untitled Document

    Anyone can help mi with the transalation of the color: violet (violeta)
and the form: square (cuadrado)???




Thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040628/7f77464f/attachment.htm>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Mon Jun 28 23:22:15 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:22:15 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
In-Reply-To: <JKEIIDCODLBBBLCPIFDBCECOCBAA.juan@papaqui.com>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.182215.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

ayopaltic = violet-color

I don't remember the word for "square" off hand. Sorry. I'm sure someone
will be able to help.

Michael

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, [iso-8859-1] Ing. Juan Manuel Chavar?a wrote:

> Untitled Document
> 
>     Anyone can help mi with the transalation of the color: violet (violeta)
> and the form: square (cuadrado)???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET  Tue Jun 29 01:37:19 2004
From: cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET (Roland Trevino)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:37:19 -0700
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.183719.0700.CLOUDJAGUAR@EARTHLINK.NET>

Hello, i am new to studying Nahuatl and i have been working extensively with
Campbell and Karttunen's foundation course books (vols. 1 and 2).  I am
getting some command of the vocabulary but i am woefully feeble at
contracting words.

Please help with the following words:

CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix (any other words for this?) / jaguar is Ocelotl
or Tecuani
    --- so would this word then be Mixocelotl? or Mixtecuani ?  (that just
seems wrong to me :)

SMOKE BUTTERFLY -- butterfly is Papalotl / smoke is Poctli
   --- so would this word then be Poctlipapalotl (again, this just seems
wrong)

Thank you,
~Roland Trevino, Esq.


From cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET  Tue Jun 29 02:24:40 2004
From: cloud_jaguar at EARTHLINK.NET (Roland Trevino)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:24:40 -0700
Subject: Please Help
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.192440.0700.CLOUDJAGUAR@EARTHLINK.NET>

Hello, i am new to studying Nahuatl and i have been working extensively with
Campbell and Karttunen's foundation course books (vols. 1 and 2).  I am
getting some command of the vocabulary but i am woefully feeble at
contracting words.

Please help with the following words:

CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040628/7e8fa18a/attachment.htm>

From rich_photos at YAHOO.COM  Tue Jun 29 03:54:19 2004
From: rich_photos at YAHOO.COM (rick dosan)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:54:19 -0700
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <BD01DA03.2D5F%karttu@nantucket.net>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUN.2004.205419.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

How could you determine whether the root of tlahueliloc is tlaue: l , or ahuelia?  One means rage, and the other evil(malo), and they both can be applied to the meaning of tlahueliloc.  Sometimes the texts use it to describe someone enranged, and other times it's translated as malvado in other texts.
Thanks,
Richard Dorfsman




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040628/38c05c78/attachment.htm>

From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Tue Jun 29 12:35:59 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:35:59 -0400
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <20040629035419.38259.qmail@web90005.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.083559.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

on 6/28/04 11:54 PM, rick dosan at rich_photos at YAHOO.COM wrote:

> How could you determine whether the root of tlahueliloc is tlaue: l , or
ahuelia?
> One means rage, and the other evil(malo), and they both can be applied to
> the meaning of tlahueliloc.  Sometimes the texts use it to describe someone
> enraged, and other times it's translated as malvado in other texts.


I am skeptical about citations of "ahuelia" in the sense of 'evil.'

There is ahhuel(i), composed of the negative element ah- and huel
'possible,' which literally means '(to be) impossible.'  Molina has "auel
monotza.incorregible," which follows from the sense of impossibility.
Andrews goes so far as to extend the connotation to being unsuccessful and
"bad" in that sense, but that's not evil.

The difference between tlahue:l- derivations and ahhuel- derivations is
obvious when you look beyond spelling to phonology and morphology.

Fran Karttunen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040629/31d29c28/attachment.htm>

From david at GLOSTER.NET  Tue Jun 29 13:12:13 2004
From: david at GLOSTER.NET (David Gloster)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:12:13 +0200
Subject: tlahueliloc
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.151213.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040629/68a8f435/attachment.htm>

From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Tue Jun 29 14:24:32 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:24:32 -0400
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <476767307@web.de>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.102432.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

> The difference between the derivations may be "obvious" to the experts
> (who don't need an answer to Rick's question anyway) but there are thousands
> of mere mortal Nahuatl enthusiasts (like me for instance) to whom it's not at
> all obvious.



OK.  Conventional Nahuatl spelling, that originated in the 1500s, when
Franciscan friars applied Spanish/Latin spelling conventions to a language
with a very different sound system than Spanish or Latin, doesn't
consistently mark contrastive vowel length or the syllable-final consonant
that they called "saltillo."  When they DID indicate saltillo, they did so
with the letter "h."  In some varieties of Nahuatl, this is pronounced as a
very h-like aspiration at the end of the syllable.  In other varieties it
was/is a sharp glottal stop.  Whatever the pronunciation, saltillo functions
as a consonant.  Omitting it altogether in spelling makes numbers of stems
LOOK as through they are the same when, if you just heard them, you would
notice that they sound different.

Sometime later Jesuit grammarians, notably Horacio Carochi, modified Nahuatl
spelling to indicate which vowels are long and where the saltillos are, but
the spelling reform didn't catch on.  Hence, most Nahuatl dictionaries
under-differentiate entries in such a way that several different things fall
together as one when they are not.

In the case of tlahue:l- versus ahhuel, in the first case you have no
saltillo in the first syllable and a long vowel in the second.  In the
latter, you have a saltillo in the first syllable and a short vowel in the
second.  Furthermore, ahhuel is transparently the negation of huel, whereas
in tlahue:l-, the first syllable is not a prefix but an integral part of the
stem.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040629/6cd62bb4/attachment.htm>

From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Tue Jun 29 18:27:48 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:27:48 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <000801c45d79$9e536cf0$049fb2d1@rolandcrmw4dhe>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.132748.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Roland Trevino wrote:

> Hello, i am new to studying Nahuatl and i have been working extensively with
> Campbell and Karttunen's foundation course books (vols. 1 and 2).  I am
> getting some command of the vocabulary but i am woefully feeble at
> contracting words.
>
> Please help with the following words:
>
> CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix (any other words for this?) / jaguar is Ocelotl
> or Tecuani
>     --- so would this word then be Mixocelotl? or Mixtecuani ?  (that just
> seems wrong to me :)

Mixocelotl is perfectly grammatical. *Mixtecuani is odd. I don't know if
you can affix a noun stem to the verb as noun te-cua-ni.

>
> SMOKE BUTTERFLY -- butterfly is Papalotl / smoke is Poctli
>    --- so would this word then be Poctlipapalotl (again, this just seems
> wrong)


Pocpapalotl works grammatically. However, with personal names there is
also the possibility for Poctli papalotl, 'it is smoke, it is a butterly,
written Poctlipapalotl.

Michael



> Thank you,
> ~Roland Trevino, Esq.
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Tue Jun 29 18:50:20 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:50:20 -0400
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.145020.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

>>CLOUD JAGUAR -- cloud is Mix (any other words for this?) / jaguar is Ocelotl
>>or Tecuani
>>    --- so would this word then be Mixocelotl? or Mixtecuani ?  (that just
>>seems wrong to me :)


Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.

Galen


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Tue Jun 29 19:14:58 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael McCafferty)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:14:58 -0500
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <476767307@web.de>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.141458.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Quoting David Gloster <david at GLOSTER.NET>:

> p {margin: 0px}I don't like to be a bore (I just can't help it!), but the
> difference between the derivations may be "obvious" to the experts (who
don't
> need an answer to Rick's question anyway) but there are thousands of mere
> mortal Nahuatl enthusiasts (like me for instance) to whom it's not at all
> obvious.I know that you're all very busy, but is there anyone out there with
> a little sympathy, time and patience who would deign to enlighten us on this
> matter?We would be most humbly grateful  ;-) Thanks for all your wonderful
> contributions. It always makes my day when something arrives from the
> list. David GlosterOttobrunn, nr. Munich, Germanyp {margin:
>
Well, Fran's explanation below is very good. And I believe she sent an earlier
message about this (or did I imagine it?), which was also quite good.

Let me point out a couple of things. Like Fran said, the original orthography
created by the Spaniards for Nahuatl did not mark vowel length, e.g., short
/a/ and long /a:/ were both written "a". This is a major problem that befell
many languages of the Americas. It occurred big time in the recordings of the
Illinois language, e.g., the Jesuits wrote <nipi> for both 'water' and 'my
arrow', the first being /nipi/, the second /ni:pi/. Now, for speakers of
Europeans languages, this distinction in vowel length seems meaningless, but
for speakers of American languages that have vowel length distinctions, it's
absolutely of paramount importance in terms of *meaning*. The same goes, as
Fran pointed, out for the sound /h/ ~ the glottal stop. Early historical
Europeans just glossed right over this sound, in Nahuatl, in Illinois, all
over the place, but it is a *phonemic characteristic* of these languages. In
other words, if you leave it out where it should be or put it in where it
shouldn't be, you're making yourself essentially unintelligible. Illinois
examples are coming to me quicker right now than Nahuatl examples: /ka:wiahki/
'thorn land' but  /ka:wiaki/ 'thorns'. That /h/ draws a distinction in
Illinois that is as great as that between "catnip" and "cats" in English. See
what I mean? In Nahuatl metzli is 'thigh' but me:tzli is 'moon'. Big dif.

So, if I may paraphrase Fran's message, what's going on is that even though
certain words may have been written the same by the Spaniards, one cannot
presume that those words are the same. One must be very careful.

Michael
o
0px}..........................................................................
.......Frances
> Karttunen <karttu at NANTUCKET.NET> schrieb am 29.06.04 14:44:02:
> on 6/28/04 11:54 PM, rick dosan at rich_ph!
>  otos at YAHOO.COM wrote:> How could you determine whether the root of
> tlahueliloc is tlaue: l , or ahuelia?
> > One means rage, and the other evil(malo), and they both can be applied to
> > the meaning of tlahueliloc.  Sometimes the texts use it to describe
someone
>
> > enraged, and other times its translated as malvado in other texts.
>
>
> I am skeptical about citations of "ahuelia" in the sense of evil.
>
> There is ahhuel(i), composed of the negative element ah- and huel possible,
> which literally means (to be) impossible.  Molina has "auel
> monotza.incorregible," which follows from the sense of impossibility.
Andrews
> goes so far as to extend the connotation to being unsuccessful and "bad" in
> that sense, but thats not evil.
>
> The difference between tlahue:l- derivations and ahhuel- derivations is
> obvious when you look beyond spelling to phonology and morphology.
>
> Fran Karttunen
>
>
>
>
>


From schwallr at mrs.umn.edu  Tue Jun 29 19:21:27 2004
From: schwallr at mrs.umn.edu (John F. Schwaller)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:21:27 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <40E1B9EC.5010506@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.142127.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

At 01:50 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
>generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
>tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.


The other important thing is that while "tecuani" functions as a noun for
us, it is technically the customary form of the verb.  Taken apart it is
"te:-cua:-ni"
"te:" direct object - someone
"cua:" verb stem - eat
"ni" customary tense

"he/she/it customarily eats someone (i.e. people)





John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU  Tue Jun 29 19:24:11 2004
From: brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU (Galen Brokaw)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:24:11 -0400
Subject: Transaltion
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.152411.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

One possibility for square is "nauhcampa nacace". The "nauhcampa" is
composed of nahui meaning four and campa as a generic locative. The
nacace is made up of nacaztli meaning "ears" with a metaphoric meaning
of "corners" and "e" which is a suffix refering to one who owns or
possesses. So, literally, the phrase means "one (or something) that
possesses ears/corners in four places."
In a sixteenth century document, I have also seen square referred to as
"nauhcan ixtin" literally meaning something like "faces in four places".

Galen


From rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU  Tue Jun 29 20:24:59 2004
From: rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU (Richley Crapo)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:24:59 -0600
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.142459.0600.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
Richley 

>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu 06/29/04 13:22 PM >>>
At 01:50 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
>generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
>tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.


The other important thing is that while "tecuani" functions as a noun for
us, it is technically the customary form of the verb.  Taken apart it is
"te:-cua:-ni"
"te:" direct object - someone
"cua:" verb stem - eat
"ni" customary tense

"he/she/it customarily eats someone (i.e. people)





John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From schwallr at mrs.umn.edu  Tue Jun 29 20:38:04 2004
From: schwallr at mrs.umn.edu (John F. Schwaller)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:38:04 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <s0e17bcb.008@hass.usu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.153804.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

At 03:24 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
>Richley


Andrews refers to it as the "customary-present tense morph" and as part of
"Nominalization VNC"



John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU  Tue Jun 29 20:40:42 2004
From: rcrapo at HASS.USU.EDU (Richley Crapo)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:40:42 -0600
Subject: Help please
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.144042.0600.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Thanks.
Richley 

>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu 06/29/04 14:38 PM >>>
At 03:24 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
>Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
>Richley


Andrews refers to it as the "customary-present tense morph" and as part of
"Nominalization VNC"



John F. Schwaller
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
315 Behmler Hall
University of Minnesota, Morris
600 E 4th Street
Morris, MN  56267
320-589-6015
FAX 320-589-6399
schwallr at mrs.umn.edu


From mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU  Wed Jun 30 12:23:21 2004
From: mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU (Michael Mccafferty)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:23:21 -0500
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <s0e17bcb.007@hass.usu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.072321.0500.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

Yes, basically. What is interesting about verbal -ni and its evolutionary
product nounal -ni (I just couldn't help tossing in the Andrewsian term
"nounal"! :) is that you'll find both alive and well in the texts. In
other words -ni words behave like nouns sometimes and like verbs
sometimes.

Michael


On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Richley Crapo wrote:

> Is that -ni ("customary tense") equivalent to a noun formative suffix?
> Richley
>
> >>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu 06/29/04 13:22 PM >>>
> At 01:50 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
> >Actually, tecuani literally means "one who eats people", and is more
> >generically translated as beast. So, an ocelotl can be considered a
> >tecuani, but a tecuani is not necessarily always an ocelotl.
>
>
> The other important thing is that while "tecuani" functions as a noun for
> us, it is technically the customary form of the verb.  Taken apart it is
> "te:-cua:-ni"
> "te:" direct object - someone
> "cua:" verb stem - eat
> "ni" customary tense
>
> "he/she/it customarily eats someone (i.e. people)
>
>
>
>
>
> John F. Schwaller
> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
> 315 Behmler Hall
> University of Minnesota, Morris
> 600 E 4th Street
> Morris, MN  56267
> 320-589-6015
> FAX 320-589-6399
> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>
>
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Wed Jun 30 14:34:14 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?US-ASCII?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavaria?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:34:14 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1040628182105.26551D-100000@ariel.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.093414.0500.>

        Tlazohcamatitzin

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nahua language and culture discussion
[mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU]En nombre de Michael Mccafferty
Enviado el: Lunes, 28 de Junio de 2004 06:22 p.m.
Para: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Asunto: Re: Transaltion


ayopaltic = violet-color

I don't remember the word for "square" off hand. Sorry. I'm sure someone
will be able to help.

Michael

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, [iso-8859-1] Ing. Juan Manuel Chavarma wrote:

> Untitled Document
>
>     Anyone can help mi with the transalation of the color: violet
(violeta)
> and the form: square (cuadrado)???
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>

"...and cicadas sing
a rare and different tune..."

R. Hunter


From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Wed Jun 30 14:34:15 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?US-ASCII?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavaria?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:34:15 -0500
Subject: Transaltion
In-Reply-To: <40E1C1DB.4000907@buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.093415.0500.>

        Tlazohcamatitzin


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nahua language and culture discussion
[mailto:NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU]En nombre de Galen Brokaw
Enviado el: Martes, 29 de Junio de 2004 02:24 p.m.
Para: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Asunto: Re: Transaltion


One possibility for square is "nauhcampa nacace". The "nauhcampa" is
composed of nahui meaning four and campa as a generic locative. The
nacace is made up of nacaztli meaning "ears" with a metaphoric meaning
of "corners" and "e" which is a suffix refering to one who owns or
possesses. So, literally, the phrase means "one (or something) that
possesses ears/corners in four places."
In a sixteenth century document, I have also seen square referred to as
"nauhcan ixtin" literally meaning something like "faces in four places".

Galen


From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Wed Jun 30 15:14:32 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:14:32 +0200
Subject: Postpositions
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.171432.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

    In analyzing postpositions, and after having consulted various sources, I find myself confused (again!), about the difference between the following:

      1.. PA and HUIC (towards)
      2.. ICAMPA and TEPOTZCO (behind)
      3.. ICPAC and PAN (on)
      4.. IXPAN and IXCO (in front of  [in the face of])
      5.. NAHUAC, TITLAN, HUAC and TECH (near)
      6.. NEPANTLA and TZALAN (between)




    And, further, what happens when you add a possessive prefix ending in "O" (or "I") to a postposition starting with "I"? MOICAMPA, TOIXPAN, NOIXCO.... and IICPAC...

    This looks a bit odd to me.

     

    Occepa, tlazohcamati huel  huel miac!!!! 

     

    Susanatontli



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/9b3bf658/attachment.htm>

From susana at DRAGOTTO.COM  Wed Jun 30 15:11:01 2004
From: susana at DRAGOTTO.COM (Susana Moraleda-Dragotto)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:11:01 +0200
Subject: translation
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.171101.0200.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

  Thank you. Your explanations are wonderful. I now have something puzzling
to think of tonight...  :-))

  Susana


From rich_photos at YAHOO.COM  Wed Jun 30 19:30:27 2004
From: rich_photos at YAHOO.COM (rick dosan)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:30:27 -0700
Subject: tlahueliloc
In-Reply-To: <1088163143.40dc0d47c83cd@webmail.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.123027.0700.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

 So, my understanding so far is that tlahueliloc is not from ahuelia, but from tlahuel.  And that the meaning of tlahuel is related to Hate or "irrascible ".  And ahhuel would have more to do with Impossible, or Bad.  And I take it that tlahueliloc is related to tlahuel because the phonetics of Tlahueliloc would have no saltillo in the first syllable and a long vowel in the second.  If this is so, could it still be possible that tlahueliloc sometime back originally came from ahhuel (bad)?  The reason I'm thining this, is that in Molina it's defined as Malvado...  Thanks for all the feedback.
Rich

mmccaffe at INDIANA.EDU wrote:
Rick,

This is tlahue:l- as in the verb tlahue:lia 'to hate', 'to despise'.

tlahue:liloc literally means 'he/she/it has been hated'.

tlahue:li-lo-c 'despise' + non-active ("passive") marker + past tense marker

Michael




Quoting rick dosan :

> Does anyone have an idea about the root of the word tlahueliloc? Any
> interesting texts in which it appears?
>
> Do any of these seem right?
>
>
> Ueli -- Poder
>
> Ueli ?lo Se Puede
>
> Ueli-lo-c Posible
> A-ueli-lo-c Imposible
>
> Tl(a)-a-ueli.lo.c Quien no es posible/ quien es imposible
>
>
>
>
> Tlauelia- Estar irritado
>
> Tlaueli(a)-lo Se est? irritado
> Tlaueli(a)-lo-c Uno que est? irritado
>
>
>
>
> Uelia (Bueno)
>
> A-Uelia (malo)
> Tlaueliloc (Un malvado)
>
> Thank you,
> Richard Dorfsman
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/abad41de/attachment.htm>

From karttu at NANTUCKET.NET  Wed Jun 30 20:25:54 2004
From: karttu at NANTUCKET.NET (Frances Karttunen)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:25:54 -0400
Subject: Postpositions
In-Reply-To: <005801c45eb4$f81c8780$5698d351@mexico>
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.162554.0400.NAHUATL@LISTS.UMN.EDU>

> the difference between the following:
-PA and -HUI:C (towards)  These are synonymous.  Not only are they
interchangeable, but they sometimes occur together: -pahui:c
-I:CAMPA and -TEPOTZCO (behind) Again, they are synonymous.
-ICPAC and -PAN (on) -icpac has more of the sense of 'on top of' and -pan
'on the surface of.' -pan is also used with time expressions (i:pan xihuitl
1562 'in the year 1562'), but -icpac is not.
-I:XPAN and -I:XCO (in front of  [in the face of]) -i:xpan is used for 'in
the presence of.'  -i:xco means 'on one's face, on the surface of something'
-NA:HUAC, -TITLAN, -HUAC and -TECH (near) -na:huac means 'adjacent to,
within hearing distance of.' -titlan is used in place names and means 'at
the base of, next to, among' (Tepe:titlan  would be a place in the
foothills, for instance.)  I don't think you will find any -huacs.  -tech
has to do with things being together.
-NEPANTLAH and -TZA:LAN (between) -nepantlah is 'in the middle.' -tza:lan is
'between.'  That is, something is -nepantlah when it stands between two
other entities.  -tza:lan refers more to the space between two entities.

And, further, what happens when you add a possessive prefix ending in "O"
(or "I") to a postposition starting with "I"? MOICAMPA, TOIXPAN, NOIXCO....
and IICPAC...

It's a matter of relative strength of vowels.  Long vowels are stronger than
short vowels, so if the postposition begins with a long vowel (-i:campa,
-i:xpan, -i:xco), the o of mo-/to- loses and drops out (mo-i:xpan >
mi:xpan). If you add possessive i:- to a postposition beginning with either
i- or i:-, you really can't get a "longer" i:-, so you end up with, for
instance, i:-i:xco > i:xco; i:-icpac > i:cpac.

If the postposition begins with a short i, the o of mo-/to- wins out:
mo-icpac > mocpac.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/09bf4c6d/attachment.htm>

From juan at PAPAQUI.COM  Wed Jun 30 22:48:50 2004
From: juan at PAPAQUI.COM (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ing._Juan_Manuel_Chavar=EDa?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:48:50 -0500
Subject: Another Translation
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.174850.0500.>

Untitled Document
    Thank you for the previous translations; we're trying to make a abook
for children, in spanish, with some concepts in nahuatl.

    Other words we need are: the five sens (vista, olfato, gusto, tacto y
oido)



Thanks in advance, for your help.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040630/ea4b22d5/attachment.htm>