John Sullivan, Ph.D.
idiez at me.com
Fri Jul 24 23:23:27 UTC 2009
The reason why the -ca- of -can is split off is that with few
exceptions (caxcan, for example), , -can is only sufixed to agentive
nouns in the formation of place names. You propose that the root of
teotihuacan is -teotihua- and that the -hua- is a passive/impersonal
suffix (in this case, impersonal, because teoti is intransitive). Can
you give any other examples of place names formed on impersonal verbs?
On Jul 24, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Magnus Pharao Hansen wrote:
> Dear. Dr. Sullivan
> The proposed analysis of Teotihuacan seems pretty far stretched.
> Firstly why assume that it is from a t dialect - teotihuacan is well
> within the central dialect area where tl would be expected,
> (although of course it might not always have been) - and use of the
> name itself is attested only in a -tl dialect, classical Nahuatl.
> Secondly the etymology requires i not just a t-dialect but also an i-
> dialect since central dialects tend to have /tle/ as the root for
> fire. Thirdly splitting up the locative suffix /ka:n/ into an
> agentive and a -n locative suffix seems completely unwarranted - to
> my knowledge no grammarian has made this analysis before, all seeing
> -/ka:n/ and /ya:n/ as single morphemes. I would propose that a much
> better analysis would be:
> teo - divine, god, holy, mystic
> ti - causative suffix (the one used on nouns to form a denominal
> verb meaning to become as in /tla:kati/ "be born")
> hua- passive/non-specific agent suffix
> can - locative suffix
> "place where someone becomes (a) god"
> Magnus Pharao Hansen
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
More information about the Nahuat-l