From campbel at indiana.edu Sun May 3 04:10:44 2009 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 00:10:44 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity Message-ID: "I think I've found an ambiguous word in Nahuatl!" When I say that, I'm assuming that some people will react in the same way that my syntax professor did in my early years in graduate school when I arrived in class and proudly announced, "I think I've found an ambiguous sentence in English." Ignoring the fact that this was just my way of introducing what I thought was an interesting sentence, he barely looked up and said, "I think if you stop to think about it, *most* sentences in English are ambiguous." So I assume that most of you know that ambiguity is common in Nahuatl. My aim is simply to bring a particular class of Nahuatl words to your attention. By "ambiguity", I mean what linguists mean, not the meaning that is probably the first one referred to in everyday conversation, which is "not clear, uncertain in meaning". The use in linguistics refers to a word, phrase, or sentence which has more than one syntactic structure, such as "I hate visiting relatives": 1. I hate the activity of visiting (particularly relatives); 2. I hate relatives, the kind who visit. Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl has many examples of ambiguity, one of which involves the structure of compound nouns with at least three components. Nouns with two components like "petlacalli" and "teocuitlatl" obviously can have only one structure, but nouns like "tepozpetlacalli" (iron or copper box or chest) and "teocuitlacozcatl" (gold ornament) have more than one possible structure. I will indicate close relationship with a single hyphen and secondary relationship with a double hyphen. These words are not compounded as follows: tepoz-petla-calli metal chest teo-cuitla-cozcatl gold ornament where no two adjacent stems are more closely to each other than to the third stem. Neither are they compounded in this way: tepoz-petla--calli (hinting at an intermediate component "tepozpetlatl") teo--cuitla-cozcatl (hinting at an intermediate component "cuitlacozcatl") That is, we recognize that we are dealing with a "petlacalli" made of "tepoztli" and a "cozcatl" made of "teocuitlatl", respectively, but there is nothing in the structure of the words that informs us of this. The word "chilmolcaxitl" presents us with true ambiguity: chil-mol-caxitl is both: chilmol-caxitl bowl for chile sauce and chil-molcaxitl sauce bowl for chile But I digress. The ambiguity that I want to address is that of: nitetlacualtia (reasonably glossed as 'I feed somebody') The traditional description involves the causative formation: nitetla cua-l-tia I *cause* someone to eat something However, "nitetlacualtia" has another possible analysis, parallel to "nitecactia" (I provide someone with shoes): subj obj noun stem have causative-a ni te cac ti a ni te tlacual(li) ti a It should be remembered that ambiguity is something inherent in some linguistic structures; it is *there* regardless of whether a speaker or hearer perceives it or not. In other words, when a hearer "gets" or understands one meaning of "I hate visiting relatives", the other meaning is available for interpretation (and is sometimes taken advantage of in jocular exchanges). To be explicit about the class of ambiguous words that I am pointing to, they comprise verbs that can be interpreted as 1) a verb stem with a causative suffix or as 2) a verb stem which forms a patientive noun, which noun is suffixed with "-ti" (have) + causative-a = "-ti-a" (provide with). Here is a short list of examples: In this first group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is obvious from the 'l' before '-ti-a'. nin-aahuil-ti-a I provide myself with "ahuilli", I enjoy myself (ahuiya) qui-huical-ti-a she provides him with a companion or a load; (huica) she sends it with him nicno-mamal-ti-a I provide myself with it as a load; (mama) I carry it quin-tlacual-ti-a he provides them with food, he feeds them (cua) ninote-tlaquehual-ti-a I provide myself to someone as a laborer, (tlactli-ehua) I hire myself out In this second group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is implicit before '-ti-a' (i.e., "tlanamictli, quentli, nemactli, cuicatl, etc., are nouns). nite-tlalnamic-ti-a I provide someone with a remembered thing, (il-namiqui) I remind someone of something c-ama-quen-ti-a he provides it with a paper covering, (quemi) he wraps it with paper c-on-nemac-ti-a he provides him with a given thing (gift), (mo-maca) he give it to him as a gift ni-te-tlatqui-ti-a I provide someone with a possession, (tla-itqui) I give away or send something to someone So, while the the causative in -tia following -l- or other nonactive forms and the noun-ti-a formation appear very similar because both derive from nonactive verb forms, they differ in that the latter is formed with a verb suffix 'ti' followed by a causative 'a' and is attached to a stem with nominal rather than verbal force. Iztayomeh, Joe _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Sun May 3 17:18:06 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 12:18:06 -0500 Subject: Ambiguity In-Reply-To: <20090503001044.iztmpa2uck04wk04@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Joe. There's nothing like an impeccably crafted explanation of an interesting phenomenon in Nahuatl grammar to jump start my brain on a Sunday morning. This one has been printed out and will soon be glued to 8 x 5" index cards and filed in a boot box with the rest of the more useful posts I've seen on Nahuat-l since subscribing nine years ago. -----Mensaje original----- De: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org] En nombre de Campbell, R. Joe Enviado el: sábado, 02 de mayo de 2009 11:11 p.m. Para: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Ambiguity [...] _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Mon May 4 12:15:44 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:15:44 -0400 Subject: On-line resources Message-ID: There is a new source for some basic on-line materials for the study of Nahuatl. It is the UNESCO digital library. Included there are complete copies of the Arenas Vocabulario from 1611, the Huei Tlamahuizoltica (description of the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe), a Testerian Catechism, the Huexotzinco Codex and the Codex Totomixtlahuaca. The link for the page containing these is the following: *http://tinyurl.com/d8vdex* This tinyurl is for the selection: Latin America and the Caribbean, then Mexico, then the time period 1500-1699AD -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Mon May 4 21:33:55 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:33:55 -0500 Subject: question re: Spanish/Nahuatl interaction Message-ID: All, a question ... I am in the midst of a research project on so-called "Spanglish," especially as spoken here in Texas and the rest of the Southwest and California ... and, to some extent along both sides of the Frontera. What a lot of authors are writing about are the lexical borrowings and hispanicized English words or Spanish borrowrings, and they are not addressing the code-switching aspect where entire phrases are mixed together, usually around coordinating conjunctions, subordinations, etc. I am certainly aware of the Nahuatl words borrowed into Spanish, but I am unaware/ignorant of any examples of a "third leg" to the Mexican linguistic stool, as one might say we have here in the States: Spanish - Spanglish - English. Was there ever/is there a Nahuatl - Nahuatlish - Spanish analogy? Or did the two languages keep largely separate and mostly just share words? Spanglish has quite a life of its own ... I am wanting to know whether there is any internal Mexican analogy. For that matter, with any of the Mayan or other indigenous languages. Thanks, and warmest regards, Sharon Peters -- Sín Fronteras Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Tue May 5 14:43:33 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: question re: Spanish/Nahuatl interaction In-Reply-To: <27d5ea140905041433p3de8facai4cbf733854039eab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I guess I'm pretty dense, but I'm not sure that I understand the question. You you mean is there a hybrid language in which both Nahuatl and Spanish appear in equal measure, using some hybrid form of Spanish - Nahuatl morphology, grammar, sentence structure, etc.? Sharon Peters wrote: > All, a question ... > > I am in the midst of a research project on so-called "Spanglish," > especially as spoken here in Texas and the rest of the Southwest and > California ... and, to some extent along both sides of the Frontera. > > What a lot of authors are writing about are the lexical borrowings and > hispanicized English words or Spanish borrowrings, and they are not > addressing the code-switching aspect where entire phrases are mixed > together, usually around coordinating conjunctions, subordinations, etc. > > I am certainly aware of the Nahuatl words borrowed into Spanish, but I > am unaware/ignorant of any examples of a "third leg" to the Mexican > linguistic stool, as one might say we have here in the States: > Spanish - Spanglish - English. Was there ever/is there a Nahuatl - > Nahuatlish - Spanish analogy? Or did the two languages keep largely > separate and mostly just share words? -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:55:06 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:55:06 -0500 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" Message-ID: John, Yes. My apologies if I posed the request for info in a way that was confusing. Though I have never heard - or heard of - such a "language," I thought perhaps the members of this list might be able to give me a quick direction in which I might look for an answer. Question: is there/was there ever a Nahuatl-Spanish "language" analogous to what is now called "Spanglish"? Involving code-switching of phrases primarily, and using the appropriate grammar for either Spanish or Nahuatl, where applicable. There would also be word borrowings, which would be colored morphologically or phonologically by the language into which they were borrowed ... but I am not solely referring to this latter phenomenon. Thanks. Sharon Peters -- Sín Fronteras Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lovegren at buffalo.edu Tue May 5 16:25:21 2009 From: lovegren at buffalo.edu (Jesse Lovegren) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:25:21 -0400 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <27d5ea140905050755m2f4e44b8o54fa75eec240147f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sharon If you haven't already done this, you might be interested in reading in Pidgin & Creole linguistics and in language contact. English and French-based creoles sprung up frequently through colonial-era contact, but Spanish-based creoles are rare. In the case of Spanish, the situation is more like a koiné, where proficient bilinguals are the ones initially introducing changes, and the new variety is formed gradually. As for Nahuatl/Spanish, I am not familiar with literature on present-day contact between these two, but you will find a discussion of how Nahuatl changed under influence from Spanish in Lockhart's "The Nahuas after Conquest" Best, On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Sharon Peters wrote: > John, > > Yes. My apologies if I posed the request for info in a way that was > confusing. > > Though I have never heard - or heard of - such a "language," I thought > perhaps the members of this list might be able to give me a quick direction > in which I might look for an answer. > > Question: is there/was there ever a Nahuatl-Spanish "language" analogous > to what is now called "Spanglish"? Involving code-switching of phrases > primarily, and using the appropriate grammar for either Spanish or Nahuatl, > where applicable. There would also be word borrowings, which would be > colored morphologically or phonologically by the language into which they > were borrowed ... but I am not solely referring to this latter phenomenon. > > Thanks. > > Sharon Peters > > -- > Sín Fronteras > > Aquí estoy yo .... pero ya anda por México mi corazón > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- Jesse Lovegren Department of Linguistics 645 Baldy Hall office +1 716 645 0136 cell +1 512 584 5468 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Tue May 5 17:14:34 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:14:34 -0400 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <4fb311a10905050925y1be6d78bh92453ccb72d8fd34@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If I remember correctly, and Joe Campbell can remind me, Spanish pidgins are generally known as "ladino." One of the most famous is the Ladino used by Sephardic Jews who fled the Iberian Peninsula following the 1492 expulsion. In various documents from the 17th and 18th centuries there are increasing intrusions of Spanish words into Nahuatl. Examples can be found in my guide to Nahuatl manuscripts in US repositories. Lockhart does trace the three periods of language deformation, based on work he and Frances Karttunen did. But as to the creation of a real amalgam of Spanish and Nahuatl, I'm not aware of any. Jesse Lovegren wrote: > Hi Sharon > > If you haven't already done this, you might be interested in reading > in Pidgin & Creole linguistics and in language contact. English and > French-based creoles sprung up frequently through colonial-era > contact, but Spanish-based creoles are rare. In the case of Spanish, > the situation is more like a koiné, where proficient bilinguals are > the ones initially introducing changes, and the new variety is formed > gradually. As for Nahuatl/Spanish, I am not familiar with literature > on present-day contact between these two, but you will find a > discussion of how Nahuatl changed under influence from Spanish in > Lockhart's "The Nahuas after Conquest" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From k_salmon at ipinc.net Tue May 5 17:24:55 2009 From: k_salmon at ipinc.net (Kier Salmon) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:24:55 -0700 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <4A0073FA.40704@potsdam.edu> Message-ID: No, but I was surprised to find how many intrusions of Nahuatl into Spanish existed... and I grew up in Mexico fully english/spanish bilingual. It wasn't until I studied Nahuatl with John Sullivan last summer that I found out just how many of them there were. It was quite an education for somebody who thought she was very conversant with spanish/castillian. But then, those of us who went through the public school system in Mexico have a number of ... *interesting*... conceptions about Mexico and her history and amalgamation. On May 5, 2009, at 10:14 AM, John F. Schwaller wrote: > If I remember correctly, and Joe Campbell can remind me, Spanish > pidgins are generally known as "ladino." One of the most famous is > the Ladino used by Sephardic Jews who fled the Iberian Peninsula > following the 1492 expulsion. > > In various documents from the 17th and 18th centuries there are > increasing intrusions of Spanish words into Nahuatl. Examples can > be found in my guide to Nahuatl manuscripts in US repositories. > Lockhart does trace the three periods of language deformation, based > on work he and Frances Karttunen did. But as to the creation of a > real amalgam of Spanish and Nahuatl, I'm not aware of any. > > > > Jesse Lovegren wrote: >> >> Hi Sharon >> >> If you haven't already done this, you might be interested in >> reading in Pidgin & Creole linguistics and in language contact. >> English and French-based creoles sprung up frequently through >> colonial-era contact, but Spanish-based creoles are rare. In the >> case of Spanish, the situation is more like a koiné, where >> proficient bilinguals are the ones initially introducing changes, >> and the new variety is formed gradually. As for Nahuatl/Spanish, I >> am not familiar with literature on present-day contact between >> these two, but you will find a discussion of how Nahuatl changed >> under influence from Spanish in Lockhart's "The Nahuas after >> Conquest" >> > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > > > -- > ***************************** > John F. Schwaller > President > SUNY - Potsdam > 44 Pierrepont Ave. > Potsdam, NY 13676 > Tel. 315-267-2100 > FAX 315-267-2496 > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From igr at stanford.edu Tue May 5 17:38:29 2009 From: igr at stanford.edu (Ian Robertson) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:38:29 -0700 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <22697C9C-E541-444B-B06B-EEFF6781DB7D@ipinc.net> Message-ID: Hello all, An important study on recent linguistic practices involving Nahuatl and Spanish is the following: Hill, Jane H. and Kenneth C. Hill 1986 Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. For earlier periods, I would recommend: Karttunen, Frances and James Lockhart 1976 Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. University of California Publications in Linguistics 85. University of California Press, Berkeley. Best, Ian Robertson _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From karttu at comcast.net Tue May 5 19:12:09 2009 From: karttu at comcast.net (Frances Karttunen) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:12:09 -0400 Subject: "Patrn Nahuatl" Message-ID: I can't come up with the reference right at the moment, but I have read someone's published speculations about an inter-lingua with a narrow Nahuatl lexicon but without the morphological machinery of Nahuatl--used by overseers and Nahuatl-speaking workers on the sugar plantations of the Morelos Valley in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. The overseers thought that it was Nahuatl, while the native speakers took care that the overseers didn't have the opportunity to learn fully inflected Nahuatl. The place to look would be in reference books about pidgins/jargons (such as Chinook Jargon, Anglo-Romany, etc.). Or else among the Roberto Barlow papers. I will search around and see if I can offer a real reference. Fran Karttunen _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Fri May 8 02:36:53 2009 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:36:53 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity In-Reply-To: <20090503001044.iztmpa2uck04wk04@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Joe, I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In other words, is it possible that even the form that has been identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an attested patientive form? Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one morphology instead of two? Galen Campbell, R. Joe wrote: > "I think I've found an ambiguous word in Nahuatl!" > > When I say that, I'm assuming that some people will react in > the same way that my syntax professor did in my early years in > graduate school when I arrived in class and proudly announced, > "I think I've found an ambiguous sentence in English." Ignoring > the fact that this was just my way of introducing what I thought > was an interesting sentence, he barely looked up and said, "I > think if you stop to think about it, *most* sentences in English are > ambiguous." > > So I assume that most of you know that ambiguity is common in > Nahuatl. My aim is simply to bring a particular class of Nahuatl > words to your attention. > > By "ambiguity", I mean what linguists mean, not the meaning > that is probably the first one referred to in everyday > conversation, which is "not clear, uncertain in meaning". > The use in linguistics refers to a word, phrase, or sentence which > has more than one syntactic structure, such as "I hate visiting relatives": > > 1. I hate the activity of visiting (particularly relatives); > > 2. I hate relatives, the kind who visit. > > Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl has many examples of > ambiguity, one of which involves the structure of compound nouns > with at least three components. Nouns with two components like > "petlacalli" and "teocuitlatl" obviously can have only one structure, > but nouns like "tepozpetlacalli" (iron or copper box or chest) and > "teocuitlacozcatl" (gold ornament) have more than one possible > structure. I will indicate close relationship with a single > hyphen and secondary relationship with a double hyphen. > > These words are not compounded as follows: > > tepoz-petla-calli metal chest > > teo-cuitla-cozcatl gold ornament > > where no two adjacent stems are more closely to each other than to > the third stem. > > Neither are they compounded in this way: > > tepoz-petla--calli (hinting at an intermediate component "tepozpetlatl") > > teo--cuitla-cozcatl (hinting at an intermediate component "cuitlacozcatl") > > That is, we recognize that we are dealing with a "petlacalli" made > of "tepoztli" and a "cozcatl" made of "teocuitlatl", respectively, > but there is nothing in the structure of the words that informs us > of this. > > The word "chilmolcaxitl" presents us with true ambiguity: > > chil-mol-caxitl is both: > > chilmol-caxitl bowl for chile sauce > and > chil-molcaxitl sauce bowl for chile > > But I digress. The ambiguity that I want to address is that of: > > nitetlacualtia (reasonably glossed as 'I feed somebody') > > The traditional description involves the causative formation: > > nitetla cua-l-tia I *cause* someone to eat something > > However, "nitetlacualtia" has another possible analysis, parallel > to "nitecactia" (I provide someone with shoes): > > subj obj noun stem have causative-a > > ni te cac ti a > > ni te tlacual(li) ti a > > > It should be remembered that ambiguity is something inherent in > some linguistic structures; it is *there* regardless of whether a > speaker or hearer perceives it or not. In other words, when a > hearer "gets" or understands one meaning of "I hate visiting > relatives", the other meaning is available for interpretation (and > is sometimes taken advantage of in jocular exchanges). > > To be explicit about the class of ambiguous words that I am > pointing to, they comprise verbs that can be interpreted > as 1) a verb stem with a causative suffix or as 2) a verb stem > which forms a patientive noun, which noun is suffixed with > "-ti" (have) + causative-a = "-ti-a" (provide with). Here is a > short list of examples: > > In this first group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is obvious > from the 'l' before '-ti-a'. > > nin-aahuil-ti-a I provide myself with "ahuilli", I enjoy myself > (ahuiya) > qui-huical-ti-a she provides him with a companion or a load; > (huica) she sends it with him > > nicno-mamal-ti-a I provide myself with it as a load; > (mama) I carry it > > quin-tlacual-ti-a he provides them with food, he feeds them > (cua) > ninote-tlaquehual-ti-a I provide myself to someone as a laborer, > (tlactli-ehua) I hire myself out > > > In this second group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is implicit > before '-ti-a' (i.e., "tlanamictli, quentli, nemactli, cuicatl, > etc., are nouns). > > nite-tlalnamic-ti-a I provide someone with a remembered thing, > (il-namiqui) I remind someone of something > > c-ama-quen-ti-a he provides it with a paper covering, > (quemi) he wraps it with paper > > c-on-nemac-ti-a he provides him with a given thing (gift), > (mo-maca) he give it to him as a gift > > ni-te-tlatqui-ti-a I provide someone with a possession, > (tla-itqui) I give away or send something to someone > > > So, while the the causative in -tia following -l- or other > nonactive forms and the noun-ti-a formation appear very similar > because both derive from nonactive verb forms, they differ in that > the latter is formed with a verb suffix 'ti' followed by a > causative 'a' and is attached to a stem with nominal rather than > verbal force. > > Iztayomeh, > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Fri May 8 04:38:09 2009 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:38:09 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity Message-ID: Galen, I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****. I printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary. Quoting Galen Brokaw : > Joe, > I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate > morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe discussing the same thing. > Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In > other words, is it possible that even the form that has been > identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the > construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer > "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what Andrews says about it. He *does* say that the -tia causative is derived from a non-active verb. So, according to him, when you delete the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua non-active (ahxitia). So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and the other with -ti-a. But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb. > I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms > is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested > in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive > nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't > the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated > by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an > attested patientive form? **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it with concrete examples: "provide with" noun so-called causative quixtli / exit quixtia coch... / sleep cochitia caqu... / audible thing caquitia mauhtli / fright mauhtia cualantli / anger cualantli ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.)) > Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that > patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand > correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue > that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific > object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems > to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there > would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The > restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is > strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and > resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it > wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the > pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to > have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. **** I have difficulty in handling this. Could you give me a concrete example? > A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I > would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the > semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. > Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing > here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form > somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" > structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one > morphology instead of two? **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no ambiguity in one direction or the other. Here is my list so far: *+ambig.no *** cuacualtia , quintla-. she feeds them. . b.11 f.6 p.54| cualtia , quin-. they feed it to them; they make them eat it. . b.9 f.5 p.63| cualtia , quite-. he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat; they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. . b.11 f.6 p.54| cualtiaya , quin-. they fed it to them. . b.9 f.5 p.63| cualtih , oquimon-. they fed it to them. . b.9 f.5 p.63| tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's part?: 55m]. alquilar mis criados a otro. . 55m-00| tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1- ti-a case. but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".: 71m2]. alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. . 71m2-23| morpheme count 12 So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" -- these look unambiguously causative "-tia". Joe _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue May 12 16:11:06 2009 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:11:06 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity In-Reply-To: <20090508003809.cxk1ljx20cg8o0wo@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Joe, I have to admit that I may not be understanding all of your explanation, but let me ask a few follow-up questions. Although I've read Andrews explanation of this, I did not understand how he arrived at his conclusions. In fact, I think I started thinking about this issue in these terms after reading Andrews' description of causatives. I guess my question has to do with how to determine the nature of the morphology in this case. Or is that even possible? Maybe Andrews has an argument to support his assertions, but I don't remember him presenting it; and it was not immediately obvious from his description. With regard to the Andrews description, many of his examples could be interpreted differently. For example, with cualantia, he says that this is built on "cualano" rather than "cualantli." But it is unclear to me why this is necessarily the case. In pragamatic terms, I'm not sure it makes any difference. But I'm interested in whether or not there is some systemic reason for interpreting it this way. His example of "tlanextia" is also ambiguous. Molina gives "tlanextli" as light. This term raises its own questions for me with regard to why there is an object pronoun. But in any case, if we have a noun "tlanextli," I'm not sure why we have to posit the causative form "tlanextia" as being built on "nexohua." It seems to me that in the section dealing with this causative form (at least the section that I just reconsulted), all of Andrews' examples with the exception of one can be interpreted as being built on a noun rather than the non-active form. The exception would seem to be "choctia" and maybe there are other examples of similar words. This may be what led him to this explanation, because as far as I know "choctli" is not attested as a nominalized form of "to cry." But if the vast majority of these causatives can be interpreted as nominalized forms which are then verbalized using the "-ti-a" ending, then it seems to me that you could just as well say that words like "choctia" are the result of making a formal generalization that produces causative forms like "choctia" built on unattested nominalizations, in this case "choctli." Andrews does say that this type of generalization occurs with the non-active form itself, but he doesn't assume the same for noun forms in this context. With regard to the examples you list below, I assume that the three dots indicate examples of unattested noun forms which would be problematic. And I think I understand that part of the problem has to do with the causative forms in these cases do not have an 'l' as in the case of axhitia and cochitia. However, in the case of "caqui," we have attestations of both "caquitia" and "caquiltia." So even if there is something else going on with "caquitia," couldn't we posit an unattested noun "caquilli" used to construct the causative "caquiltia"? I don't think there are attestations of "chochiltia," so either something else is going on with "cochitia" as with "caquitia," or this form has a tendency to drop the 'l' in some causatives. Maybe that is a stretch? In reference to the examples you list, I'm not sure, but maybe this is where my confusing paragraph about object pronouns is relevant (or maybe not). I'm not sure why these cases are unambiguous unless it is because they have specific object prefixes where patientive nouns would have non-specific ones? Or maybe in the first case, which does have a non-specific object, because there is a reduplication? I guess what I was trying to say is that when a patientive noun becomes verbalized again, it seems to me that there is no reason why the non-specific object pronoun of the patientive form would need to remain non-specific. In other words, the object would be once again free to be specific. So in example #2, "quincualtia," you have an underlying "qui" that is covered up by the indirect object pronoun "quin." The patientive noun would have been "tlacualli", but in the causative form, the "tla" turns into "qui" because it is referring now to something specific. And if this works, then the nonspecific indirect object pronoun would be free to appear between the specific object pronoun and the verb as in example #3, "quitecualtia." What I am suggesting is that maybe the non-specific object pronoun of the patientive noun does not have to be fossilized in the causative form. Maybe the pronoun position is reactivated to function the same way it did in the original active form. I'm not sure I understand the issue with "netetetlaquehualtia." Molina does actually list the patientive form "tlaquehualli" without the non-specific object pronoun "tla." Although wouldn't one also expect "tetlaquehualli"? But in any case, even if my argument about the reactivation of the object pronoun position in the causative form is not right, we still have a nonspecific object pronoun in this form. Actually, I'm not sure why they would need the causative form in this case anyway. If they wanted to say "I hire out people to people, why wouldn't they just say "nitetetlaquehua"? If the form "nitetetlaquehualtia" is merely a causative not derived from a patientive, wouldn't the causative have to be operating on the reflexive form of this verb? I'm not sure how you would work in the reflexive pronoun, but wouldn't the causative form have to mean something like "I cause people to hire themselves out to people"? So given that there is no reflexive object pronoun in this word, wouldn't we have to interpret this as a "ti-a" causative built on a patientive noun "tetlaquehualli"? Then it would just be, "I provide someone with the hiring out of people." This would avoid the problem of having to incorporate the reflexive within the causative. Galen Campbell, R. Joe wrote: > Galen, > > I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****. I > printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary. > > Quoting Galen Brokaw : > > >> Joe, >> I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate >> morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. >> > > **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe > discussing the same thing. > > >> Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In >> other words, is it possible that even the form that has been >> identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the >> construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer >> "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? >> > > **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what > Andrews says about it. He *does* say that the -tia causative is > derived from a non-active verb. So, according to him, when you delete > the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some > forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua > non-active (ahxitia). > So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms > are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and > the other with -ti-a. > But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the > same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the > second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb. > > > >> I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms >> is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested >> in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive >> nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't >> the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated >> by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an >> attested patientive form? >> > > **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it > with concrete examples: > > "provide with" noun so-called causative > > quixtli / exit quixtia > > coch... / sleep cochitia > > caqu... / audible thing caquitia > > mauhtli / fright mauhtia > > cualantli / anger cualantli > > > ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.)) > > >> Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that >> patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand >> correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue >> that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific >> object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems >> to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there >> would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The >> restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is >> strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and >> resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it >> wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the >> pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to >> have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. >> > > **** I have difficulty in handling this. Could you give me a concrete > example? > > >> A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I >> would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the >> semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. >> Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing >> here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form >> somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" >> structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one >> morphology instead of two? >> > > **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no > ambiguity in one direction or the other. Here is my list so far: > > > *+ambig.no *** > cuacualtia , quintla-. she feeds them. +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| > cualtia , quin-. they feed it to them; they make them eat it. cua:-caus01 +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| > cualtia , quite-. he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat; > they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. caus01 +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| > cualtiaya , quin-. they fed it to them. +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| > cualtih , oquimon-. they fed it to them. +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| > tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's > part?: 55m]. alquilar mis criados a otro. e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no>. 55m-00| > tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may > be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1- > ti-a case. but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be > "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".: > 71m2]. alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. tla:ctli-e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no +prob>. 71m2-23| > morpheme count 12 > > So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" -- > these look unambiguously causative "-tia". > > Joe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Thu May 14 02:28:27 2009 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:28:27 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity Message-ID: Galen, I'll intersperse my comments and mark them with ****. Quoting Galen Brokaw : > Joe, > I have to admit that I may not be understanding all of your > explanation, but let me ask a few follow-up questions. > Although I've read Andrews explanation of this, I did not understand > how he arrived at his conclusions. **** The group of people who don't understand how Andrews arrived at his conclusions is very large. Although I admire the depth of his analysis and the insight that went into it, I recognize that his attitude toward linguistics is very different from that of most people who went through their linguistic education post-1950. Most of us can remember the pressure to present *evidence* for linguistic descriptions; an elegant answer to a problem was not highly prized unless accompanied by multiple motivating reasons. A colleague of mine famously used to say, "that solution has nothing to say for itself except that it *works*! -- but why should I believe it?" At least partly because Andrews didn't emerge from that kind of training, it is not part of his culture to lead the reader by the hand or to coax him into accepting the description offered. He simply states his conclusions. Although I would prefer some statements to support the conclusions and wouldn't mind being coaxed into accept them, I am glad that we don't have to look out over the landscape of the Nahuatl language without Andrews' help. In fact, I think I started > thinking about this issue in these terms after reading Andrews' > description of causatives. I guess my question has to do with how to > determine the nature of the morphology in this case. Or is that even > possible? Maybe Andrews has an argument to support his assertions, > but I don't remember him presenting it; and it was not immediately > obvious from his description. > With regard to the Andrews description, many of his examples could be > interpreted differently. For example, with cualantia, he says that > this is built on "cualano" rather than "cualantli." But it is unclear > to me why this is necessarily the case. In pragamatic terms, I'm not > sure it makes any difference. But I'm interested in whether or not > there is some systemic reason for interpreting it this way. **** At the beginning of Chapter 25 in the revised edition, he says that the second type of causative verbstems are formed from nonactive stems, claiming a derivative order and "accounting" for their correspondences. Like you, I'd like to know reasons for believing this to be true. > His example of "tlanextia" is also ambiguous. Molina gives > "tlanextli" as light. This term raises its own questions for me with > regard to why there is an object pronoun. **** This is a topic that I suppose never stops being a "gotcha". If someone asked you how many "tla"s there are in Nahuatl, the first one you'd name would be the nonspecific object (e.g., nitlacaqui), then the one glossed as 'if' (and sometimes mistakenly to be a *part* of a word "intla" (also meaning 'if')), then the 'verbing' "-tla" which takes nouns as embeds and makes transitive verbs out of them (e.g., mahuiztla, icniuhtla, tlazohtla, etc.). And somewhere in your list would be the impersonal "tla-" that has a function *somewhat* like the so-called nonactive suffixes "-lo" and "-hua". tlahuaqui things dry out tlachipahua it dawns (the tla- is not an object because the preterit is like other intransitive verbs: otlachipahuac) tlayohua it gets dark tlacacalaca there is rattling (as opposed to cacalaca, it rattles) tla[i]hyaya there is stinkiness tlamani it is customary (as opposed to tlamana, he lays something down) Another frequent one is: the non-specific possessive (tlacpac, on top of something) also a special variety of this possessive is one in which the possessive apparently lacks the effect of causing the absolutive suffix to drop; the possessed stem is "promoted" (Andrews calls it "demoted" back to absolutive status: tlamaitl sleeve tlaixcuaitl front of something tlacuexcochtli stern of a boat ---- **All this** to highlight "tlaneci"; Molina says about it: aclarar el tiempo, hazer claro o sereno, hazer claridad o amanecer. And in the Nahuatl version of "Las manyanitas", "ya amanecio'" is "yotlanez". And the patientive noun formed from tlaneci is tlanextli (light), where the "tla" is still a marker for impersonalness, not the object "tla". And since we're talking about ambiguity, the transitive (causative) verb "nitlanextia", (I discover something) yields the patientive noun "tlanextli", something discovered, homophonous with the intransitively derived "tlanextli", light. I can't resist adding that the verb derived from tlanextli (light), "tlanextia" (tlanex-ti-ya) is homophonous/ambiguous with the object-containing "tlanextia" (he discovers something, he causes something to appear). > But in any case, if we have > a noun "tlanextli," I'm not sure why we have to posit the causative > form "tlanextia" as being built on "nexohua." **** It really isn't that I ran low on ink, but I share your position. It seems to me that claiming that causatives are derived by a process of deleting -o, -hua, -ohua, or -hualo is not a unified process. Maybe someone can help us out. > It seems to me that in the section dealing with this causative form > (at least the section that I just reconsulted), all of Andrews' > examples with the exception of one can be interpreted as being built > on a noun rather than the non-active form. The exception would seem > to be "choctia" and maybe there are other examples of similar words. > This may be what led him to this explanation, because as far as I > know "choctli" is not attested as a nominalized form of "to cry." But > if the vast majority of these causatives can be interpreted as > nominalized forms which are then verbalized using the "-ti-a" ending, > then it seems to me that you could just as well say that words like > "choctia" are the result of making a formal generalization that > produces causative forms like "choctia" built on unattested > nominalizations, in this case "choctli." **** In considering the two-origin vs. the single-origin theory of verbs like "tinechtlacualtia", I'll give a reason below for leaning in the two-origin direction, but your point regarding the reasonableness of the necessity of assuming the reality of some unattested forms is well taken. If language analysis is to be more than just a cataloging and categorization of observed form, you must be right. I have never seen the patientive noun *cochtli, which would be derived from "cochi", but there is a sense in which it must exist if we are going to make morphological sense out of: ni-coch-camachaloa I yawn sleepily ni-coch-miqui I am sleepy te-coch-ehua he gets someone up from sleep ti-te-coch-mahua you make someone sleepy by appearing sleepy (i.e., you infect someone with sleepiness) > Andrews does say that this type of generalization occurs with the > non-active form itself, but he doesn't assume the same for noun forms > in this context. > With regard to the examples you list below, I assume that the three > dots indicate examples of unattested noun forms which would be > problematic. And I think I understand that part of the problem has to > do with the causative forms in these cases do not have an 'l' as in > the case of axhitia and cochitia. However, in the case of "caqui," we > have attestations of both "caquitia" and "caquiltia." So even if > there is something else going on with "caquitia," couldn't we posit > an unattested noun "caquilli" used to construct the causative > "caquiltia"? I don't think there are attestations of "chochiltia," so > either something else is going on with "cochitia" as with "caquitia," > or this form has a tendency to drop the 'l' in some causatives. Maybe > that is a stretch? **** I will have to digest this further. In the meantime, I again hope that someone lends us a hand in thinking about it. > In reference to the examples you list, I'm not sure, but maybe this > is where my confusing paragraph about object pronouns is relevant (or > maybe not). I'm not sure why these cases are unambiguous unless it is > because they have specific object prefixes where patientive nouns > would have non-specific ones? Or maybe in the first case, which does > have a non-specific object, because there is a reduplication? I guess > what I was trying to say is that when a patientive noun becomes > verbalized again, it seems to me that there is no reason why the > non-specific object pronoun of the patientive form would need to > remain non-specific. In other words, the object would be once again > free to be specific. So in example #2, "quincualtia," you have an > underlying "qui" that is covered up by the indirect object pronoun > "quin." The patientive noun would have been "tlacualli", but in the > causative form, the "tla" turns into "qui" because it is referring > now to something specific. **** There are some very basic assumptions that we all have about the way that languages can possibly work. When linguists work on a particular language, they "obey" these assumptions as if they were the "rules of the game". Obviously, the features of a description of a given language, like Nahuatl, are partially determined by those rules. If linguists try to imitate their colleagues in the hard sciences, there are times when they have to conclude that their assumptions were wrong and the "rules" have to be changed. That's science. One of my iconic examples is autobiographical: when I was studying linguistics in graduate school, I took a class in field methods with a young professor. He looked over my shoulder at my work and said the obligatory "That's good." ...which is the preparation for "...but..." He then gave me a solid explanation of the linguistics of the 1930's, 1940's and early 1950's: phonological descriptions do not involve *processes* -- they involve a sober exposition of what abstract units there are in a given system (i.e., phonemes) and what their "physical" variations (i.e., allophones) are. Phonology is *static*, not *dynamic*; there simply aren't processes in it. Less than a year later, my young professor had joined a revolution in linguistics. He read and listened to the arguments for questioning the basic assumptions of the field and realized that the arguments for analyzing language in terms of processes were too strong to ignore. It was a change in "science", not equivalent to saying that the earth revolves around the sun, but a huge one for linguists. ... So my assumptions are going to show, but these assumptions are *right* |8-) . When we talk about derivations, we take the idea of derivation seriously. For example, if we say that a form is derived from "tlacualli", we are stuck with "tlacualli" -- we are talking about a form with the "tla-" bound to a verb stem, which, in turn, has a nominalizing "-l" bound to it. Once the [tlacua] becomes a unit, the -l is added to this *unit*. I can't wrap my mind around a morphology that *derives* something from "tlacualli", but allows us to replace a component of it. ... My reasoning for some of the data that seems to indicate that *only* the causative interpretation is possible for it, that they cannot also be interpreted as N-ti(have)-a(caus): "quitlacuacualtia": there is no noun "tlacuacualli". I realize that we might posit a hypothetical one and I don't know how to answer that. "quincualtia, quitecualtia, quincualtiaya, oquimoncualtih": "cua" does not have a patientive noun "cualli" which refers generically to food. Although Andrews considers "cualli" and "xochicualli" to be derived from "cua", I think that, although this might be true historically, it is not relevant in describing the stage of Nahuatl that we call "classical". "nitetetlaquehualtia" (I rent my servants to someone): This is my favorite one. tla:ctli torso, body e:hua raise tlaquehualli servant, worker (patientive noun derived through the passive) tlatlaquehualli someone who is advised to do harm to someone (a henchman?) (patientive derived through the impersonal) nite-tlaquehua I hire someone tlaquehualo he is hired ninote-tlaquehualtia I hire myself out My thinking about nitetetlaquehualtia is that for it to be analyzed as a noun-ti(have)-a(caus) structure, there would have to be a noun of the form *tetlaquehualli. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be ungrammatical, since in patientive nouns, the verb object is converted from te- to tla-: nite-mictia te-mictiliztli tla-mictli Joe And if this works, then the nonspecific > indirect object pronoun would be free to appear between the specific > object pronoun and the verb as in example #3, "quitecualtia." What I > am suggesting is that maybe the non-specific object pronoun of the > patientive noun does not have to be fossilized in the causative form. > Maybe the pronoun position is reactivated to function the same way it > did in the original active form. > I'm not sure I understand the issue with "netetetlaquehualtia." > Molina does actually list the patientive form "tlaquehualli" without > the non-specific object pronoun "tla." Although wouldn't one also > expect "tetlaquehualli"? But in any case, even if my argument about > the reactivation of the object pronoun position in the causative form > is not right, we still have a nonspecific object pronoun in this > form. Actually, I'm not sure why they would need the causative form > in this case anyway. If they wanted to say "I hire out people to > people, why wouldn't they just say "nitetetlaquehua"? If the form > "nitetetlaquehualtia" is merely a causative not derived from a > patientive, wouldn't the causative have to be operating on the > reflexive form of this verb? I'm not sure how you would work in the > reflexive pronoun, but wouldn't the causative form have to mean > something like "I cause people to hire themselves out to people"? So > given that there is no reflexive object pronoun in this word, > wouldn't we have to interpret this as a "ti-a" causative built on a > patientive noun "tetlaquehualli"? Then it would just be, "I provide > someone with the hiring out of people." This would avoid the problem > of having to incorporate the reflexive within the causative. > > Galen > > > Campbell, R. Joe wrote: >> Galen, >> >> I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****. I >> printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary. >> >> Quoting Galen Brokaw : >> >> >>> Joe, >>> I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate >>> morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. >>> >> >> **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe >> discussing the same thing. >> >> >>> Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In >>> other words, is it possible that even the form that has been >>> identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the >>> construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer >>> "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? >>> >> >> **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what >> Andrews says about it. He *does* say that the -tia causative is >> derived from a non-active verb. So, according to him, when you delete >> the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some >> forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua >> non-active (ahxitia). >> So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms >> are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and >> the other with -ti-a. >> But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the >> same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the >> second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb. >> >> >> >>> I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms >>> is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested >>> in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive >>> nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't >>> the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated >>> by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an >>> attested patientive form? >>> >> >> **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it >> with concrete examples: >> >> "provide with" noun so-called causative >> >> quixtli / exit quixtia >> >> coch... / sleep cochitia >> >> caqu... / audible thing caquitia >> >> mauhtli / fright mauhtia >> >> cualantli / anger cualantli >> >> >> ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.)) >> >> >>> Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that >>> patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand >>> correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue >>> that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific >>> object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems >>> to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there >>> would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The >>> restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is >>> strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and >>> resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it >>> wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the >>> pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to >>> have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. >>> >> >> **** I have difficulty in handling this. Could you give me a concrete >> example? >> >> >>> A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I >>> would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the >>> semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. >>> Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing >>> here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form >>> somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" >>> structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one >>> morphology instead of two? >>> >> >> **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no >> ambiguity in one direction or the other. Here is my list so far: >> >> >> *+ambig.no *** >> cuacualtia , quintla-. she feeds them. > +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| >> cualtia , quin-. they feed it to them; they make them eat it. > cua:-caus01 +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| >> cualtia , quite-. he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat; >> they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. > caus01 +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| >> cualtiaya , quin-. they fed it to them. > +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| >> cualtih , oquimon-. they fed it to them. > +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| >> tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's >> part?: 55m]. alquilar mis criados a otro. > e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no>. 55m-00| >> tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may >> be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1- >> ti-a case. but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be >> "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".: >> 71m2]. alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. > tla:ctli-e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no +prob>. 71m2-23| >> morpheme count 12 >> >> So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" -- >> these look unambiguously causative "-tia". >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From micc2 at cox.net Tue May 19 18:54:37 2009 From: micc2 at cox.net (micc2) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:54:37 -0700 Subject: 2009 Summer Intensive Course in Older and Modern Nahuatl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Mexi'cayotl Indio Cultural Center, and Danza Mexi'cayotl have a new website: mexicayotl.info Thanks!!!! I live for reasoned, enlightened spirituality: "Tlacecelilli", tranquilidad, paz Mario E. Aguilar, PhD www.mexicayotl.net _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cuecuex at gmail.com Thu May 21 05:31:35 2009 From: cuecuex at gmail.com (roberto romero) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 00:31:35 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl Message-ID: Recien ingreso a su lista de correo , aunque revisando su archivo veo que estuve presente aunque no invitado en la discusión azteca vs mexica vs nahua. Quisiera colocar estas lineas para poder escuchar sus comentarios sobre los distintos significados de los vocablos: Cuitlahuac y Cuitlatl y sobre la relación peculiar que en los pueblos mesoamericanos de habla nahoa y otomi tienen estos vocablos con temas como el poder estatal, la riqueza, la divinidad. Desde mi punto de vista es un tipo de relación que no esta presente en el pensamiento occidental y cristiano, un tipo de relación que nos muestra muy claramente otra forma de ver el mundo muy distinta a la que teníian tanto los occidentales que los conquistaron militarmente y los adoctrinaron religiosamente, pero también muy distinta a la mentalidad , referentes y marcos culturales de aquellos que los investigan, los interpretan y los re interpretan, desde el siglo XVI a la fecha. Van pues estas lineas: En el diccionario en nahuatl en linea Aulex , un instrumento muy útil que existe en INTERNET uno ve que la definición de Cuitlahuac es excremento seco : "Cuitlahuac (Excremento seco), tlahtoani tlein otlapachoac México Tenochtitlan ipan ome tecpatl xihuitl (1520). http://aulex.org/es-nah/?busca=cuitlahuac" En la misma linea de reducir sin tapujo alguno la palabra raiz Cuitlatl al significado de excremento, al significado de mierda, encontramos por ejemplo que en el glosario de la edición de la Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España del sabio Fray Bernardino de Sahagún prepararada por el eminente antropólogo Alfredo López Austin y por Josefina García Quintana ve uno en el apartado que corresponde a lo que hoy corruptamente castellanizado le decimos Huitlacoche. "Cuitlacuchtli "Mierda Dormida " (?) hongo que ataca al maíz . p 879 op.cit. El glosario en comento extrañamente no da traducción alguna de Cuitlahuac, el nombre del décimo Tlatoani colhua mexica . Esta ausencia al parecer es por prurito, ante lo insultante que aparentemente resulta la traducción de su nombre, siguiendo la identificación de cuitlatl sólo con el significado de mierda Esta ausencia ocurre a pesar de que Cuitlahuac como tlatoani aparece referido en el libro octavo capítulo primero de la obra en comento y de que la palabra Cuitlahuac aparece citada para nombrar a uno de de los pueblos que habitaban la zona de las chinampas, llamados por ello los chinampecas (Xochimilco, Cuitláhuac, Mizquic, Mexicatzinco, Iztapalapan) pueblos que acudieron al apoyo militar de los sitiados tlatelolcas , ciudad donde se dio la resistencia contra la conquista española,pues Tenochtitlan cayo en una semana. Aunque se hable del sitio de Tenochtitlan, fueron en Tlatelolco y los tlatelolcas quienes resistíeron el sitio y la invasión de un ejército de decenas de miles de guerreros indios que odiaban a los colhuas mexicas que los explotaban con tributos, ese ejercito indio invasor fue dirigido por no mas de mil aventureros españoles gran parte de ellos sin experiencia militar alguna. La sabiduría del sabio Sahagún fue tanta que , en sus capítulos dedicados a la conquista de México, Sahagún prefirió no mencionar el nombre de Cuitlahuac, el gobernante indígena que derrotó a los conquistadores españoles y que los sacó de la ciudad de Tenochtitlan, urbe de la cual sin combate alguno, se habían apoderado los españoles simplemente secuestrando a Moctezuma, el menor, el xocoyotzin, haciendolo su prisionero y poniendo al servicio de los españoles el poder que Moctezuma ostentaba y aprovechandose de la cobardía que "el menor" se cargaba, de lo que resulta que la conquista española es el antecedente mas importante de lo lucrativo que resulta la "industria" del secuestro en México. Si aceptamos la traducción de la raiz cuitla como mierda o excremento ello da por resultado que Cuitlahuac, el soberano victorioso militarmente sobre los conquistadores españoles y sus aliados indios, resulta en el Rey Excremento Seco o el Rey Mierda Seca, un para nuestros valores, triste destino asignado para tan noble y valeroso guerrero , que antes de ser Tlatoani fue señor de Iztapalapa, una zona chinampera en ese entonces y hoy una zona que padece sed todo el año por falta de agua. Don Angel Maria Garibay el filólogo y traductor de la misma Historia General... en la edición de editorial Porrua si trae en su glosario la traducción del termino cuitlahuac, de el nos dice: Cuitlahuac: lama de agua .Nombre del X tlatoani de México . En la Enciclopedia México uno de los libros presentes en la biblioteca del pequeño pueblo donde habito regularmente se lee: "Cuitlatl (en nahuatl excrecencia) Especie de alga que se hallaba en la superficie de los lagos salobres de valle de México y que [seca], al sol (cuiutlahuaqui), se comía condimentada con sal y chile. Estas algas fueron objeto de comercio y muy apreciadas como alimento" p. 1987 TIV Como vemos Cuitlaltl que significa excrecencia no significa siempre mierda como ha sido la traducción que se ha impuesto desde la conquista española uhmm, uhmmm, ( ¿ por que sera que se impuso ese significado ?) Cuitlaltl era el término usado tambien para llamar a un alimento prehispánico apreciado y comercialmente valioso, Cuitlatl se usaba para nombrar a un alga lagunar comestible Con este último significado Cuitlahuac deja de ser el Rey Mierda Seca para ser el Rey del Alga Seca Valiosa Aceptar la reducción del significado de Cuitlatl a mierda también nos complica cuando uno ve distintos documentos que tratan sobre la llamada Peregrinación Méxica . Por ejemplo el códice Boturini o Tira de la Peregrinación, el códice Azcatitlan, el Códice Aubin , la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas , las Relaciones de Chimalpain, por citar algunos . Ahi entre los pueblos que se dice salieron de Teo o Huey Culhuacan se nombra a los Cuitlahuacas, en sus distintas fracciones . Estos Cuitlahuacas al llegar al valle de México ocuparon lo que se conoce actualmente como las poblaciones de Mixquic y Tlahuac, mismo lugar donde en estos días los diarios informan que las obras del metro han propiciado el saqueo de restos prehispánicos, ante la indiferencia de la institución creada para protegerlos, noble instituto hoy dirigido por el eminente antropólogo... perdón, por el notable arqueologo, perdón me volvi a equivocar, por el historiador , no.. tampoco, por el ilustrísimo señor embajador, designado por el señor presidente "aiga sido como aiga sido" y en uso de sus facultades legales, faltaba mas!!. Los Cuitlahuacas siguiendo la traducción de Cuitlatl igual a mierda, resultan ser el pueblo de la mierda seca, o el pueblo del excremento seco Como se vio antes, los cuitlahuacas eran parte de los pueblos chinamperos , esto es de los que cultivan en chinampas. Ésta era una forma de cultivo intensivo capaz de dar cuatro cosechas al año, por lo menos dos o tres de maiz, y ellos por medio de islas-milpas flotantes. Para estas chinampas uno de los elementos utilizados para el abono de las tierras era el excremento animal y humano. Gracias a don Antonio Alzate quien redactó un documento en el año 1791, sabemos que en dicho año los chinamperos de Xochimilco arrendaban las cuevas de "el cerro cónico de Ixtapalapan" en cuyas "dilatadas cuevas" habitaban infinito número de murcielago, cuyo excremento los campesinos chinamperos xochimilcas recogian para abonar con guano o mierda de murcielago a sus chinampas.- Triste contraste de sabiduria popular con nuestros tiempos actuales en donde, como parte de nuestra estulticia moderna, hace algunos años con la epidemia o cuento de moda en turno, el llamado Chupacabras , los modernos campesinos y urbanos en un acto estupido salimos a matar millones de murcielagos.. El uso de excremento humano, de excremento seco , como abono en las chinampas no se descarta. Como saber popular se dice que con ello el chile sale mas picoso. Tenochtitlan y sus barrios, junto con Tlatelolco y sus barrios formaban una concentración humana de unos 300 mil habitantes. Depositar los desechos humanos, la mierda en la laguna , como señala el sabio frances J Soustelle en "La vida cotidiana de los aztecas" p 48 habría traído gravísimas epidemias de enfermedades gastrointestinales y las fuentes no citan memoria alguna de que ésto hubiera sucedido. Las grandes epidemias de colera ocurren en la época colonial y en el México independiente y caótico, de una de esas epidemias nace la hoy famosa pasión de cristo de Iztapalapa y el popular dicho de "aguas" pues se aventaban a la calle los desechos que se depositaban en los basines o basinicas.. Es mas factible que en Tenochtitlan el manejo de la mierda se haya dado, como señala el conquistador Bernal Diaz y el mismo Soustelle refiere, sobre la base de un eficaz servicio urbano de "canoas de yenda" que se encargaban de recolectar el excremento humano, el cual estaban obligados de concentrar los habitantes so pena de castigo y que dicho excremento se depositara en algun sitio de tierra firme de la laguna en donde se dejaba secar al sol y en donde también quizas se aderezaba con algo que permitiera su posterior uso como abono sin perjuicios para la salud. Desafortunadamente como el manejo de excrementos no genera grandes monumentos ni resulta en bellísmas piezas que adornen las vitrinas de los museos, es un tema al que no ha dado respuestas la investigación científica de la arqueología nacional y extranjera que estudia la ciudad de los "aztecas" , aunque dicho tema haya sido un tema vital para la sobrevivencia de la ciudades islas. Aventurando una posible localización de estos terrenos firmes que servían de depositos de mierda, creo que los mismos estarian en los terrenos que hoy se conocen como Balbuena y la Colonia El Parque, que es la sede del H. Congreso de la Unión y de la H. Camara de Diputados, bien dicen que historia es destino, pues el nivel de inicio de la tierra firme no pantanosa, esta marcado por una calle que hoy lleva ese nombre de nivel . Para ello me apoyo en la cercanía de esta tramo de tierra con zonas chinamperas que surtian a Tenochtitlan: la primera ubicada en el barrio de Teopan llamado tambien Zoquipan (tierra lodosa) donde habia chinamperos chalmecas y huitznahuacas . Parte de este barrio lo ocupaban lo que hoy son calles de Calzada de la Viga, Zoquipa (donde esta la prepa 7) , Ixnahualtongo, Xocongo y Cuitlahuac ; otra zona chinampera estaba muy cercana, a no mas de un kilometero de distancia, ubicado en lo que fue el pueblo hoy colonia de la Magdalena Mixhuca , muy cerca del mercado de Jamaica, eje 3 y 3a sur y siguiendo hacia el sur estaban a no mas de 800 metros las chinampas mas famosas, las de Ixtacalco o Iztacalco . Es posible entonces que en el cultivo chinampero efectivamente cuitlahuac fuera el termino para referirse a quien manejaba los cerros de mierda humana seca. Esto genera nuevas situaciones que cuestionan nuestras actuales concepciones y prejuicios modernos, occidentales y cristianos. En el códice Boturini y en el códice Azcatitlan el dios principal en la región de Aztlan es el dios que aparece identificado por el glifo jeroglífico que aparece dibujado arriba de una piramide. Ese glifo puede leerse fonéticamente como el nombre del dios Amimitl, la flecha en el Agua o como el nombre del dios Atlahua, el dueño del dardo ,en ambos casos se trata de dioses chalmecas y entre esos Chalmecas estan los cuitlahuacas, de donde, este caso nos muestra que entre estos indios prehispánicos la divinidad y la mierda, no aparecen como términos antitéticos como ocurre en nuestro pensamiento moderno, occidental y cristiano. Roberto Romero Gutierrez II Sigamos con los distintos contenidos semánticos de cuitlatl Ya vimos anteriormente ligado al termino de excremento seco, de mierda seca , al señor de Iztapalapa quien llego a ser el X Tlatoani de los Colhuas mexicas y quien expulso de Tenochtitlan y derrotó militarmente a los españoles y sus aliados indios entonces sólo tlaxcaltecas. La ceremonia de coronación y la gritería de apoyo al señor mexica Cuitlahuac sonaría como una escena subrealista a nuestra concepción moderna, occidental y cristiana .Imaginemos los gritos ¡¡viva el rey mierda seca !!. Ningun rey de las monarquias a la que son tan efectos los cultos europeos, lleva o ha llevado nombre semejante. Y en nuestras repúblicas ¿ alguien puede imaginarse un presidente actual con tal nombre?. De forma denigratoria en México la oposición llama Fecal al actual presidente de Mexico: Felipe Calderon. Fe de Felipe Cal de Calderon=Fecal Retomemos la relación y la presencia de Cuitlatl (excremento o mierda) con la divinidad, una relación y presencia que nunca veremos en nuestra concepción occidental cristiana y moderna. Los anales de Tlatelolco narran de esta forma el enfrentamiento de los mexicas con el brujo Copil a quienes atrapan los jefes de los mexicas: Tenoch y Cuauhtliquezqui ( personaje mítico, semidios que para entonces lleva ya mas de 200 años de vida), acción exitosa gracais a que fueron alertados e instruidos por su dios Huitzilopochtli . Aunque el brujo Copil se identifica como uno de los mexicas que se perdió en Tzumpango, Copil fue sacrificado y su cuerpo fue tratado ritualmente: Cuauhtliquezqui lo degolló hasta decapitarlo y le extrajo el corazón. Sepultó el cuerpo de Copil en el sitio llamado Acopilco, enterró la cabeza en un lugar llamado Tlatzinco y el corazón de Cpil fue enterrado "enmedio de las cañas, donde crecía un nopal, una de cuyas pencas estaba toda manchada de blanco, porque allá acostumbraba ir a defecar una águila; y por esos se llamo [el lugar] Tenochtitlán" p 60 Anales de Tlatelolco El lugar elegido para depositar el corazón de Copil años después al florecer, marcaría el sitio donde fundar la ciudad de Tenochtitlan , la ciuda de Huitzilopochtli y dicho sitio estaba señalado milagrosamente por un nopal en donde defecaba un águila y con la mierda del águila estaba pintada de blanco una penca del nopal. En un agüero divino, en una profecia sacra, en una acción ordenada por un dios tutelar y principal, juega un rol fundamental el excremento, la mierda, en este caso de un ave que es también nahual de distintos dioses (lo es de la diosa Cihuacoatl, la mujer serpiente que era tambien llamada mujer aguila: Cuaucihuatl , el águila es el nahual de Tonatiuh el sol diurno pero tambien lo es de Meztli la luna el sol nocturno, pues ambos son soles). Esta relación de lo divino con el excremento es inedito en las religiones en curso en el mundo occidental tanto aquel que se encuentra con los colhuas mexicas en el siglo XVI como el moderno que desde el siglo XIX lo interpreta . La anecdota ilustra la enorme distancia entre el pensamiento occidental tanto aquel que se encuentra con los colhuas mexicas en el siglo XVI como el moderno que desde el siglo XIX interpreta al mundo prehispánico y en especial al mesoamericano. Ahora veamos la relación de Cuitlatl (la excrecencia o la mierda) con la riqueza y con dos de los metales que son símbolos y materia por excelencia en los que se ha expresado la riqueza en nuesrto mundo occidental. El oro era tambien cuitlatl del sol, la excrecencia o la mierda del sol y la plata era la excrecencia o la mierda del sol nocturno, de la luna. En el códice de Huichapan, un códice otomi, éstos reciben tal tributo de los derrotados mazahuas. Tanto el oro como la plata eran considerados elementos valiosos, era uno de los objetos materiales en donde se expresaba el concepto de riqueza vigente entre los mexicas, los colhuas y demas tribus de habla nahoa y otomi en ésta área de Mesoamérica. Existía tambien el significado peyorativo, ofensivo, denigratorio, de cuitlatl, mierda, como cosa sucia, un significado que es mas cercano a nuestras concepciones modernas, occidentales y cristianas, tan así que la palabra merde es una de las ofensas favoritas en los paises de habla francesa y el vocablo mierda como exclamación de disgusto, de desaprobación o como adjetivo calificativo aplicados a personas o situaciones es usado en paises que como Mexico hemos sido influidos por la cultura francesa. Dicen en los Anales de Tlatelolco que estando ya los mexicas como vasallos que servian de mercenarios a los Colhuas, los mexicas derrotaron a los xochimilcas y para celebrar tal hecho desearon levantar un templo a Huitzilopochtli. Pidieron a sus amos les dieran un corazón para su templo. Los Colhuas enviaron a sus hechiceros, a los que adivinaban con papeles, pero como corazón del templo de los mexicas, del templo de Huitzilopchtli "pusieron como corazón [del templo], mierda [cuitlatl], basura, polvo, malacates y algodón" p69 de los Anales de Tlatelolco. En la historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas se dice que "echaron paja e suciedad en el templo, burlando [se] de los mexicanos" p54 Los mexicas tuvieron que realizar ritos para quitar la profanación hecha a su templo por los hechiceros colhuas. De acuerdo a los distintos crónicas que se nutren de la llamada Crónica X los tlatelolcas al ser derrotados por los mexicas fueron castigados, condenando a que su templo mayor dejara de tener culto religioso, a que su templo fuera basurero y lugar donde se defecara, a que no se le limpiara y ademas se les obligó a los tlatelolcas a ir a Tenochtitlan a rendir culto y a ofrendar a Huitzilopchtli. Dato que nos hace cuestionar la validez de la información de Bernal acerca de que se subio a la cima de ese Templo mayor de Tlatelolco y de que estaba en esa época en funciones Aqui se ve claramente que el sentido peyorativo de mierda [cuitlatl] no era desconocido entre los mexicas y los colhuas, y los tlatelolcas. Mas aun se aprecia que el caracter ofensivo y denigratorio del excremento era una ofensa de igual magnitud al de darle cosas de mujeres (malacates y algodón) al dios de los mexicas, con lo cual los colhuas señalaban de cuilon,de afeminado, de homosexual a Huitzilopochtli el dios de los mexicas. Roberto Romero Gutiérrez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From a.appleyard at btinternet.com Fri May 22 16:32:49 2009 From: a.appleyard at btinternet.com (ANTHONY APPLEYARD) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 16:32:49 +0000 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl Message-ID: Karttunen's dictionary (pp 73, 74) says that in compounds [cuitlatl] could also mean "back, rump, behind". It also says that [cuitla-pil-li] = "tail": analyzed by apparent components it looks like "dung-appendage"; but I suspect that that may be derived from an older usage when [cuitlatl] by itself meant "dung or rump". Before that, I wonder if [cuitlatl] meant only "rump", and its use for "dung" started as a euphemism or slang. A somewhat comparable linguistic event is modern Japanese extracting a word "ben" = "dung" from "ben-jo_" = "toilet", treated as "dung-place", but its correct linguistic analysis is "convenience-place". Citlalyani --- On Thu, 21/5/09, roberto romero wrote: From: roberto romero Subject: [Nahuat-l] Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Thursday, 21 May, 2009, 6:31 AM Recien ingreso a su lista de correo , aunque revisando su archivo veo que estuve presente aunque no invitado en la discusión azteca vs mexica vs nahua. ... En el diccionario en nahuatl en linea Aulex , un instrumento muy útil que existe en INTERNET  uno ve  que la definición de  Cuitlahuac es  excremento seco : "Cuitlahuac (Excremento seco), tlahtoani tlein otlapachoac México Tenochtitlan ipan ome tecpatl xihuitl (1520).  http://aulex.org/es-nah/?busca=cuitlahuac" En la misma linea de reducir sin tapujo alguno   la palabra raiz Cuitlatl   al significado de  excremento, al significado  de mierda,  encontramos por ejemplo que en el glosario de la edición de la Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España del sabio Fray Bernardino de Sahagún prepararada ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Fri May 22 23:22:41 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:22:41 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl Message-ID: Estimado Roberto: Lo usual cuando comparamos antropónimos y topónimos entre el náhuatl y el otomí del periodo Novohispano temprano es que en cada lengua se expresan los mismos valores semánticos, o similares, pero construidos con los morfemas propios de cada lengua. Lo mismo sucede con muchas palabras de otros tipos, como son los términos calendáricos, los nombres de las estructuras sociales, etcétera. Otomíes y nahuas, en el momento de la Conquista, habían convivido estrechamente en los señoríos del cento de México durante más de medio milenio; compartían lo que era esencialmente la misma cultura. Los préstamos semánticos, sin elementos morfémicos o fonéticos, se llaman calcos. Usualmente resulta difícil determinar la dirección de estos préstamos. Los otomíes seguramente tienen raíces mucho más antiguos en el Altiplano Central que los nahuas, cuyo origen se encuentra en el Occidente de México, al lado de las regiones habitadas por sus parientes lingüísticos más cercanos de la subfamilia Yutonahua meridional; De la misma manera los otomíes y sus parientes de la familia otopame ocupan los valles centrales de México (otomíes, mazahuas, matlatzincas y ocuiltecas) y parte de las tierras más áridas hacia el norte (pames y chichimecos jonaces). Pero sería simplista afirmar que los nahuas aprendieron la cultura centromexicana de sus vecinos otopames, ya que ambos grupos formaban parte de la gran red de interacciones culturales que llamamos Mesoamérica, desde por lo menos el Preclásico Inferior (c 2500-1200 a.C.), cuando los antepasados de los nahuas todavía vivían en el Occidente. Es decir, el contacto no inició cuando los nauas llegaron al Altiplano Central, sino muchos siglos antes. Dicho lo anterior, te comento que no he visto el nombre otomí de Cuitlahuac en ninguna fuente novohispana en esta lengua, desafortunadamente. El Códice de Huichapan nos proporciona los nombres en otomí de los señores mexicas desde Acamapichtli hasta Moteuczoma Xocoyotl (excepto Huitzilihuitl, quien se omite), así como los de dos señores de Tetzcoco (Nezahualcoyotl y Nezahualpilli) y los de siete señores de Xilotepec. Algunos de estos nombres, y otros más, aparecen en el Códice Pedro Martín de Toro (Archivo General de la Nación, México, grupo documental Tierras, vol. 1783, expediente 1, ff. 26r-32r). Tenemos las palabras otomíes para oro y plata. parece que son calcos exactos de las voces nahuas equivalentes. Aparecen en el Vocabulario de Urbano (Alonso Urbano, Arte breve de la lengua otomí y vocabulario trilingüe español-náhuatl-otomí, facsímil del ms., René Acuña, estudio, México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1990): Oro. cuztic teocuitlatl, tetl coçauhqui -- anccaxttäbochä. angaccaxtti (f. 318r). Plata metal. yztac teocuitlatl -- anttaxäcäbochä (f. 338r). Las palabras otomíes, escritas con el alfabeto otomí más usado hoy (véase la tabla en SUP-INFOR: http://www.sup-infor.com/sources/codex_otomi/Fonemas1.htm), serían ank’axt’äbojä, angak’axt’i y ant’axäkäbojä (donde los apóstrofos representan oclusivas glotales y las diéresis marcan las vocales nasales; el subrayado bajo la “o” se restituye porque es esta vocal, intermedia entre la /e/ y la /o/ castellanas, la que se encuentra en esta palabra en otros vocabularios coloniales del otomí y en las variantes modernas). Ank’axt’äbojä significa el (an) metal (bojä) amarillo (k’axt’i). Angak’axt’i tiene el morfema que significa amarillo, pero no el que significa metal. Ant’axäkäbojä significa el (an) metal (bojä) blanco (t’axi), aunque no sé cómo analizar la secuencia fonémica äka (hay trabajo pendiente sobre la gramática y la fonología del otomí colonial antes de que podamos hacer traducciones precisas). La pregunta, entonces, es si bojä significa “excremento de los dioses”. Parece que sí. Jä (escrito “chä” en los textos otomíes coloniales) significa algo similar a la palabra castellana “dios”, tomando en cuenta las diferencias ideológicas entre las culturas ibera y centromexicana. La sílaba bo es un morfema relacionado con los verbos “salir” y “sacar” y con la cualidad de pegajoso (como podemos averiguar revisando las palabras que empiezan con estos dos fonemas en cualquier diccionario otomí-castellano), lo cual ciertamente nos coloca firmemente en el campo semántico del excremento, por lo que podríamos traducir este morfema así, o con más cuatela “sustancia pegajosa que sale”. Plomo, según Urbano (1990: 339r), es temetztli, “Luna pétrea” en náhuatl y nobotzäna (o ambotzäna), lo cual nos da la palabra modernizada (y sin los prefijos sustantivos no- y am-) botsäna, posiblemente “excremento de la Luna” en otomí, si aceptamos la hipótesis de que el morfema bo signifique excremento. Otro dato que te puede interesar es el nombre de una deidad que registra Pedro Carrasco en su libro Los otomíes. Lo tomó del vocabulario otomí de 1640 que se resguarda en la Biblioteca Nacional de México: Nopot’ejä, “la deidad del excremento”, probablemente el nombre otomí de Tlazolteotl, “la diosa de la basura”. La palabra pot’ei, “excremento”, se encuentra en Urbano, 1990: 239r (“Hezes generalmente”). Jä, equivalente de la voz náhuatl teotl, significa “deidad” según la misma fuente (148r). Saludos cordiales, David Wright P.D. Si acaso no llegan intactos los subrayados debajo de algunas vocales en las palabras otomíes, las diéresis y las cursivas, escríbame directamente y te enviaré este texto en un archivo DOC o RTF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cuecuex at gmail.com Sun May 24 02:25:56 2009 From: cuecuex at gmail.com (roberto romero) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 21:25:56 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 2 Message-ID: Agradeciendo la generosa respuesta de D Wright y de Mr Appleyard coloco nuevos elementos sobre este tema de lo escatológico en la cultura de los mexicas . Sobre sus amables respuestas regresare en otro mail. El uso de palabras escatologicas en eventos magnos de la cultura Mexica vuelve a estar presente nada menos que en los discursos que el Tlatoani electo pronunciaba en la ceremonia de su unción como gobernante de los mexicas; discursos que el futuro Tlatoani, el principal gobernante del señorío, dirigía a la máxima divinidad, el dios Tezcatlipoca, Tloque nahuaque, al momento de ser electo. Los discursos eran dentro de una ceremonia politico y religiosa, un acto público equivalente a la toma de protesta de un presidente en una república o a la coronación de un rey en una monarquía europea. Esta muestra lo encontramos en el texto de los discursos del Libro Sexto del Códice Florentino quien coloca tales palabras en labios del Tlatoani electo el miembro de la nobleza colhua mexica, de la familia de Acamapichtli que acaparó el poder, pues todos los Tlatoanis fueron de esa familia. Uso la traducción de Salvador Díaz Cintora con Texto nahuatl paleografiado adjunto UNAM 19995 Los once discursos sobre la Realeza Libro sexto del códice Florentino. En su discurso primero el Tlatoani electo manifesta su temor a que la divinidad Tezcatlipoca Tloque Nahuaque mostrando su ira o su caracter burlón lo castigue o decida como muestra del poder divino simplemente arrojárlo a la tierra del estiercol o a la tierra de la inmundicia,a Cuatlatitlan o a Tlazultitlan. En su discurso cuarto el Tlatoani electo agradece que a pesar de tener la condición de un macehual que vive en la mierday la inmundicia, cuatlatitlan y tlazultitlan, que vive en suciedad cubierto de polvo y basura, totalmente ignorante, a pesar de ello el dios Tezcatlipoca quizas confundiendolo con otra persona lo halla elegído, lo saque de la mierda y lo ponga en la silla del trono. Mostrando de nuevo en estos discursos, una nada occidental manera de mezclar términos escatológicos, con la divinidad, el poder político y el poder ecónomico. Destacando que a pesar de existir otros vocablos nahoas que indican suciedad ,en los discursos se usan especificamente los términos cuatlatitlan y tlazultitlan , lugar de mierda lugar de inmundicia. En la obra de Domingo de Chimalpain encontramos un ejemplo de como considerar sucio y expresión de la impureza al excremento fue llevado a posiciones extremas por los antiguos habitantes de la región chalca del sitio que hoy conocemos como Amecameca, los cuales fueron conquistados y destruidos por los totolimpanecas, quienes dieron por nombre Amequeme al sitio conquistado. Chimalpain en su Memorial Breve de Culhuacán anota que los Olmecas, los Xicalancas, los xochiteca , los quiyahuizteca y los cucolca tenían tal veneración por su lugar sagrado el Chalchiumomoztli, en donde estaba el agua divina , que eran incapaces de defecar en ese terreno por lo que tenian que desplazarse cuatro leguas y media , unos 20 km, hasta llegar a Cuitlatépec o Cuitlatetetelco en donde podían excretar . Año 2 tecpatl 1260 Memorial Breve de Culhuacan Esa concepción mas amplia y distinta a lo occidental de los nahoas y otomis prehispánicos mesoamericanos a lo que hoy consideramos escatológico no se reduce al excremento: En los anales de Tlaltelolco se anota que 31 años despues de que murio el mexica Tenoch o Cuatliquezqui, a Chapultepec llego el guerrero nonoalca Timal. Para entonces Chapultepec seguía siendo la sede del primer y único señorío unicamente mexica.El nonoalca Timal se lanzó a conquistar y lo hizo primero en Cuauhnahuac, luego conquisto Chalco y Timal era invencible pues lo protegía su dios con una muralla protectora de lluvia y viento. Finalmente su dios decidió abandonar a Timal y al querer conquistar Cholula es derrotado y es sacrificado p62 El nombre de este brillante guerrero significa pus, podrido, podredumbre. Pero timalti se traduce por Sahagun tambien como glorioso en una de las adivinanzas del libro sexto que consigna en el libro sexto. Algunos traductores modernos usan Timal como glorioso Sin embargo el significado que le da a glorioso en el texto no es de honra es peyorativo, el glorioso entre los niños es el aniñado, el adulto que sigue realizando actos propios de la conducta y edad de niño . Otro personaje que estaba podrido en vida tiene un destino aún mas glorioso en otro de los mitos fundamentales de la religión de los mexicas: En las distintas versiones del mito de creación del Quinto Sol que han llegado hasta nosostros - Códice Florentino, Leyenda de los Soles, Historia de Mexique- el personaje que se sacrifica arrojandose a la hoguera divina y dando la materia para que se creé el sol es Nanahuatl un buboso, un ser lleno de tumores llenos de pus. Lo que nos hace preguntar ¿cual era el orígen de esas bubas de Nanahuatl pues desconocemos de la existencia de peste bubónica en estas tierras?. Bubas es un tumor blando, comúnmente doloroso y con pus, que se presenta de ordinario en la región inguinal como consecuencia del mal venéreo, y también a veces en las axilas y en el cuello. Por ello Nanahuatl perece ser un sifilítico, un enfermo de sífilis. El sol que nos rige fue creado en el cuerpo de un enfermo al parecer de una enfermedad de trasmisión sexual, en el cuerpo de un sifilítico. Hecho que ya arroja luces para descartar que los colhuas mexicas, y aún mas los otomianos , consideraban pecado, tenían el concepto de pecado de la lujuria , identificando con ello el placer sexual. Lo escatológico como forma de relacionarse con la divinidad y de representarla, tiene otra veta en el uso de insectos como los gusanos a quienes desde nuestra concepción occidental los consideramos poca cosa, seres repulsivos, despreciables, insectos que por su tamaño y forma son usados como ofensa denigratoria . Pero los gusanos tienen otro rol en la religión mexica: El izcahuile colorado un gusano lagunero "era su propio cuerpo de Huitzilopochtli , que era su sangre, su ser entero de su cuerpo" Crónica Mexicana p 59 El gusano de las raíces o de las pencas del maguey el Xonecuilli hoy corruptamente llamado hoy Chinicuil dan el nombre a uno de los objetos divisas de un numeróso grupo de dioses: Quetzatcoatl y los llamados , certera o euievocadamente, dioses pulqueros ( vease el códice Magliabechi en Famsi , ese mismo gusano es también la árma divisa del dios Mixcoatl. Según Tezozomoc y Seler lo acepta y lo retoma, el Xonecuilli "es la encomienda de Santiago" 365, forma europea de llamar a la Vía Lactea sin reparar el sabio prusiano quizas por desconocimiento, que el Xonecuilli es la forma correcta de llamar al gusano, de maguey, el cual en se vendia en las pulquerias y mercados de la ciudad de México en la época porfiriana, a principios del siglo XX cuando Seler visitó la ciudad de México. Llegamos ahora una de las diosas principales del panteón de los mesoamericanos prehispánicos: la diosa Tlazolteotl,las Tlazolteteo porque eran varias, llamada tambien Ixcuina, las Ixcuiname en plural, diosa (s) fundamental(es) entre los llamados Huaxtecas, entre grupos como los nahoas aztlanecas, segun Tezozomoc Tlazolteotl junto con Mictlantecutli y Huitzilopochtli era los dioses que mas hablaban con los emigrantes de Aztlan. Tlazolteotl es la diosa quiza mas representada en los códices Fejervary, Laud, Borgia, Cospi Vaticano. Las ixcuinames son la que iniciaron el sacrificio del flechamiento en Tula, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, era a honra de Ixcuina que era desollado el primer prisionero capturado por los guerreros Tlaxcaltecas, Historia de Tlaxcala. A Tlazolteotl se le nombra diosa de la carnalidad, de la sexualidad, de la lujuria pero tambien se le nombra diosa de las inmundicias, y se le llama Tlaelcuani diosa devoradora de cosas sucias o devoradora del excremento. Muchos investigadores modernos de la religión mexica interpretan como excremento , la mancha que las imagenes pictoricas de Tlazolteotl tienen en los códices, en vez de interpretarla simplemente como hule o como pintura y hacen también sinónimos simbólicos al excremento con los pecados en el terreno sexual , adoptando con ello una visión del siglo XVI. Pero cabe preguntarse si la sexualidad , el placer sexual, era considerados como inmundicia, como excremento por los indios, si la diosa Tlazolteotl que tutelaba el placer sexual, es otro caso de esa mirada distinta de los indios prehispánicos sobre lo que los occidentales consideramos escatológico o estamos aquí en otro terreno frente a un visión impuesta por el cristianismo medieval de los conquistadores españoles y los frailes a su servicio. En la concepción del cristianismo medieval que culturalmente portaban los conquistadores españoles la sexualidad, el placer sexual, es considerado el pecado de la lujuria y la lujuria es equiparada a la cloaca, la lujuria es tierra de la mierda (cuitlapa), la lujuria es suciedad , ensucia como la mierda dice Fray Andres de Olmos en su Texto nahuatl del Tratado de los siete pecados capitales. p 107 BUscando explicar a los indfos que es el pecado de la lujuria. En la sexualidad o carnalidad , la única activida que aceptan los frailes es la relación sexual con fines de reproducción, para hacer hijos , y aún esta hecha pocas veces y sin placer actitudes a la que llaman virtudes de la templanza y la continencia . La investigadora Patrice Giasson en su artículo publicado en la revista Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl Nº 32 propone, creó con razón, que la idea de Tlazolteotl como deidad del pecado, entendiendo como tal, el placer sexual y la sexualidad es una idea surgida en el siglo XVI, idea producida por los frailes cristianos antes que una concepción de los mesoamericanos y señala como esta interpretación ha orientado y teñido las interporetaciones modernas. A ello añadó una duda necesaria: Cual es realmente la raíz del nombre de la diosa: Tlazolli (basura desperdicio) lo que da Tlazolteotl diosa de la inmundicia o era Tlazo (precioso costoso) lo que da Tlazoteotl la diosa preciosa. La similitud fonética de ambos términos parece incluso un juego de palabras, una similitud fonética detectada por los frailes y usada por ellos para sus fines de adoctrrinamiento religioso Tenemos en nahuatl otras palabras para nombra la suciedad ademas de Tlazolli: suciedad, basura, desperdicio, inmundicia sucio: catzactic, tzoyoc, catzactic. Suciedad : catzactiliztli, zotl, catzahualiztli Uno de los ejemplos de esa influencia medieval en las interpretaciones modernas esta en José Alcina Franch quién en su artículo “Procreación amor y sexo entre los mexica “ estudios de Cultura Nahuatl Nº 21, hace afirmaciones como que “la moral sexual en la sociedad azteca era relativamente parecida o comparable a la española de la época del contacto.” termino vergonzante para no decir la conquista española y la destrucción del mundo prehispánico. Continua Alcina “ Hay muchos datos que corroboran esta opinión; sólo mencionaré uno que me parece de extraordinaria importancia : la existencia del concepto de pecado y su aplicación casi exclusiva al pecado sexual o carnal, lo que aproxima al pueblo tenochca al castellano, extremeño o andaluz que llegaba a su encuentro en aquel momento” ecn nº21 p60 Añade Alcina “todo lo que no estuviese dirigido a la procreación era considerado como lujurioso y , por lo tanto pecaminoso” p60 Alcina nos recuerda que según el sabio porfiriano Cecilio Róbelo “el nombre de Tlazolteotl deriva de Tla= cosa ; y Zolli viejo, usado y gastado (literalmente: “cosa vieja” y “y en sentido figurado: “basura, suciedad, inmundicia “) ,Teotl diosa y Alcina ortodoxo con la interpretación dominante concluye la traducción: Tlazolteotl = “Diosa de la basura, de la inmundicia” Aceptar que lo usado y gastado sea sinónimo de basura es una estulticia pero hasta la fecha hay quien lo acepta y de tamaña estulticia sobre ella se construyen interpretaciones de la religión prehispánica. La diosa ya usada es la diosa que ya no es virgen la diosa que ya fue cogida, la diosa cuya vagina fue usada por un varon para una copula, que fue usada como sujeto pasivo , no que usó ella, la diosa, como sujeto activo, pues el uso de los organos genitales y éroticos femeninos, es atributo masculino desde la visión machista, de la cual esta impregnada la religión prehispánica, . Si todo lo usado fuera considerado basura imaginemos la carga material y moral que esta concepción impondría sobre los indios en un sociedad donde la religión llenaba todos los poros de la vida social. Bajo esta concepción que equipara lo usado con basura , el imperio colhua mexica pasaría a ser el mejor ejemplo histórico del consumismo extremo dejando muy atrás al decadente imperio norteamericano. Los pobres indios habrían muerto extenuados al no tener momento de reposo ante la necesidad de construir todo el tiempo nuevos templos para que sus dioses no vivieran en los templos ya usados , esto es, entre la basura y el excremento. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cuecuex at gmail.com Sun May 24 03:50:22 2009 From: cuecuex at gmail.com (roberto romero) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 22:50:22 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 3 Message-ID: Estimados David Wright Y Antony Appleyard No deja de ser intrigante el hecho que consigna Wright acerca de que "no haya no he visto el nombre otomí de Cuitlahuac en ninguna fuente novohispana en esta lengua" Este hecho es explicable en el caso del nombre del X Tlatoani Mexica, antiguo señor de iztapalapa, pues la relación de los señores mexicas en las fuentes otomis que menciona, todas coloniales se interrumpe con Moctezuma el menor, el mismo que recibio pacificamente a los conquistadores españoles para a los tres dias ser secuestrado por estos. La que si es raro que no haya el término Cuitlahuac equivalente en otomi para nombrar al pueblo de Cuitlahuac y a los Cuitlahuacas , pueblos que dieron origen a las localidades que ahora llamamos Tlahuac y Mizquic, pueblos cuya presencia en el la región del valle de México se presume mas antigua que la de los mexicas. Sabiendo que ambos pueblos eran considerados parte de los llamados chalmecas, cabe preguntarse como los otomis nombraba a los Chalmecas o a los habitantes de Chalma A los Chalmecas deben haber conocido los otomis mas aún cuando dicho nombre de Chalmeca era el mismo que tenían los sacerdotes auxiliares en el sacrificio, cuyo doloroso filo hicieron probar los mexicas a los otomis después de derrotarlos. Distinguiendose los pueblos Chalmecas , los cuitlahuacas, por su especialidad en el cultivo chinampero cabe preguntarse ¿como los otomis llamaban a las chinampas? Sabemos de cultivo chinampero que se realizaba en territorio de los Tepanecas y en tierras del valle de Toluca. Si bien la realizaban los amos de los otomis en la época prehispánica esta fue practicada por los otomis en los primeros años de la colonia por lo menos en el Valle de Toluca. ¿ como llamaban los otomis al abono que se usaba para dicho cultivo chinampero? Abono entre el cual estaba el estiercol o excremento animal y humano. Por otro lado los terminos "calcos" de plata, oro y plomo que Wright señala existen entre el otomi y el nahuatl , en ambos casos con el significado de excremento divino y la antigüedad del termino otomi , que tambien considero es mayor, nos permite descartar la hipotesis que sugiere Appleyard acerca de que el uso de la raiz Cuitlatl como termino para nombrar al excremento es un significado "mas moderno" que proviene del argot o es un eufemismo. Señala Wright que "Entre los dioses del panteon otomi tambien estaba la diosa " Nopot’ejä, “la deidad del excremento”, probablemente el nombre otomí de Tlazolteotl, “la diosa de la basura”. La palabra pot’ei, “excremento”, se encuentra en Urbano, 1990: 239r (“Hezes generalmente”). Jä, equivalente de la voz náhuatl teotl, significa “deidad” según la misma fuente" Era Tlazolteotl diosa de la basura, deidad del excremento cmo nos dijeron los frailes cronistas y nos repiten la mayoria de los investigadores contemporaneos? En el español el dicionario de la real academia señala los siguientes significados para excremento: 1. m. Residuos del alimento que, después de hecha la digestión, despide el cuerpo por el ano. 2. m. Residuo metabólico del organismo. 3. m. Residuo que se produce en las plantas por putrefacción. Siendo el primero de los significados el mas usado por los que tenemos la cultura española el que equipara excremento a mierda y excretar a cagar , a defecar, Pero excremento ,excretar Y excreción tiene otros significados sinónimos uno de ellos es evacuación , evacuar, secrecion y secretar . Si nos atenemos a las imagenes de Tlazolteolt que vemos en los códices la diosa excreta, la diosa evacua: 1) .- un humano que serian formas sinonimas de decir pare. Así aparece con la pìel de un desollado en la lámina del Borbónico http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/borbonicus/img_page11.html 2.- una flor asi aparece en el códice vaticanus http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/vaticanus3773/img_page74.html En Biología, se llama secreción (del latín secretio) al proceso por el que un ser vivo vierte al exterior sustancias de cualquier clase. También se llama secreción a la sustancia liberada. El acto de verter una secreción se llama secretar. Excreción (es) y Secreciones indistintantamente podemos llamar al moco , a las lagrimas, al sudor , a la saliva, al semen , al flujo vaginal, etc Si nos atenemos a la tutela sobre la carnalidad, el placer sexual y la sexualidad actividades todas en las que fisiologicamente los humanos sanos fisica y mentalmente , mujeres y hombres, secretamos y excretamos diversos fluidos En ese sentido la diosa Tlazolteotl como diosa de la sexualidad es un diosa de las excreciones y las secreciones , de los excrementos metabólicos. La reducción de excreción a mierda , y de placer sexual o sexualidad a mierda es un concepto cristiano y fue importado por los frailes y conquistadores espñoles y adjudicado a la diosa Tlazolteotl entendida por los frailes como diosa de la lujuria, y como en en la concepción cristiana lujuria = mierda , es la diosa de la mierda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Mon May 25 15:45:46 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:45:46 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Estimado Roberto: Es muy interesante todo lo que dices sobre este campo semántico tan vital y tan cercano para todos los seres humanos y otras especies animales. Se ve que el tema da para una obra amplia, tal vez un libro o una tesis, que sería una contribución importante a los estudios mesoamericanistas. Traté de encontrar las respuestas a las preguntas que planteas sobre las palabras en otomí para ciertos topónimos y otros conceptos; una revisión somera de las fuentes que tengo a la mano dio un resultado negativo. Es altamente probable que haya existido alguna vez un topónimo otomí para Cuitlahuac, que con la adición del prefijo gentilicio më- se pudo haber convertido en gentilicio. En Mesoamérica era raro que se usaran préstamos morfémicos o fonéticos en los topónimos; lo usual eran los calcos, como mencioné en mi último mensaje. Lo que sucede es que hay relativamente pocos documentos en esta lengua, en comparación con el enorme corpus de manuscritos e impresos novohispanos en náhuatl (aunque esta supuesta carencia ha sido exagerada; cuando sale el nuevo suplemento al Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources del Handbook of Middle American Indians, se va a ver que hay más material en otomí de lo que generalmente se pensaba). Otra línea de investigación es ver qué grupos otomíes tienen contacto hoy con los lugares cuyos nombres otomíes queremos averiguar, y preguntarles cómo llaman a ese lugar. En algunos casos sobreviven todavía los antiguos topónimos. Los vocabularios modernos, de los cuales hay varios publicados, a veces tienen información de este tipo. Saludos, David De: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org] En nombre de roberto romero Enviado el: sábado, 23 de mayo de 2009 10:50 p.m. Para: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 3 Estimados David Wright Y Antony Appleyard No deja de ser intrigante el hecho que consigna Wright acerca de que "no haya no he visto el nombre otomí de Cuitlahuac en ninguna fuente novohispana en esta lengua" Este hecho es explicable en el caso del nombre del X Tlatoani Mexica, antiguo señor de iztapalapa, pues la relación de los señores mexicas en las fuentes otomis que menciona, todas coloniales se interrumpe con Moctezuma el menor, el mismo que recibio pacificamente a los conquistadores españoles para a los tres dias ser secuestrado por estos. La que si es raro que no haya el término Cuitlahuac equivalente en otomi para nombrar al pueblo de Cuitlahuac y a los Cuitlahuacas , pueblos que dieron origen a las localidades que ahora llamamos Tlahuac y Mizquic, pueblos cuya presencia en el la región del valle de México se presume mas antigua que la de los mexicas. Sabiendo que ambos pueblos eran considerados parte de los llamados chalmecas, cabe preguntarse como los otomis nombraba a los Chalmecas o a los habitantes de Chalma A los Chalmecas deben haber conocido los otomis mas aún cuando dicho nombre de Chalmeca era el mismo que tenían los sacerdotes auxiliares en el sacrificio, cuyo doloroso filo hicieron probar los mexicas a los otomis después de derrotarlos. Distinguiendose los pueblos Chalmecas , los cuitlahuacas, por su especialidad en el cultivo chinampero cabe preguntarse ¿como los otomis llamaban a las chinampas? Sabemos de cultivo chinampero que se realizaba en territorio de los Tepanecas y en tierras del valle de Toluca. Si bien la realizaban los amos de los otomis en la época prehispánica esta fue practicada por los otomis en los primeros años de la colonia por lo menos en el Valle de Toluca. ¿ como llamaban los otomis al abono que se usaba para dicho cultivo chinampero? Abono entre el cual estaba el estiercol o excremento animal y humano. Por otro lado los terminos "calcos" de plata, oro y plomo que Wright señala existen entre el otomi y el nahuatl , en ambos casos con el significado de excremento divino y la antigüedad del termino otomi , que tambien considero es mayor, nos permite descartar la hipotesis que sugiere Appleyard acerca de que el uso de la raiz Cuitlatl como termino para nombrar al excremento es un significado "mas moderno" que proviene del argot o es un eufemismo. Señala Wright que "Entre los dioses del panteon otomi tambien estaba la diosa " Nopot’ejä, “la deidad del excremento”, probablemente el nombre otomí de Tlazolteotl, “la diosa de la basura”. La palabra pot’ei, “excremento”, se encuentra en Urbano, 1990: 239r (“Hezes generalmente”). Jä, equivalente de la voz náhuatl teotl, significa “deidad” según la misma fuente" Era Tlazolteotl diosa de la basura, deidad del excremento cmo nos dijeron los frailes cronistas y nos repiten la mayoria de los investigadores contemporaneos? En el español el dicionario de la real academia señala los siguientes significados para excremento: 1. m. Residuos del alimento que, después de hecha la digestión, despide el cuerpo por el ano. 2. m. Residuo metabólico del organismo. 3. m. Residuo que se produce en las plantas por putrefacción. Siendo el primero de los significados el mas usado por los que tenemos la cultura española el que equipara excremento a mierda y excretar a cagar , a defecar, Pero excremento ,excretar Y excreción tiene otros significados sinónimos uno de ellos es evacuación , evacuar, secrecion y secretar . Si nos atenemos a las imagenes de Tlazolteolt que vemos en los códices la diosa excreta, la diosa evacua: 1) .- un humano que serian formas sinonimas de decir pare. Así aparece con la pìel de un desollado en la lámina del Borbónico http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/borbonicus/img_page11.html 2.- una flor asi aparece en el códice vaticanus http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/vaticanus3773/img_page74.html En Biología, se llama secreción (del latín secretio) al proceso por el que un ser vivo vierte al exterior sustancias de cualquier clase. También se llama secreción a la sustancia liberada. El acto de verter una secreción se llama secretar. Excreción (es) y Secreciones indistintantamente podemos llamar al moco , a las lagrimas, al sudor , a la saliva, al semen , al flujo vaginal, etc Si nos atenemos a la tutela sobre la carnalidad, el placer sexual y la sexualidad actividades todas en las que fisiologicamente los humanos sanos fisica y mentalmente , mujeres y hombres, secretamos y excretamos diversos fluidos En ese sentido la diosa Tlazolteotl como diosa de la sexualidad es un diosa de las excreciones y las secreciones , de los excrementos metabólicos. La reducción de excreción a mierda , y de placer sexual o sexualidad a mierda es un concepto cristiano y fue importado por los frailes y conquistadores espñoles y adjudicado a la diosa Tlazolteotl entendida por los frailes como diosa de la lujuria, y como en en la concepción cristiana lujuria = mierda , es la diosa de la mierda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Sun May 3 04:10:44 2009 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 00:10:44 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity Message-ID: "I think I've found an ambiguous word in Nahuatl!" When I say that, I'm assuming that some people will react in the same way that my syntax professor did in my early years in graduate school when I arrived in class and proudly announced, "I think I've found an ambiguous sentence in English." Ignoring the fact that this was just my way of introducing what I thought was an interesting sentence, he barely looked up and said, "I think if you stop to think about it, *most* sentences in English are ambiguous." So I assume that most of you know that ambiguity is common in Nahuatl. My aim is simply to bring a particular class of Nahuatl words to your attention. By "ambiguity", I mean what linguists mean, not the meaning that is probably the first one referred to in everyday conversation, which is "not clear, uncertain in meaning". The use in linguistics refers to a word, phrase, or sentence which has more than one syntactic structure, such as "I hate visiting relatives": 1. I hate the activity of visiting (particularly relatives); 2. I hate relatives, the kind who visit. Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl has many examples of ambiguity, one of which involves the structure of compound nouns with at least three components. Nouns with two components like "petlacalli" and "teocuitlatl" obviously can have only one structure, but nouns like "tepozpetlacalli" (iron or copper box or chest) and "teocuitlacozcatl" (gold ornament) have more than one possible structure. I will indicate close relationship with a single hyphen and secondary relationship with a double hyphen. These words are not compounded as follows: tepoz-petla-calli metal chest teo-cuitla-cozcatl gold ornament where no two adjacent stems are more closely to each other than to the third stem. Neither are they compounded in this way: tepoz-petla--calli (hinting at an intermediate component "tepozpetlatl") teo--cuitla-cozcatl (hinting at an intermediate component "cuitlacozcatl") That is, we recognize that we are dealing with a "petlacalli" made of "tepoztli" and a "cozcatl" made of "teocuitlatl", respectively, but there is nothing in the structure of the words that informs us of this. The word "chilmolcaxitl" presents us with true ambiguity: chil-mol-caxitl is both: chilmol-caxitl bowl for chile sauce and chil-molcaxitl sauce bowl for chile But I digress. The ambiguity that I want to address is that of: nitetlacualtia (reasonably glossed as 'I feed somebody') The traditional description involves the causative formation: nitetla cua-l-tia I *cause* someone to eat something However, "nitetlacualtia" has another possible analysis, parallel to "nitecactia" (I provide someone with shoes): subj obj noun stem have causative-a ni te cac ti a ni te tlacual(li) ti a It should be remembered that ambiguity is something inherent in some linguistic structures; it is *there* regardless of whether a speaker or hearer perceives it or not. In other words, when a hearer "gets" or understands one meaning of "I hate visiting relatives", the other meaning is available for interpretation (and is sometimes taken advantage of in jocular exchanges). To be explicit about the class of ambiguous words that I am pointing to, they comprise verbs that can be interpreted as 1) a verb stem with a causative suffix or as 2) a verb stem which forms a patientive noun, which noun is suffixed with "-ti" (have) + causative-a = "-ti-a" (provide with). Here is a short list of examples: In this first group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is obvious from the 'l' before '-ti-a'. nin-aahuil-ti-a I provide myself with "ahuilli", I enjoy myself (ahuiya) qui-huical-ti-a she provides him with a companion or a load; (huica) she sends it with him nicno-mamal-ti-a I provide myself with it as a load; (mama) I carry it quin-tlacual-ti-a he provides them with food, he feeds them (cua) ninote-tlaquehual-ti-a I provide myself to someone as a laborer, (tlactli-ehua) I hire myself out In this second group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is implicit before '-ti-a' (i.e., "tlanamictli, quentli, nemactli, cuicatl, etc., are nouns). nite-tlalnamic-ti-a I provide someone with a remembered thing, (il-namiqui) I remind someone of something c-ama-quen-ti-a he provides it with a paper covering, (quemi) he wraps it with paper c-on-nemac-ti-a he provides him with a given thing (gift), (mo-maca) he give it to him as a gift ni-te-tlatqui-ti-a I provide someone with a possession, (tla-itqui) I give away or send something to someone So, while the the causative in -tia following -l- or other nonactive forms and the noun-ti-a formation appear very similar because both derive from nonactive verb forms, they differ in that the latter is formed with a verb suffix 'ti' followed by a causative 'a' and is attached to a stem with nominal rather than verbal force. Iztayomeh, Joe _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Sun May 3 17:18:06 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 12:18:06 -0500 Subject: Ambiguity In-Reply-To: <20090503001044.iztmpa2uck04wk04@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Joe. There's nothing like an impeccably crafted explanation of an interesting phenomenon in Nahuatl grammar to jump start my brain on a Sunday morning. This one has been printed out and will soon be glued to 8 x 5" index cards and filed in a boot box with the rest of the more useful posts I've seen on Nahuat-l since subscribing nine years ago. -----Mensaje original----- De: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org] En nombre de Campbell, R. Joe Enviado el: s?bado, 02 de mayo de 2009 11:11 p.m. Para: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Ambiguity [...] _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Mon May 4 12:15:44 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:15:44 -0400 Subject: On-line resources Message-ID: There is a new source for some basic on-line materials for the study of Nahuatl. It is the UNESCO digital library. Included there are complete copies of the Arenas Vocabulario from 1611, the Huei Tlamahuizoltica (description of the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe), a Testerian Catechism, the Huexotzinco Codex and the Codex Totomixtlahuaca. The link for the page containing these is the following: *http://tinyurl.com/d8vdex* This tinyurl is for the selection: Latin America and the Caribbean, then Mexico, then the time period 1500-1699AD -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Mon May 4 21:33:55 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:33:55 -0500 Subject: question re: Spanish/Nahuatl interaction Message-ID: All, a question ... I am in the midst of a research project on so-called "Spanglish," especially as spoken here in Texas and the rest of the Southwest and California ... and, to some extent along both sides of the Frontera. What a lot of authors are writing about are the lexical borrowings and hispanicized English words or Spanish borrowrings, and they are not addressing the code-switching aspect where entire phrases are mixed together, usually around coordinating conjunctions, subordinations, etc. I am certainly aware of the Nahuatl words borrowed into Spanish, but I am unaware/ignorant of any examples of a "third leg" to the Mexican linguistic stool, as one might say we have here in the States: Spanish - Spanglish - English. Was there ever/is there a Nahuatl - Nahuatlish - Spanish analogy? Or did the two languages keep largely separate and mostly just share words? Spanglish has quite a life of its own ... I am wanting to know whether there is any internal Mexican analogy. For that matter, with any of the Mayan or other indigenous languages. Thanks, and warmest regards, Sharon Peters -- S?n Fronteras Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Tue May 5 14:43:33 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: question re: Spanish/Nahuatl interaction In-Reply-To: <27d5ea140905041433p3de8facai4cbf733854039eab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I guess I'm pretty dense, but I'm not sure that I understand the question. You you mean is there a hybrid language in which both Nahuatl and Spanish appear in equal measure, using some hybrid form of Spanish - Nahuatl morphology, grammar, sentence structure, etc.? Sharon Peters wrote: > All, a question ... > > I am in the midst of a research project on so-called "Spanglish," > especially as spoken here in Texas and the rest of the Southwest and > California ... and, to some extent along both sides of the Frontera. > > What a lot of authors are writing about are the lexical borrowings and > hispanicized English words or Spanish borrowrings, and they are not > addressing the code-switching aspect where entire phrases are mixed > together, usually around coordinating conjunctions, subordinations, etc. > > I am certainly aware of the Nahuatl words borrowed into Spanish, but I > am unaware/ignorant of any examples of a "third leg" to the Mexican > linguistic stool, as one might say we have here in the States: > Spanish - Spanglish - English. Was there ever/is there a Nahuatl - > Nahuatlish - Spanish analogy? Or did the two languages keep largely > separate and mostly just share words? -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From theabroma at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:55:06 2009 From: theabroma at gmail.com (Sharon Peters) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:55:06 -0500 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" Message-ID: John, Yes. My apologies if I posed the request for info in a way that was confusing. Though I have never heard - or heard of - such a "language," I thought perhaps the members of this list might be able to give me a quick direction in which I might look for an answer. Question: is there/was there ever a Nahuatl-Spanish "language" analogous to what is now called "Spanglish"? Involving code-switching of phrases primarily, and using the appropriate grammar for either Spanish or Nahuatl, where applicable. There would also be word borrowings, which would be colored morphologically or phonologically by the language into which they were borrowed ... but I am not solely referring to this latter phenomenon. Thanks. Sharon Peters -- S?n Fronteras Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From lovegren at buffalo.edu Tue May 5 16:25:21 2009 From: lovegren at buffalo.edu (Jesse Lovegren) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:25:21 -0400 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <27d5ea140905050755m2f4e44b8o54fa75eec240147f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sharon If you haven't already done this, you might be interested in reading in Pidgin & Creole linguistics and in language contact. English and French-based creoles sprung up frequently through colonial-era contact, but Spanish-based creoles are rare. In the case of Spanish, the situation is more like a koin?, where proficient bilinguals are the ones initially introducing changes, and the new variety is formed gradually. As for Nahuatl/Spanish, I am not familiar with literature on present-day contact between these two, but you will find a discussion of how Nahuatl changed under influence from Spanish in Lockhart's "The Nahuas after Conquest" Best, On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Sharon Peters wrote: > John, > > Yes. My apologies if I posed the request for info in a way that was > confusing. > > Though I have never heard - or heard of - such a "language," I thought > perhaps the members of this list might be able to give me a quick direction > in which I might look for an answer. > > Question: is there/was there ever a Nahuatl-Spanish "language" analogous > to what is now called "Spanglish"? Involving code-switching of phrases > primarily, and using the appropriate grammar for either Spanish or Nahuatl, > where applicable. There would also be word borrowings, which would be > colored morphologically or phonologically by the language into which they > were borrowed ... but I am not solely referring to this latter phenomenon. > > Thanks. > > Sharon Peters > > -- > S?n Fronteras > > Aqu? estoy yo .... pero ya anda por M?xico mi coraz?n > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- Jesse Lovegren Department of Linguistics 645 Baldy Hall office +1 716 645 0136 cell +1 512 584 5468 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From schwallr at potsdam.edu Tue May 5 17:14:34 2009 From: schwallr at potsdam.edu (John F. Schwaller) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:14:34 -0400 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <4fb311a10905050925y1be6d78bh92453ccb72d8fd34@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If I remember correctly, and Joe Campbell can remind me, Spanish pidgins are generally known as "ladino." One of the most famous is the Ladino used by Sephardic Jews who fled the Iberian Peninsula following the 1492 expulsion. In various documents from the 17th and 18th centuries there are increasing intrusions of Spanish words into Nahuatl. Examples can be found in my guide to Nahuatl manuscripts in US repositories. Lockhart does trace the three periods of language deformation, based on work he and Frances Karttunen did. But as to the creation of a real amalgam of Spanish and Nahuatl, I'm not aware of any. Jesse Lovegren wrote: > Hi Sharon > > If you haven't already done this, you might be interested in reading > in Pidgin & Creole linguistics and in language contact. English and > French-based creoles sprung up frequently through colonial-era > contact, but Spanish-based creoles are rare. In the case of Spanish, > the situation is more like a koin?, where proficient bilinguals are > the ones initially introducing changes, and the new variety is formed > gradually. As for Nahuatl/Spanish, I am not familiar with literature > on present-day contact between these two, but you will find a > discussion of how Nahuatl changed under influence from Spanish in > Lockhart's "The Nahuas after Conquest" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > -- ***************************** John F. Schwaller President SUNY - Potsdam 44 Pierrepont Ave. Potsdam, NY 13676 Tel. 315-267-2100 FAX 315-267-2496 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From k_salmon at ipinc.net Tue May 5 17:24:55 2009 From: k_salmon at ipinc.net (Kier Salmon) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:24:55 -0700 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <4A0073FA.40704@potsdam.edu> Message-ID: No, but I was surprised to find how many intrusions of Nahuatl into Spanish existed... and I grew up in Mexico fully english/spanish bilingual. It wasn't until I studied Nahuatl with John Sullivan last summer that I found out just how many of them there were. It was quite an education for somebody who thought she was very conversant with spanish/castillian. But then, those of us who went through the public school system in Mexico have a number of ... *interesting*... conceptions about Mexico and her history and amalgamation. On May 5, 2009, at 10:14 AM, John F. Schwaller wrote: > If I remember correctly, and Joe Campbell can remind me, Spanish > pidgins are generally known as "ladino." One of the most famous is > the Ladino used by Sephardic Jews who fled the Iberian Peninsula > following the 1492 expulsion. > > In various documents from the 17th and 18th centuries there are > increasing intrusions of Spanish words into Nahuatl. Examples can > be found in my guide to Nahuatl manuscripts in US repositories. > Lockhart does trace the three periods of language deformation, based > on work he and Frances Karttunen did. But as to the creation of a > real amalgam of Spanish and Nahuatl, I'm not aware of any. > > > > Jesse Lovegren wrote: >> >> Hi Sharon >> >> If you haven't already done this, you might be interested in >> reading in Pidgin & Creole linguistics and in language contact. >> English and French-based creoles sprung up frequently through >> colonial-era contact, but Spanish-based creoles are rare. In the >> case of Spanish, the situation is more like a koin?, where >> proficient bilinguals are the ones initially introducing changes, >> and the new variety is formed gradually. As for Nahuatl/Spanish, I >> am not familiar with literature on present-day contact between >> these two, but you will find a discussion of how Nahuatl changed >> under influence from Spanish in Lockhart's "The Nahuas after >> Conquest" >> > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > > > -- > ***************************** > John F. Schwaller > President > SUNY - Potsdam > 44 Pierrepont Ave. > Potsdam, NY 13676 > Tel. 315-267-2100 > FAX 315-267-2496 > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From igr at stanford.edu Tue May 5 17:38:29 2009 From: igr at stanford.edu (Ian Robertson) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:38:29 -0700 Subject: question on Spanish/Nahuatl "language" In-Reply-To: <22697C9C-E541-444B-B06B-EEFF6781DB7D@ipinc.net> Message-ID: Hello all, An important study on recent linguistic practices involving Nahuatl and Spanish is the following: Hill, Jane H. and Kenneth C. Hill 1986 Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. For earlier periods, I would recommend: Karttunen, Frances and James Lockhart 1976 Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. University of California Publications in Linguistics 85. University of California Press, Berkeley. Best, Ian Robertson _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From karttu at comcast.net Tue May 5 19:12:09 2009 From: karttu at comcast.net (Frances Karttunen) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:12:09 -0400 Subject: "Patrn Nahuatl" Message-ID: I can't come up with the reference right at the moment, but I have read someone's published speculations about an inter-lingua with a narrow Nahuatl lexicon but without the morphological machinery of Nahuatl--used by overseers and Nahuatl-speaking workers on the sugar plantations of the Morelos Valley in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. The overseers thought that it was Nahuatl, while the native speakers took care that the overseers didn't have the opportunity to learn fully inflected Nahuatl. The place to look would be in reference books about pidgins/jargons (such as Chinook Jargon, Anglo-Romany, etc.). Or else among the Roberto Barlow papers. I will search around and see if I can offer a real reference. Fran Karttunen _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Fri May 8 02:36:53 2009 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:36:53 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity In-Reply-To: <20090503001044.iztmpa2uck04wk04@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Joe, I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In other words, is it possible that even the form that has been identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an attested patientive form? Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one morphology instead of two? Galen Campbell, R. Joe wrote: > "I think I've found an ambiguous word in Nahuatl!" > > When I say that, I'm assuming that some people will react in > the same way that my syntax professor did in my early years in > graduate school when I arrived in class and proudly announced, > "I think I've found an ambiguous sentence in English." Ignoring > the fact that this was just my way of introducing what I thought > was an interesting sentence, he barely looked up and said, "I > think if you stop to think about it, *most* sentences in English are > ambiguous." > > So I assume that most of you know that ambiguity is common in > Nahuatl. My aim is simply to bring a particular class of Nahuatl > words to your attention. > > By "ambiguity", I mean what linguists mean, not the meaning > that is probably the first one referred to in everyday > conversation, which is "not clear, uncertain in meaning". > The use in linguistics refers to a word, phrase, or sentence which > has more than one syntactic structure, such as "I hate visiting relatives": > > 1. I hate the activity of visiting (particularly relatives); > > 2. I hate relatives, the kind who visit. > > Andrews' Introduction to Classical Nahuatl has many examples of > ambiguity, one of which involves the structure of compound nouns > with at least three components. Nouns with two components like > "petlacalli" and "teocuitlatl" obviously can have only one structure, > but nouns like "tepozpetlacalli" (iron or copper box or chest) and > "teocuitlacozcatl" (gold ornament) have more than one possible > structure. I will indicate close relationship with a single > hyphen and secondary relationship with a double hyphen. > > These words are not compounded as follows: > > tepoz-petla-calli metal chest > > teo-cuitla-cozcatl gold ornament > > where no two adjacent stems are more closely to each other than to > the third stem. > > Neither are they compounded in this way: > > tepoz-petla--calli (hinting at an intermediate component "tepozpetlatl") > > teo--cuitla-cozcatl (hinting at an intermediate component "cuitlacozcatl") > > That is, we recognize that we are dealing with a "petlacalli" made > of "tepoztli" and a "cozcatl" made of "teocuitlatl", respectively, > but there is nothing in the structure of the words that informs us > of this. > > The word "chilmolcaxitl" presents us with true ambiguity: > > chil-mol-caxitl is both: > > chilmol-caxitl bowl for chile sauce > and > chil-molcaxitl sauce bowl for chile > > But I digress. The ambiguity that I want to address is that of: > > nitetlacualtia (reasonably glossed as 'I feed somebody') > > The traditional description involves the causative formation: > > nitetla cua-l-tia I *cause* someone to eat something > > However, "nitetlacualtia" has another possible analysis, parallel > to "nitecactia" (I provide someone with shoes): > > subj obj noun stem have causative-a > > ni te cac ti a > > ni te tlacual(li) ti a > > > It should be remembered that ambiguity is something inherent in > some linguistic structures; it is *there* regardless of whether a > speaker or hearer perceives it or not. In other words, when a > hearer "gets" or understands one meaning of "I hate visiting > relatives", the other meaning is available for interpretation (and > is sometimes taken advantage of in jocular exchanges). > > To be explicit about the class of ambiguous words that I am > pointing to, they comprise verbs that can be interpreted > as 1) a verb stem with a causative suffix or as 2) a verb stem > which forms a patientive noun, which noun is suffixed with > "-ti" (have) + causative-a = "-ti-a" (provide with). Here is a > short list of examples: > > In this first group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is obvious > from the 'l' before '-ti-a'. > > nin-aahuil-ti-a I provide myself with "ahuilli", I enjoy myself > (ahuiya) > qui-huical-ti-a she provides him with a companion or a load; > (huica) she sends it with him > > nicno-mamal-ti-a I provide myself with it as a load; > (mama) I carry it > > quin-tlacual-ti-a he provides them with food, he feeds them > (cua) > ninote-tlaquehual-ti-a I provide myself to someone as a laborer, > (tlactli-ehua) I hire myself out > > > In this second group, the "nounness" of the derived stem is implicit > before '-ti-a' (i.e., "tlanamictli, quentli, nemactli, cuicatl, > etc., are nouns). > > nite-tlalnamic-ti-a I provide someone with a remembered thing, > (il-namiqui) I remind someone of something > > c-ama-quen-ti-a he provides it with a paper covering, > (quemi) he wraps it with paper > > c-on-nemac-ti-a he provides him with a given thing (gift), > (mo-maca) he give it to him as a gift > > ni-te-tlatqui-ti-a I provide someone with a possession, > (tla-itqui) I give away or send something to someone > > > So, while the the causative in -tia following -l- or other > nonactive forms and the noun-ti-a formation appear very similar > because both derive from nonactive verb forms, they differ in that > the latter is formed with a verb suffix 'ti' followed by a > causative 'a' and is attached to a stem with nominal rather than > verbal force. > > Iztayomeh, > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Fri May 8 04:38:09 2009 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:38:09 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity Message-ID: Galen, I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****. I printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary. Quoting Galen Brokaw : > Joe, > I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate > morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe discussing the same thing. > Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In > other words, is it possible that even the form that has been > identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the > construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer > "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what Andrews says about it. He *does* say that the -tia causative is derived from a non-active verb. So, according to him, when you delete the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua non-active (ahxitia). So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and the other with -ti-a. But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb. > I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms > is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested > in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive > nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't > the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated > by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an > attested patientive form? **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it with concrete examples: "provide with" noun so-called causative quixtli / exit quixtia coch... / sleep cochitia caqu... / audible thing caquitia mauhtli / fright mauhtia cualantli / anger cualantli ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.)) > Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that > patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand > correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue > that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific > object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems > to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there > would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The > restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is > strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and > resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it > wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the > pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to > have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. **** I have difficulty in handling this. Could you give me a concrete example? > A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I > would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the > semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. > Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing > here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form > somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" > structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one > morphology instead of two? **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no ambiguity in one direction or the other. Here is my list so far: *+ambig.no *** cuacualtia , quintla-. she feeds them. . b.11 f.6 p.54| cualtia , quin-. they feed it to them; they make them eat it. . b.9 f.5 p.63| cualtia , quite-. he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat; they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. . b.11 f.6 p.54| cualtiaya , quin-. they fed it to them. . b.9 f.5 p.63| cualtih , oquimon-. they fed it to them. . b.9 f.5 p.63| tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's part?: 55m]. alquilar mis criados a otro. . 55m-00| tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1- ti-a case. but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".: 71m2]. alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. . 71m2-23| morpheme count 12 So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" -- these look unambiguously causative "-tia". Joe _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue May 12 16:11:06 2009 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:11:06 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity In-Reply-To: <20090508003809.cxk1ljx20cg8o0wo@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Joe, I have to admit that I may not be understanding all of your explanation, but let me ask a few follow-up questions. Although I've read Andrews explanation of this, I did not understand how he arrived at his conclusions. In fact, I think I started thinking about this issue in these terms after reading Andrews' description of causatives. I guess my question has to do with how to determine the nature of the morphology in this case. Or is that even possible? Maybe Andrews has an argument to support his assertions, but I don't remember him presenting it; and it was not immediately obvious from his description. With regard to the Andrews description, many of his examples could be interpreted differently. For example, with cualantia, he says that this is built on "cualano" rather than "cualantli." But it is unclear to me why this is necessarily the case. In pragamatic terms, I'm not sure it makes any difference. But I'm interested in whether or not there is some systemic reason for interpreting it this way. His example of "tlanextia" is also ambiguous. Molina gives "tlanextli" as light. This term raises its own questions for me with regard to why there is an object pronoun. But in any case, if we have a noun "tlanextli," I'm not sure why we have to posit the causative form "tlanextia" as being built on "nexohua." It seems to me that in the section dealing with this causative form (at least the section that I just reconsulted), all of Andrews' examples with the exception of one can be interpreted as being built on a noun rather than the non-active form. The exception would seem to be "choctia" and maybe there are other examples of similar words. This may be what led him to this explanation, because as far as I know "choctli" is not attested as a nominalized form of "to cry." But if the vast majority of these causatives can be interpreted as nominalized forms which are then verbalized using the "-ti-a" ending, then it seems to me that you could just as well say that words like "choctia" are the result of making a formal generalization that produces causative forms like "choctia" built on unattested nominalizations, in this case "choctli." Andrews does say that this type of generalization occurs with the non-active form itself, but he doesn't assume the same for noun forms in this context. With regard to the examples you list below, I assume that the three dots indicate examples of unattested noun forms which would be problematic. And I think I understand that part of the problem has to do with the causative forms in these cases do not have an 'l' as in the case of axhitia and cochitia. However, in the case of "caqui," we have attestations of both "caquitia" and "caquiltia." So even if there is something else going on with "caquitia," couldn't we posit an unattested noun "caquilli" used to construct the causative "caquiltia"? I don't think there are attestations of "chochiltia," so either something else is going on with "cochitia" as with "caquitia," or this form has a tendency to drop the 'l' in some causatives. Maybe that is a stretch? In reference to the examples you list, I'm not sure, but maybe this is where my confusing paragraph about object pronouns is relevant (or maybe not). I'm not sure why these cases are unambiguous unless it is because they have specific object prefixes where patientive nouns would have non-specific ones? Or maybe in the first case, which does have a non-specific object, because there is a reduplication? I guess what I was trying to say is that when a patientive noun becomes verbalized again, it seems to me that there is no reason why the non-specific object pronoun of the patientive form would need to remain non-specific. In other words, the object would be once again free to be specific. So in example #2, "quincualtia," you have an underlying "qui" that is covered up by the indirect object pronoun "quin." The patientive noun would have been "tlacualli", but in the causative form, the "tla" turns into "qui" because it is referring now to something specific. And if this works, then the nonspecific indirect object pronoun would be free to appear between the specific object pronoun and the verb as in example #3, "quitecualtia." What I am suggesting is that maybe the non-specific object pronoun of the patientive noun does not have to be fossilized in the causative form. Maybe the pronoun position is reactivated to function the same way it did in the original active form. I'm not sure I understand the issue with "netetetlaquehualtia." Molina does actually list the patientive form "tlaquehualli" without the non-specific object pronoun "tla." Although wouldn't one also expect "tetlaquehualli"? But in any case, even if my argument about the reactivation of the object pronoun position in the causative form is not right, we still have a nonspecific object pronoun in this form. Actually, I'm not sure why they would need the causative form in this case anyway. If they wanted to say "I hire out people to people, why wouldn't they just say "nitetetlaquehua"? If the form "nitetetlaquehualtia" is merely a causative not derived from a patientive, wouldn't the causative have to be operating on the reflexive form of this verb? I'm not sure how you would work in the reflexive pronoun, but wouldn't the causative form have to mean something like "I cause people to hire themselves out to people"? So given that there is no reflexive object pronoun in this word, wouldn't we have to interpret this as a "ti-a" causative built on a patientive noun "tetlaquehualli"? Then it would just be, "I provide someone with the hiring out of people." This would avoid the problem of having to incorporate the reflexive within the causative. Galen Campbell, R. Joe wrote: > Galen, > > I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****. I > printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary. > > Quoting Galen Brokaw : > > >> Joe, >> I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate >> morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. >> > > **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe > discussing the same thing. > > >> Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In >> other words, is it possible that even the form that has been >> identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the >> construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer >> "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? >> > > **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what > Andrews says about it. He *does* say that the -tia causative is > derived from a non-active verb. So, according to him, when you delete > the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some > forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua > non-active (ahxitia). > So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms > are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and > the other with -ti-a. > But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the > same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the > second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb. > > > >> I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms >> is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested >> in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive >> nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't >> the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated >> by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an >> attested patientive form? >> > > **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it > with concrete examples: > > "provide with" noun so-called causative > > quixtli / exit quixtia > > coch... / sleep cochitia > > caqu... / audible thing caquitia > > mauhtli / fright mauhtia > > cualantli / anger cualantli > > > ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.)) > > >> Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that >> patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand >> correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue >> that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific >> object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems >> to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there >> would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The >> restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is >> strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and >> resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it >> wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the >> pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to >> have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. >> > > **** I have difficulty in handling this. Could you give me a concrete > example? > > >> A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I >> would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the >> semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. >> Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing >> here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form >> somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" >> structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one >> morphology instead of two? >> > > **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no > ambiguity in one direction or the other. Here is my list so far: > > > *+ambig.no *** > cuacualtia , quintla-. she feeds them. +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| > cualtia , quin-. they feed it to them; they make them eat it. cua:-caus01 +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| > cualtia , quite-. he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat; > they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. caus01 +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| > cualtiaya , quin-. they fed it to them. +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| > cualtih , oquimon-. they fed it to them. +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| > tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's > part?: 55m]. alquilar mis criados a otro. e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no>. 55m-00| > tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may > be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1- > ti-a case. but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be > "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".: > 71m2]. alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. tla:ctli-e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no +prob>. 71m2-23| > morpheme count 12 > > So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" -- > these look unambiguously causative "-tia". > > Joe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From campbel at indiana.edu Thu May 14 02:28:27 2009 From: campbel at indiana.edu (Campbell, R. Joe) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:28:27 -0400 Subject: Ambiguity Message-ID: Galen, I'll intersperse my comments and mark them with ****. Quoting Galen Brokaw : > Joe, > I have to admit that I may not be understanding all of your > explanation, but let me ask a few follow-up questions. > Although I've read Andrews explanation of this, I did not understand > how he arrived at his conclusions. **** The group of people who don't understand how Andrews arrived at his conclusions is very large. Although I admire the depth of his analysis and the insight that went into it, I recognize that his attitude toward linguistics is very different from that of most people who went through their linguistic education post-1950. Most of us can remember the pressure to present *evidence* for linguistic descriptions; an elegant answer to a problem was not highly prized unless accompanied by multiple motivating reasons. A colleague of mine famously used to say, "that solution has nothing to say for itself except that it *works*! -- but why should I believe it?" At least partly because Andrews didn't emerge from that kind of training, it is not part of his culture to lead the reader by the hand or to coax him into accepting the description offered. He simply states his conclusions. Although I would prefer some statements to support the conclusions and wouldn't mind being coaxed into accept them, I am glad that we don't have to look out over the landscape of the Nahuatl language without Andrews' help. In fact, I think I started > thinking about this issue in these terms after reading Andrews' > description of causatives. I guess my question has to do with how to > determine the nature of the morphology in this case. Or is that even > possible? Maybe Andrews has an argument to support his assertions, > but I don't remember him presenting it; and it was not immediately > obvious from his description. > With regard to the Andrews description, many of his examples could be > interpreted differently. For example, with cualantia, he says that > this is built on "cualano" rather than "cualantli." But it is unclear > to me why this is necessarily the case. In pragamatic terms, I'm not > sure it makes any difference. But I'm interested in whether or not > there is some systemic reason for interpreting it this way. **** At the beginning of Chapter 25 in the revised edition, he says that the second type of causative verbstems are formed from nonactive stems, claiming a derivative order and "accounting" for their correspondences. Like you, I'd like to know reasons for believing this to be true. > His example of "tlanextia" is also ambiguous. Molina gives > "tlanextli" as light. This term raises its own questions for me with > regard to why there is an object pronoun. **** This is a topic that I suppose never stops being a "gotcha". If someone asked you how many "tla"s there are in Nahuatl, the first one you'd name would be the nonspecific object (e.g., nitlacaqui), then the one glossed as 'if' (and sometimes mistakenly to be a *part* of a word "intla" (also meaning 'if')), then the 'verbing' "-tla" which takes nouns as embeds and makes transitive verbs out of them (e.g., mahuiztla, icniuhtla, tlazohtla, etc.). And somewhere in your list would be the impersonal "tla-" that has a function *somewhat* like the so-called nonactive suffixes "-lo" and "-hua". tlahuaqui things dry out tlachipahua it dawns (the tla- is not an object because the preterit is like other intransitive verbs: otlachipahuac) tlayohua it gets dark tlacacalaca there is rattling (as opposed to cacalaca, it rattles) tla[i]hyaya there is stinkiness tlamani it is customary (as opposed to tlamana, he lays something down) Another frequent one is: the non-specific possessive (tlacpac, on top of something) also a special variety of this possessive is one in which the possessive apparently lacks the effect of causing the absolutive suffix to drop; the possessed stem is "promoted" (Andrews calls it "demoted" back to absolutive status: tlamaitl sleeve tlaixcuaitl front of something tlacuexcochtli stern of a boat ---- **All this** to highlight "tlaneci"; Molina says about it: aclarar el tiempo, hazer claro o sereno, hazer claridad o amanecer. And in the Nahuatl version of "Las manyanitas", "ya amanecio'" is "yotlanez". And the patientive noun formed from tlaneci is tlanextli (light), where the "tla" is still a marker for impersonalness, not the object "tla". And since we're talking about ambiguity, the transitive (causative) verb "nitlanextia", (I discover something) yields the patientive noun "tlanextli", something discovered, homophonous with the intransitively derived "tlanextli", light. I can't resist adding that the verb derived from tlanextli (light), "tlanextia" (tlanex-ti-ya) is homophonous/ambiguous with the object-containing "tlanextia" (he discovers something, he causes something to appear). > But in any case, if we have > a noun "tlanextli," I'm not sure why we have to posit the causative > form "tlanextia" as being built on "nexohua." **** It really isn't that I ran low on ink, but I share your position. It seems to me that claiming that causatives are derived by a process of deleting -o, -hua, -ohua, or -hualo is not a unified process. Maybe someone can help us out. > It seems to me that in the section dealing with this causative form > (at least the section that I just reconsulted), all of Andrews' > examples with the exception of one can be interpreted as being built > on a noun rather than the non-active form. The exception would seem > to be "choctia" and maybe there are other examples of similar words. > This may be what led him to this explanation, because as far as I > know "choctli" is not attested as a nominalized form of "to cry." But > if the vast majority of these causatives can be interpreted as > nominalized forms which are then verbalized using the "-ti-a" ending, > then it seems to me that you could just as well say that words like > "choctia" are the result of making a formal generalization that > produces causative forms like "choctia" built on unattested > nominalizations, in this case "choctli." **** In considering the two-origin vs. the single-origin theory of verbs like "tinechtlacualtia", I'll give a reason below for leaning in the two-origin direction, but your point regarding the reasonableness of the necessity of assuming the reality of some unattested forms is well taken. If language analysis is to be more than just a cataloging and categorization of observed form, you must be right. I have never seen the patientive noun *cochtli, which would be derived from "cochi", but there is a sense in which it must exist if we are going to make morphological sense out of: ni-coch-camachaloa I yawn sleepily ni-coch-miqui I am sleepy te-coch-ehua he gets someone up from sleep ti-te-coch-mahua you make someone sleepy by appearing sleepy (i.e., you infect someone with sleepiness) > Andrews does say that this type of generalization occurs with the > non-active form itself, but he doesn't assume the same for noun forms > in this context. > With regard to the examples you list below, I assume that the three > dots indicate examples of unattested noun forms which would be > problematic. And I think I understand that part of the problem has to > do with the causative forms in these cases do not have an 'l' as in > the case of axhitia and cochitia. However, in the case of "caqui," we > have attestations of both "caquitia" and "caquiltia." So even if > there is something else going on with "caquitia," couldn't we posit > an unattested noun "caquilli" used to construct the causative > "caquiltia"? I don't think there are attestations of "chochiltia," so > either something else is going on with "cochitia" as with "caquitia," > or this form has a tendency to drop the 'l' in some causatives. Maybe > that is a stretch? **** I will have to digest this further. In the meantime, I again hope that someone lends us a hand in thinking about it. > In reference to the examples you list, I'm not sure, but maybe this > is where my confusing paragraph about object pronouns is relevant (or > maybe not). I'm not sure why these cases are unambiguous unless it is > because they have specific object prefixes where patientive nouns > would have non-specific ones? Or maybe in the first case, which does > have a non-specific object, because there is a reduplication? I guess > what I was trying to say is that when a patientive noun becomes > verbalized again, it seems to me that there is no reason why the > non-specific object pronoun of the patientive form would need to > remain non-specific. In other words, the object would be once again > free to be specific. So in example #2, "quincualtia," you have an > underlying "qui" that is covered up by the indirect object pronoun > "quin." The patientive noun would have been "tlacualli", but in the > causative form, the "tla" turns into "qui" because it is referring > now to something specific. **** There are some very basic assumptions that we all have about the way that languages can possibly work. When linguists work on a particular language, they "obey" these assumptions as if they were the "rules of the game". Obviously, the features of a description of a given language, like Nahuatl, are partially determined by those rules. If linguists try to imitate their colleagues in the hard sciences, there are times when they have to conclude that their assumptions were wrong and the "rules" have to be changed. That's science. One of my iconic examples is autobiographical: when I was studying linguistics in graduate school, I took a class in field methods with a young professor. He looked over my shoulder at my work and said the obligatory "That's good." ...which is the preparation for "...but..." He then gave me a solid explanation of the linguistics of the 1930's, 1940's and early 1950's: phonological descriptions do not involve *processes* -- they involve a sober exposition of what abstract units there are in a given system (i.e., phonemes) and what their "physical" variations (i.e., allophones) are. Phonology is *static*, not *dynamic*; there simply aren't processes in it. Less than a year later, my young professor had joined a revolution in linguistics. He read and listened to the arguments for questioning the basic assumptions of the field and realized that the arguments for analyzing language in terms of processes were too strong to ignore. It was a change in "science", not equivalent to saying that the earth revolves around the sun, but a huge one for linguists. ... So my assumptions are going to show, but these assumptions are *right* |8-) . When we talk about derivations, we take the idea of derivation seriously. For example, if we say that a form is derived from "tlacualli", we are stuck with "tlacualli" -- we are talking about a form with the "tla-" bound to a verb stem, which, in turn, has a nominalizing "-l" bound to it. Once the [tlacua] becomes a unit, the -l is added to this *unit*. I can't wrap my mind around a morphology that *derives* something from "tlacualli", but allows us to replace a component of it. ... My reasoning for some of the data that seems to indicate that *only* the causative interpretation is possible for it, that they cannot also be interpreted as N-ti(have)-a(caus): "quitlacuacualtia": there is no noun "tlacuacualli". I realize that we might posit a hypothetical one and I don't know how to answer that. "quincualtia, quitecualtia, quincualtiaya, oquimoncualtih": "cua" does not have a patientive noun "cualli" which refers generically to food. Although Andrews considers "cualli" and "xochicualli" to be derived from "cua", I think that, although this might be true historically, it is not relevant in describing the stage of Nahuatl that we call "classical". "nitetetlaquehualtia" (I rent my servants to someone): This is my favorite one. tla:ctli torso, body e:hua raise tlaquehualli servant, worker (patientive noun derived through the passive) tlatlaquehualli someone who is advised to do harm to someone (a henchman?) (patientive derived through the impersonal) nite-tlaquehua I hire someone tlaquehualo he is hired ninote-tlaquehualtia I hire myself out My thinking about nitetetlaquehualtia is that for it to be analyzed as a noun-ti(have)-a(caus) structure, there would have to be a noun of the form *tetlaquehualli. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be ungrammatical, since in patientive nouns, the verb object is converted from te- to tla-: nite-mictia te-mictiliztli tla-mictli Joe And if this works, then the nonspecific > indirect object pronoun would be free to appear between the specific > object pronoun and the verb as in example #3, "quitecualtia." What I > am suggesting is that maybe the non-specific object pronoun of the > patientive noun does not have to be fossilized in the causative form. > Maybe the pronoun position is reactivated to function the same way it > did in the original active form. > I'm not sure I understand the issue with "netetetlaquehualtia." > Molina does actually list the patientive form "tlaquehualli" without > the non-specific object pronoun "tla." Although wouldn't one also > expect "tetlaquehualli"? But in any case, even if my argument about > the reactivation of the object pronoun position in the causative form > is not right, we still have a nonspecific object pronoun in this > form. Actually, I'm not sure why they would need the causative form > in this case anyway. If they wanted to say "I hire out people to > people, why wouldn't they just say "nitetetlaquehua"? If the form > "nitetetlaquehualtia" is merely a causative not derived from a > patientive, wouldn't the causative have to be operating on the > reflexive form of this verb? I'm not sure how you would work in the > reflexive pronoun, but wouldn't the causative form have to mean > something like "I cause people to hire themselves out to people"? So > given that there is no reflexive object pronoun in this word, > wouldn't we have to interpret this as a "ti-a" causative built on a > patientive noun "tetlaquehualli"? Then it would just be, "I provide > someone with the hiring out of people." This would avoid the problem > of having to incorporate the reflexive within the causative. > > Galen > > > Campbell, R. Joe wrote: >> Galen, >> >> I'll try to make some relevant comments and mark them with ****. I >> printed your e-mail and discussed it with Mary. >> >> Quoting Galen Brokaw : >> >> >>> Joe, >>> I've always wondered about the basis for positing two separate >>> morphologies for the "-ltia" causatives in the first place. >>> >> >> **** By the way, I've have two private messages someone in Europe >> discussing the same thing. >> >> >>> Is it possible that there is really only one "-ltia" formation? In >>> other words, is it possible that even the form that has been >>> identified as using the causative suffix "-ltia" is actually the >>> construction involving the patientive noun form with the verbalizer >>> "-ti-" and the causative "-a"? >>> >> >> **** I tend to label the causative as -ltia or -tia and ignore what >> Andrews says about it. He *does* say that the -tia causative is >> derived from a non-active verb. So, according to him, when you delete >> the 'o' or the whole '-hua', and add the -tia, you get an 'l' in some >> forms (chihualtia) and just -tia in the ones that have a -hua >> non-active (ahxitia). >> So both the causative and the "provide-with-noun" homophonous forms >> are added to a non-active form, the causative with unbroken -tia and >> the other with -ti-a. >> But the non-active forms for these two formations don't seem to be the >> same -- the first one is a non-active that is still a verb and the >> second has been nominalized, ready to re-verb. >> >> >> >>> I assume that one of the reasons for positing the two different forms >>> is that in many cases the ostensibly patientive noun is not attested >>> in other contexts. But even if many of these ostensibly patientive >>> nouns are not attested outside of the verbal causative form, couldn't >>> the formation of an otherwise unattested patientive noun be motivated >>> by the "noun + ti-a" structure, in which the 'noun' is often an >>> attested patientive form? >>> >> >> **** This logic appeals to me and it would be interesting to explore it >> with concrete examples: >> >> "provide with" noun so-called causative >> >> quixtli / exit quixtia >> >> coch... / sleep cochitia >> >> caqu... / audible thing caquitia >> >> mauhtli / fright mauhtia >> >> cualantli / anger cualantli >> >> >> ((I am not very hopeful about this possibility.)) >> >> >>> Another possible problem with this suggestion might be that >>> patientive nouns built from transitive verbs, if I understand >>> correctly, do not take specific object prefixes. So one might argue >>> that you would not expect patientive nouns to have the specific >>> object prefixes that occur in the causative form. However, it seems >>> to me that in the context of a verbalized patientive noun, there >>> would be no reason not to reincorporate specific object prefixes. The >>> restriction against specific object prefixes for patientive nouns is >>> strictly pragmatic. The pragmatics of the patientive and >>> resultant-state forms do not allow for a specific object, because it >>> wouldn't make sense. But in the verbalized causative form, the >>> pragmatics are different. In this case, it can make perfect sense to >>> have either specific or non-specific object prefixes. >>> >> >> **** I have difficulty in handling this. Could you give me a concrete >> example? >> >> >>> A third possible problem might have to do with semantics. However, I >>> would think that there ought to be a way conceptually to make the >>> semantics of this form work with any patientive noun form. >>> Of course, I'm sure that there may be problems that I am not seeing >>> here. Are there maybe instances of "-ltia" causatives whose form >>> somehow precludes a homology with the "patientive noun+ti-a" >>> structure? If not, then couldn't we explain them all using one >>> morphology instead of two? >>> >> >> **** From the beginning, I wondered about cases where there was no >> ambiguity in one direction or the other. Here is my list so far: >> >> >> *+ambig.no *** >> cuacualtia , quintla-. she feeds them. > +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| >> cualtia , quin-. they feed it to them; they make them eat it. > cua:-caus01 +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| >> cualtia , quite-. he feeds it to him; he gives it to someone to eat; >> they feed it to one; they cause someone to eat it. > caus01 +ambig.no>. b.11 f.6 p.54| >> cualtiaya , quin-. they fed it to them. > +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| >> cualtih , oquimon-. they fed it to them. > +ambig.no>. b.9 f.5 p.63| >> tlaquehualtia =nitete [scribal error: ??is this an error on molina's >> part?: 55m]. alquilar mis criados a otro. > e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no>. 55m-00| >> tlaquehualtia =nitete=onitetetlaquehualtih [scribal error: ??this may >> be an error on molina's part -- it looks like an ambiguous caus01/l1- >> ti-a case. but for that to be true, "tete" would have to be >> "tetla", because the patientive noun would be "tlatlaquehualli".: >> 71m2]. alquilar mis esclauos, o criados a otro. > tla:ctli-e:hua-caus01 +ambig.no +prob>. 71m2-23| >> morpheme count 12 >> >> So far, I haven't found any that can only be analyzed as "-ti-a" -- >> these look unambiguously causative "-tia". >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From micc2 at cox.net Tue May 19 18:54:37 2009 From: micc2 at cox.net (micc2) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:54:37 -0700 Subject: 2009 Summer Intensive Course in Older and Modern Nahuatl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Mexi'cayotl Indio Cultural Center, and Danza Mexi'cayotl have a new website: mexicayotl.info Thanks!!!! I live for reasoned, enlightened spirituality: "Tlacecelilli", tranquilidad, paz Mario E. Aguilar, PhD www.mexicayotl.net _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cuecuex at gmail.com Thu May 21 05:31:35 2009 From: cuecuex at gmail.com (roberto romero) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 00:31:35 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl Message-ID: Recien ingreso a su lista de correo , aunque revisando su archivo veo que estuve presente aunque no invitado en la discusi?n azteca vs mexica vs nahua. Quisiera colocar estas lineas para poder escuchar sus comentarios sobre los distintos significados de los vocablos: Cuitlahuac y Cuitlatl y sobre la relaci?n peculiar que en los pueblos mesoamericanos de habla nahoa y otomi tienen estos vocablos con temas como el poder estatal, la riqueza, la divinidad. Desde mi punto de vista es un tipo de relaci?n que no esta presente en el pensamiento occidental y cristiano, un tipo de relaci?n que nos muestra muy claramente otra forma de ver el mundo muy distinta a la que ten?ian tanto los occidentales que los conquistaron militarmente y los adoctrinaron religiosamente, pero tambi?n muy distinta a la mentalidad , referentes y marcos culturales de aquellos que los investigan, los interpretan y los re interpretan, desde el siglo XVI a la fecha. Van pues estas lineas: En el diccionario en nahuatl en linea Aulex , un instrumento muy ?til que existe en INTERNET uno ve que la definici?n de Cuitlahuac es excremento seco : "Cuitlahuac (Excremento seco), tlahtoani tlein otlapachoac M?xico Tenochtitlan ipan ome tecpatl xihuitl (1520). http://aulex.org/es-nah/?busca=cuitlahuac" En la misma linea de reducir sin tapujo alguno la palabra raiz Cuitlatl al significado de excremento, al significado de mierda, encontramos por ejemplo que en el glosario de la edici?n de la Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espa?a del sabio Fray Bernardino de Sahag?n prepararada por el eminente antrop?logo Alfredo L?pez Austin y por Josefina Garc?a Quintana ve uno en el apartado que corresponde a lo que hoy corruptamente castellanizado le decimos Huitlacoche. "Cuitlacuchtli "Mierda Dormida " (?) hongo que ataca al ma?z . p 879 op.cit. El glosario en comento extra?amente no da traducci?n alguna de Cuitlahuac, el nombre del d?cimo Tlatoani colhua mexica . Esta ausencia al parecer es por prurito, ante lo insultante que aparentemente resulta la traducci?n de su nombre, siguiendo la identificaci?n de cuitlatl s?lo con el significado de mierda Esta ausencia ocurre a pesar de que Cuitlahuac como tlatoani aparece referido en el libro octavo cap?tulo primero de la obra en comento y de que la palabra Cuitlahuac aparece citada para nombrar a uno de de los pueblos que habitaban la zona de las chinampas, llamados por ello los chinampecas (Xochimilco, Cuitl?huac, Mizquic, Mexicatzinco, Iztapalapan) pueblos que acudieron al apoyo militar de los sitiados tlatelolcas , ciudad donde se dio la resistencia contra la conquista espa?ola,pues Tenochtitlan cayo en una semana. Aunque se hable del sitio de Tenochtitlan, fueron en Tlatelolco y los tlatelolcas quienes resist?eron el sitio y la invasi?n de un ej?rcito de decenas de miles de guerreros indios que odiaban a los colhuas mexicas que los explotaban con tributos, ese ejercito indio invasor fue dirigido por no mas de mil aventureros espa?oles gran parte de ellos sin experiencia militar alguna. La sabidur?a del sabio Sahag?n fue tanta que , en sus cap?tulos dedicados a la conquista de M?xico, Sahag?n prefiri? no mencionar el nombre de Cuitlahuac, el gobernante ind?gena que derrot? a los conquistadores espa?oles y que los sac? de la ciudad de Tenochtitlan, urbe de la cual sin combate alguno, se hab?an apoderado los espa?oles simplemente secuestrando a Moctezuma, el menor, el xocoyotzin, haciendolo su prisionero y poniendo al servicio de los espa?oles el poder que Moctezuma ostentaba y aprovechandose de la cobard?a que "el menor" se cargaba, de lo que resulta que la conquista espa?ola es el antecedente mas importante de lo lucrativo que resulta la "industria" del secuestro en M?xico. Si aceptamos la traducci?n de la raiz cuitla como mierda o excremento ello da por resultado que Cuitlahuac, el soberano victorioso militarmente sobre los conquistadores espa?oles y sus aliados indios, resulta en el Rey Excremento Seco o el Rey Mierda Seca, un para nuestros valores, triste destino asignado para tan noble y valeroso guerrero , que antes de ser Tlatoani fue se?or de Iztapalapa, una zona chinampera en ese entonces y hoy una zona que padece sed todo el a?o por falta de agua. Don Angel Maria Garibay el fil?logo y traductor de la misma Historia General... en la edici?n de editorial Porrua si trae en su glosario la traducci?n del termino cuitlahuac, de el nos dice: Cuitlahuac: lama de agua .Nombre del X tlatoani de M?xico . En la Enciclopedia M?xico uno de los libros presentes en la biblioteca del peque?o pueblo donde habito regularmente se lee: "Cuitlatl (en nahuatl excrecencia) Especie de alga que se hallaba en la superficie de los lagos salobres de valle de M?xico y que [seca], al sol (cuiutlahuaqui), se com?a condimentada con sal y chile. Estas algas fueron objeto de comercio y muy apreciadas como alimento" p. 1987 TIV Como vemos Cuitlaltl que significa excrecencia no significa siempre mierda como ha sido la traducci?n que se ha impuesto desde la conquista espa?ola uhmm, uhmmm, ( ? por que sera que se impuso ese significado ?) Cuitlaltl era el t?rmino usado tambien para llamar a un alimento prehisp?nico apreciado y comercialmente valioso, Cuitlatl se usaba para nombrar a un alga lagunar comestible Con este ?ltimo significado Cuitlahuac deja de ser el Rey Mierda Seca para ser el Rey del Alga Seca Valiosa Aceptar la reducci?n del significado de Cuitlatl a mierda tambi?n nos complica cuando uno ve distintos documentos que tratan sobre la llamada Peregrinaci?n M?xica . Por ejemplo el c?dice Boturini o Tira de la Peregrinaci?n, el c?dice Azcatitlan, el C?dice Aubin , la Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas , las Relaciones de Chimalpain, por citar algunos . Ahi entre los pueblos que se dice salieron de Teo o Huey Culhuacan se nombra a los Cuitlahuacas, en sus distintas fracciones . Estos Cuitlahuacas al llegar al valle de M?xico ocuparon lo que se conoce actualmente como las poblaciones de Mixquic y Tlahuac, mismo lugar donde en estos d?as los diarios informan que las obras del metro han propiciado el saqueo de restos prehisp?nicos, ante la indiferencia de la instituci?n creada para protegerlos, noble instituto hoy dirigido por el eminente antrop?logo... perd?n, por el notable arqueologo, perd?n me volvi a equivocar, por el historiador , no.. tampoco, por el ilustr?simo se?or embajador, designado por el se?or presidente "aiga sido como aiga sido" y en uso de sus facultades legales, faltaba mas!!. Los Cuitlahuacas siguiendo la traducci?n de Cuitlatl igual a mierda, resultan ser el pueblo de la mierda seca, o el pueblo del excremento seco Como se vio antes, los cuitlahuacas eran parte de los pueblos chinamperos , esto es de los que cultivan en chinampas. ?sta era una forma de cultivo intensivo capaz de dar cuatro cosechas al a?o, por lo menos dos o tres de maiz, y ellos por medio de islas-milpas flotantes. Para estas chinampas uno de los elementos utilizados para el abono de las tierras era el excremento animal y humano. Gracias a don Antonio Alzate quien redact? un documento en el a?o 1791, sabemos que en dicho a?o los chinamperos de Xochimilco arrendaban las cuevas de "el cerro c?nico de Ixtapalapan" en cuyas "dilatadas cuevas" habitaban infinito n?mero de murcielago, cuyo excremento los campesinos chinamperos xochimilcas recogian para abonar con guano o mierda de murcielago a sus chinampas.- Triste contraste de sabiduria popular con nuestros tiempos actuales en donde, como parte de nuestra estulticia moderna, hace algunos a?os con la epidemia o cuento de moda en turno, el llamado Chupacabras , los modernos campesinos y urbanos en un acto estupido salimos a matar millones de murcielagos.. El uso de excremento humano, de excremento seco , como abono en las chinampas no se descarta. Como saber popular se dice que con ello el chile sale mas picoso. Tenochtitlan y sus barrios, junto con Tlatelolco y sus barrios formaban una concentraci?n humana de unos 300 mil habitantes. Depositar los desechos humanos, la mierda en la laguna , como se?ala el sabio frances J Soustelle en "La vida cotidiana de los aztecas" p 48 habr?a tra?do grav?simas epidemias de enfermedades gastrointestinales y las fuentes no citan memoria alguna de que ?sto hubiera sucedido. Las grandes epidemias de colera ocurren en la ?poca colonial y en el M?xico independiente y ca?tico, de una de esas epidemias nace la hoy famosa pasi?n de cristo de Iztapalapa y el popular dicho de "aguas" pues se aventaban a la calle los desechos que se depositaban en los basines o basinicas.. Es mas factible que en Tenochtitlan el manejo de la mierda se haya dado, como se?ala el conquistador Bernal Diaz y el mismo Soustelle refiere, sobre la base de un eficaz servicio urbano de "canoas de yenda" que se encargaban de recolectar el excremento humano, el cual estaban obligados de concentrar los habitantes so pena de castigo y que dicho excremento se depositara en algun sitio de tierra firme de la laguna en donde se dejaba secar al sol y en donde tambi?n quizas se aderezaba con algo que permitiera su posterior uso como abono sin perjuicios para la salud. Desafortunadamente como el manejo de excrementos no genera grandes monumentos ni resulta en bell?smas piezas que adornen las vitrinas de los museos, es un tema al que no ha dado respuestas la investigaci?n cient?fica de la arqueolog?a nacional y extranjera que estudia la ciudad de los "aztecas" , aunque dicho tema haya sido un tema vital para la sobrevivencia de la ciudades islas. Aventurando una posible localizaci?n de estos terrenos firmes que serv?an de depositos de mierda, creo que los mismos estarian en los terrenos que hoy se conocen como Balbuena y la Colonia El Parque, que es la sede del H. Congreso de la Uni?n y de la H. Camara de Diputados, bien dicen que historia es destino, pues el nivel de inicio de la tierra firme no pantanosa, esta marcado por una calle que hoy lleva ese nombre de nivel . Para ello me apoyo en la cercan?a de esta tramo de tierra con zonas chinamperas que surtian a Tenochtitlan: la primera ubicada en el barrio de Teopan llamado tambien Zoquipan (tierra lodosa) donde habia chinamperos chalmecas y huitznahuacas . Parte de este barrio lo ocupaban lo que hoy son calles de Calzada de la Viga, Zoquipa (donde esta la prepa 7) , Ixnahualtongo, Xocongo y Cuitlahuac ; otra zona chinampera estaba muy cercana, a no mas de un kilometero de distancia, ubicado en lo que fue el pueblo hoy colonia de la Magdalena Mixhuca , muy cerca del mercado de Jamaica, eje 3 y 3a sur y siguiendo hacia el sur estaban a no mas de 800 metros las chinampas mas famosas, las de Ixtacalco o Iztacalco . Es posible entonces que en el cultivo chinampero efectivamente cuitlahuac fuera el termino para referirse a quien manejaba los cerros de mierda humana seca. Esto genera nuevas situaciones que cuestionan nuestras actuales concepciones y prejuicios modernos, occidentales y cristianos. En el c?dice Boturini y en el c?dice Azcatitlan el dios principal en la regi?n de Aztlan es el dios que aparece identificado por el glifo jerogl?fico que aparece dibujado arriba de una piramide. Ese glifo puede leerse fon?ticamente como el nombre del dios Amimitl, la flecha en el Agua o como el nombre del dios Atlahua, el due?o del dardo ,en ambos casos se trata de dioses chalmecas y entre esos Chalmecas estan los cuitlahuacas, de donde, este caso nos muestra que entre estos indios prehisp?nicos la divinidad y la mierda, no aparecen como t?rminos antit?ticos como ocurre en nuestro pensamiento moderno, occidental y cristiano. Roberto Romero Gutierrez II Sigamos con los distintos contenidos sem?nticos de cuitlatl Ya vimos anteriormente ligado al termino de excremento seco, de mierda seca , al se?or de Iztapalapa quien llego a ser el X Tlatoani de los Colhuas mexicas y quien expulso de Tenochtitlan y derrot? militarmente a los espa?oles y sus aliados indios entonces s?lo tlaxcaltecas. La ceremonia de coronaci?n y la griter?a de apoyo al se?or mexica Cuitlahuac sonar?a como una escena subrealista a nuestra concepci?n moderna, occidental y cristiana .Imaginemos los gritos ??viva el rey mierda seca !!. Ningun rey de las monarquias a la que son tan efectos los cultos europeos, lleva o ha llevado nombre semejante. Y en nuestras rep?blicas ? alguien puede imaginarse un presidente actual con tal nombre?. De forma denigratoria en M?xico la oposici?n llama Fecal al actual presidente de Mexico: Felipe Calderon. Fe de Felipe Cal de Calderon=Fecal Retomemos la relaci?n y la presencia de Cuitlatl (excremento o mierda) con la divinidad, una relaci?n y presencia que nunca veremos en nuestra concepci?n occidental cristiana y moderna. Los anales de Tlatelolco narran de esta forma el enfrentamiento de los mexicas con el brujo Copil a quienes atrapan los jefes de los mexicas: Tenoch y Cuauhtliquezqui ( personaje m?tico, semidios que para entonces lleva ya mas de 200 a?os de vida), acci?n exitosa gracais a que fueron alertados e instruidos por su dios Huitzilopochtli . Aunque el brujo Copil se identifica como uno de los mexicas que se perdi? en Tzumpango, Copil fue sacrificado y su cuerpo fue tratado ritualmente: Cuauhtliquezqui lo degoll? hasta decapitarlo y le extrajo el coraz?n. Sepult? el cuerpo de Copil en el sitio llamado Acopilco, enterr? la cabeza en un lugar llamado Tlatzinco y el coraz?n de Cpil fue enterrado "enmedio de las ca?as, donde crec?a un nopal, una de cuyas pencas estaba toda manchada de blanco, porque all? acostumbraba ir a defecar una ?guila; y por esos se llamo [el lugar] Tenochtitl?n" p 60 Anales de Tlatelolco El lugar elegido para depositar el coraz?n de Copil a?os despu?s al florecer, marcar?a el sitio donde fundar la ciudad de Tenochtitlan , la ciuda de Huitzilopochtli y dicho sitio estaba se?alado milagrosamente por un nopal en donde defecaba un ?guila y con la mierda del ?guila estaba pintada de blanco una penca del nopal. En un ag?ero divino, en una profecia sacra, en una acci?n ordenada por un dios tutelar y principal, juega un rol fundamental el excremento, la mierda, en este caso de un ave que es tambi?n nahual de distintos dioses (lo es de la diosa Cihuacoatl, la mujer serpiente que era tambien llamada mujer aguila: Cuaucihuatl , el ?guila es el nahual de Tonatiuh el sol diurno pero tambien lo es de Meztli la luna el sol nocturno, pues ambos son soles). Esta relaci?n de lo divino con el excremento es inedito en las religiones en curso en el mundo occidental tanto aquel que se encuentra con los colhuas mexicas en el siglo XVI como el moderno que desde el siglo XIX lo interpreta . La anecdota ilustra la enorme distancia entre el pensamiento occidental tanto aquel que se encuentra con los colhuas mexicas en el siglo XVI como el moderno que desde el siglo XIX interpreta al mundo prehisp?nico y en especial al mesoamericano. Ahora veamos la relaci?n de Cuitlatl (la excrecencia o la mierda) con la riqueza y con dos de los metales que son s?mbolos y materia por excelencia en los que se ha expresado la riqueza en nuesrto mundo occidental. El oro era tambien cuitlatl del sol, la excrecencia o la mierda del sol y la plata era la excrecencia o la mierda del sol nocturno, de la luna. En el c?dice de Huichapan, un c?dice otomi, ?stos reciben tal tributo de los derrotados mazahuas. Tanto el oro como la plata eran considerados elementos valiosos, era uno de los objetos materiales en donde se expresaba el concepto de riqueza vigente entre los mexicas, los colhuas y demas tribus de habla nahoa y otomi en ?sta ?rea de Mesoam?rica. Exist?a tambien el significado peyorativo, ofensivo, denigratorio, de cuitlatl, mierda, como cosa sucia, un significado que es mas cercano a nuestras concepciones modernas, occidentales y cristianas, tan as? que la palabra merde es una de las ofensas favoritas en los paises de habla francesa y el vocablo mierda como exclamaci?n de disgusto, de desaprobaci?n o como adjetivo calificativo aplicados a personas o situaciones es usado en paises que como Mexico hemos sido influidos por la cultura francesa. Dicen en los Anales de Tlatelolco que estando ya los mexicas como vasallos que servian de mercenarios a los Colhuas, los mexicas derrotaron a los xochimilcas y para celebrar tal hecho desearon levantar un templo a Huitzilopochtli. Pidieron a sus amos les dieran un coraz?n para su templo. Los Colhuas enviaron a sus hechiceros, a los que adivinaban con papeles, pero como coraz?n del templo de los mexicas, del templo de Huitzilopchtli "pusieron como coraz?n [del templo], mierda [cuitlatl], basura, polvo, malacates y algod?n" p69 de los Anales de Tlatelolco. En la historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas se dice que "echaron paja e suciedad en el templo, burlando [se] de los mexicanos" p54 Los mexicas tuvieron que realizar ritos para quitar la profanaci?n hecha a su templo por los hechiceros colhuas. De acuerdo a los distintos cr?nicas que se nutren de la llamada Cr?nica X los tlatelolcas al ser derrotados por los mexicas fueron castigados, condenando a que su templo mayor dejara de tener culto religioso, a que su templo fuera basurero y lugar donde se defecara, a que no se le limpiara y ademas se les oblig? a los tlatelolcas a ir a Tenochtitlan a rendir culto y a ofrendar a Huitzilopchtli. Dato que nos hace cuestionar la validez de la informaci?n de Bernal acerca de que se subio a la cima de ese Templo mayor de Tlatelolco y de que estaba en esa ?poca en funciones Aqui se ve claramente que el sentido peyorativo de mierda [cuitlatl] no era desconocido entre los mexicas y los colhuas, y los tlatelolcas. Mas aun se aprecia que el caracter ofensivo y denigratorio del excremento era una ofensa de igual magnitud al de darle cosas de mujeres (malacates y algod?n) al dios de los mexicas, con lo cual los colhuas se?alaban de cuilon,de afeminado, de homosexual a Huitzilopochtli el dios de los mexicas. Roberto Romero Guti?rrez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From a.appleyard at btinternet.com Fri May 22 16:32:49 2009 From: a.appleyard at btinternet.com (ANTHONY APPLEYARD) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 16:32:49 +0000 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl Message-ID: Karttunen's dictionary (pp 73, 74) says that in compounds [cuitlatl] could also mean "back, rump, behind". It also says that [cuitla-pil-li] = "tail": analyzed by apparent components it looks like "dung-appendage"; but I suspect that that may be derived from an older usage when [cuitlatl] by itself meant "dung or rump". Before that, I wonder if [cuitlatl] meant only "rump", and its use for "dung" started as a euphemism or slang. A somewhat comparable linguistic event is modern Japanese extracting a word "ben" = "dung" from "ben-jo_" = "toilet", treated as "dung-place", but its correct linguistic analysis is "convenience-place". Citlalyani --- On Thu, 21/5/09, roberto romero wrote: From: roberto romero Subject: [Nahuat-l] Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl To: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Date: Thursday, 21 May, 2009, 6:31 AM Recien ingreso a su lista de correo , aunque revisando su archivo veo que estuve presente aunque no invitado en la discusi?n azteca vs mexica vs nahua. ... En el diccionario en nahuatl en linea Aulex , un instrumento muy ?til que existe en INTERNET? uno ve? que la definici?n de? Cuitlahuac es? excremento seco : "Cuitlahuac (Excremento seco), tlahtoani tlein otlapachoac M?xico Tenochtitlan ipan ome tecpatl xihuitl (1520). ?http://aulex.org/es-nah/?busca=cuitlahuac" En la misma linea de reducir sin tapujo alguno?? la palabra raiz Cuitlatl?? al significado de? excremento, al significado? de mierda,? encontramos por ejemplo que en el glosario de la edici?n de la Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espa?a del sabio Fray Bernardino de Sahag?n prepararada ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Fri May 22 23:22:41 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:22:41 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl Message-ID: Estimado Roberto: Lo usual cuando comparamos antrop?nimos y top?nimos entre el n?huatl y el otom? del periodo Novohispano temprano es que en cada lengua se expresan los mismos valores sem?nticos, o similares, pero construidos con los morfemas propios de cada lengua. Lo mismo sucede con muchas palabras de otros tipos, como son los t?rminos calend?ricos, los nombres de las estructuras sociales, etc?tera. Otom?es y nahuas, en el momento de la Conquista, hab?an convivido estrechamente en los se?or?os del cento de M?xico durante m?s de medio milenio; compart?an lo que era esencialmente la misma cultura. Los pr?stamos sem?nticos, sin elementos morf?micos o fon?ticos, se llaman calcos. Usualmente resulta dif?cil determinar la direcci?n de estos pr?stamos. Los otom?es seguramente tienen ra?ces mucho m?s antiguos en el Altiplano Central que los nahuas, cuyo origen se encuentra en el Occidente de M?xico, al lado de las regiones habitadas por sus parientes ling??sticos m?s cercanos de la subfamilia Yutonahua meridional; De la misma manera los otom?es y sus parientes de la familia otopame ocupan los valles centrales de M?xico (otom?es, mazahuas, matlatzincas y ocuiltecas) y parte de las tierras m?s ?ridas hacia el norte (pames y chichimecos jonaces). Pero ser?a simplista afirmar que los nahuas aprendieron la cultura centromexicana de sus vecinos otopames, ya que ambos grupos formaban parte de la gran red de interacciones culturales que llamamos Mesoam?rica, desde por lo menos el Precl?sico Inferior (c 2500-1200 a.C.), cuando los antepasados de los nahuas todav?a viv?an en el Occidente. Es decir, el contacto no inici? cuando los nauas llegaron al Altiplano Central, sino muchos siglos antes. Dicho lo anterior, te comento que no he visto el nombre otom? de Cuitlahuac en ninguna fuente novohispana en esta lengua, desafortunadamente. El C?dice de Huichapan nos proporciona los nombres en otom? de los se?ores mexicas desde Acamapichtli hasta Moteuczoma Xocoyotl (excepto Huitzilihuitl, quien se omite), as? como los de dos se?ores de Tetzcoco (Nezahualcoyotl y Nezahualpilli) y los de siete se?ores de Xilotepec. Algunos de estos nombres, y otros m?s, aparecen en el C?dice Pedro Mart?n de Toro (Archivo General de la Naci?n, M?xico, grupo documental Tierras, vol. 1783, expediente 1, ff. 26r-32r). Tenemos las palabras otom?es para oro y plata. parece que son calcos exactos de las voces nahuas equivalentes. Aparecen en el Vocabulario de Urbano (Alonso Urbano, Arte breve de la lengua otom? y vocabulario triling?e espa?ol-n?huatl-otom?, facs?mil del ms., Ren? Acu?a, estudio, M?xico, Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas, Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, 1990): Oro. cuztic teocuitlatl, tetl co?auhqui -- anccaxtt?boch?. angaccaxtti (f. 318r). Plata metal. yztac teocuitlatl -- anttax?c?boch? (f. 338r). Las palabras otom?es, escritas con el alfabeto otom? m?s usado hoy (v?ase la tabla en SUP-INFOR: http://www.sup-infor.com/sources/codex_otomi/Fonemas1.htm), ser?an ank?axt??boj?, angak?axt?i y ant?ax?k?boj? (donde los ap?strofos representan oclusivas glotales y las di?resis marcan las vocales nasales; el subrayado bajo la ?o? se restituye porque es esta vocal, intermedia entre la /e/ y la /o/ castellanas, la que se encuentra en esta palabra en otros vocabularios coloniales del otom? y en las variantes modernas). Ank?axt??boj? significa el (an) metal (boj?) amarillo (k?axt?i). Angak?axt?i tiene el morfema que significa amarillo, pero no el que significa metal. Ant?ax?k?boj? significa el (an) metal (boj?) blanco (t?axi), aunque no s? c?mo analizar la secuencia fon?mica ?ka (hay trabajo pendiente sobre la gram?tica y la fonolog?a del otom? colonial antes de que podamos hacer traducciones precisas). La pregunta, entonces, es si boj? significa ?excremento de los dioses?. Parece que s?. J? (escrito ?ch?? en los textos otom?es coloniales) significa algo similar a la palabra castellana ?dios?, tomando en cuenta las diferencias ideol?gicas entre las culturas ibera y centromexicana. La s?laba bo es un morfema relacionado con los verbos ?salir? y ?sacar? y con la cualidad de pegajoso (como podemos averiguar revisando las palabras que empiezan con estos dos fonemas en cualquier diccionario otom?-castellano), lo cual ciertamente nos coloca firmemente en el campo sem?ntico del excremento, por lo que podr?amos traducir este morfema as?, o con m?s cuatela ?sustancia pegajosa que sale?. Plomo, seg?n Urbano (1990: 339r), es temetztli, ?Luna p?trea? en n?huatl y nobotz?na (o ambotz?na), lo cual nos da la palabra modernizada (y sin los prefijos sustantivos no- y am-) bots?na, posiblemente ?excremento de la Luna? en otom?, si aceptamos la hip?tesis de que el morfema bo signifique excremento. Otro dato que te puede interesar es el nombre de una deidad que registra Pedro Carrasco en su libro Los otom?es. Lo tom? del vocabulario otom? de 1640 que se resguarda en la Biblioteca Nacional de M?xico: Nopot?ej?, ?la deidad del excremento?, probablemente el nombre otom? de Tlazolteotl, ?la diosa de la basura?. La palabra pot?ei, ?excremento?, se encuentra en Urbano, 1990: 239r (?Hezes generalmente?). J?, equivalente de la voz n?huatl teotl, significa ?deidad? seg?n la misma fuente (148r). Saludos cordiales, David Wright P.D. Si acaso no llegan intactos los subrayados debajo de algunas vocales en las palabras otom?es, las di?resis y las cursivas, escr?bame directamente y te enviar? este texto en un archivo DOC o RTF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cuecuex at gmail.com Sun May 24 02:25:56 2009 From: cuecuex at gmail.com (roberto romero) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 21:25:56 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 2 Message-ID: Agradeciendo la generosa respuesta de D Wright y de Mr Appleyard coloco nuevos elementos sobre este tema de lo escatol?gico en la cultura de los mexicas . Sobre sus amables respuestas regresare en otro mail. El uso de palabras escatologicas en eventos magnos de la cultura Mexica vuelve a estar presente nada menos que en los discursos que el Tlatoani electo pronunciaba en la ceremonia de su unci?n como gobernante de los mexicas; discursos que el futuro Tlatoani, el principal gobernante del se?or?o, dirig?a a la m?xima divinidad, el dios Tezcatlipoca, Tloque nahuaque, al momento de ser electo. Los discursos eran dentro de una ceremonia politico y religiosa, un acto p?blico equivalente a la toma de protesta de un presidente en una rep?blica o a la coronaci?n de un rey en una monarqu?a europea. Esta muestra lo encontramos en el texto de los discursos del Libro Sexto del C?dice Florentino quien coloca tales palabras en labios del Tlatoani electo el miembro de la nobleza colhua mexica, de la familia de Acamapichtli que acapar? el poder, pues todos los Tlatoanis fueron de esa familia. Uso la traducci?n de Salvador D?az Cintora con Texto nahuatl paleografiado adjunto UNAM 19995 Los once discursos sobre la Realeza Libro sexto del c?dice Florentino. En su discurso primero el Tlatoani electo manifesta su temor a que la divinidad Tezcatlipoca Tloque Nahuaque mostrando su ira o su caracter burl?n lo castigue o decida como muestra del poder divino simplemente arroj?rlo a la tierra del estiercol o a la tierra de la inmundicia,a Cuatlatitlan o a Tlazultitlan. En su discurso cuarto el Tlatoani electo agradece que a pesar de tener la condici?n de un macehual que vive en la mierday la inmundicia, cuatlatitlan y tlazultitlan, que vive en suciedad cubierto de polvo y basura, totalmente ignorante, a pesar de ello el dios Tezcatlipoca quizas confundiendolo con otra persona lo halla eleg?do, lo saque de la mierda y lo ponga en la silla del trono. Mostrando de nuevo en estos discursos, una nada occidental manera de mezclar t?rminos escatol?gicos, con la divinidad, el poder pol?tico y el poder ec?nomico. Destacando que a pesar de existir otros vocablos nahoas que indican suciedad ,en los discursos se usan especificamente los t?rminos cuatlatitlan y tlazultitlan , lugar de mierda lugar de inmundicia. En la obra de Domingo de Chimalpain encontramos un ejemplo de como considerar sucio y expresi?n de la impureza al excremento fue llevado a posiciones extremas por los antiguos habitantes de la regi?n chalca del sitio que hoy conocemos como Amecameca, los cuales fueron conquistados y destruidos por los totolimpanecas, quienes dieron por nombre Amequeme al sitio conquistado. Chimalpain en su Memorial Breve de Culhuac?n anota que los Olmecas, los Xicalancas, los xochiteca , los quiyahuizteca y los cucolca ten?an tal veneraci?n por su lugar sagrado el Chalchiumomoztli, en donde estaba el agua divina , que eran incapaces de defecar en ese terreno por lo que tenian que desplazarse cuatro leguas y media , unos 20 km, hasta llegar a Cuitlat?pec o Cuitlatetetelco en donde pod?an excretar . A?o 2 tecpatl 1260 Memorial Breve de Culhuacan Esa concepci?n mas amplia y distinta a lo occidental de los nahoas y otomis prehisp?nicos mesoamericanos a lo que hoy consideramos escatol?gico no se reduce al excremento: En los anales de Tlaltelolco se anota que 31 a?os despues de que murio el mexica Tenoch o Cuatliquezqui, a Chapultepec llego el guerrero nonoalca Timal. Para entonces Chapultepec segu?a siendo la sede del primer y ?nico se?or?o unicamente mexica.El nonoalca Timal se lanz? a conquistar y lo hizo primero en Cuauhnahuac, luego conquisto Chalco y Timal era invencible pues lo proteg?a su dios con una muralla protectora de lluvia y viento. Finalmente su dios decidi? abandonar a Timal y al querer conquistar Cholula es derrotado y es sacrificado p62 El nombre de este brillante guerrero significa pus, podrido, podredumbre. Pero timalti se traduce por Sahagun tambien como glorioso en una de las adivinanzas del libro sexto que consigna en el libro sexto. Algunos traductores modernos usan Timal como glorioso Sin embargo el significado que le da a glorioso en el texto no es de honra es peyorativo, el glorioso entre los ni?os es el ani?ado, el adulto que sigue realizando actos propios de la conducta y edad de ni?o . Otro personaje que estaba podrido en vida tiene un destino a?n mas glorioso en otro de los mitos fundamentales de la religi?n de los mexicas: En las distintas versiones del mito de creaci?n del Quinto Sol que han llegado hasta nosostros - C?dice Florentino, Leyenda de los Soles, Historia de Mexique- el personaje que se sacrifica arrojandose a la hoguera divina y dando la materia para que se cre? el sol es Nanahuatl un buboso, un ser lleno de tumores llenos de pus. Lo que nos hace preguntar ?cual era el or?gen de esas bubas de Nanahuatl pues desconocemos de la existencia de peste bub?nica en estas tierras?. Bubas es un tumor blando, com?nmente doloroso y con pus, que se presenta de ordinario en la regi?n inguinal como consecuencia del mal ven?reo, y tambi?n a veces en las axilas y en el cuello. Por ello Nanahuatl perece ser un sifil?tico, un enfermo de s?filis. El sol que nos rige fue creado en el cuerpo de un enfermo al parecer de una enfermedad de trasmisi?n sexual, en el cuerpo de un sifil?tico. Hecho que ya arroja luces para descartar que los colhuas mexicas, y a?n mas los otomianos , consideraban pecado, ten?an el concepto de pecado de la lujuria , identificando con ello el placer sexual. Lo escatol?gico como forma de relacionarse con la divinidad y de representarla, tiene otra veta en el uso de insectos como los gusanos a quienes desde nuestra concepci?n occidental los consideramos poca cosa, seres repulsivos, despreciables, insectos que por su tama?o y forma son usados como ofensa denigratoria . Pero los gusanos tienen otro rol en la religi?n mexica: El izcahuile colorado un gusano lagunero "era su propio cuerpo de Huitzilopochtli , que era su sangre, su ser entero de su cuerpo" Cr?nica Mexicana p 59 El gusano de las ra?ces o de las pencas del maguey el Xonecuilli hoy corruptamente llamado hoy Chinicuil dan el nombre a uno de los objetos divisas de un numer?so grupo de dioses: Quetzatcoatl y los llamados , certera o euievocadamente, dioses pulqueros ( vease el c?dice Magliabechi en Famsi , ese mismo gusano es tambi?n la ?rma divisa del dios Mixcoatl. Seg?n Tezozomoc y Seler lo acepta y lo retoma, el Xonecuilli "es la encomienda de Santiago" 365, forma europea de llamar a la V?a Lactea sin reparar el sabio prusiano quizas por desconocimiento, que el Xonecuilli es la forma correcta de llamar al gusano, de maguey, el cual en se vendia en las pulquerias y mercados de la ciudad de M?xico en la ?poca porfiriana, a principios del siglo XX cuando Seler visit? la ciudad de M?xico. Llegamos ahora una de las diosas principales del pante?n de los mesoamericanos prehisp?nicos: la diosa Tlazolteotl,las Tlazolteteo porque eran varias, llamada tambien Ixcuina, las Ixcuiname en plural, diosa (s) fundamental(es) entre los llamados Huaxtecas, entre grupos como los nahoas aztlanecas, segun Tezozomoc Tlazolteotl junto con Mictlantecutli y Huitzilopochtli era los dioses que mas hablaban con los emigrantes de Aztlan. Tlazolteotl es la diosa quiza mas representada en los c?dices Fejervary, Laud, Borgia, Cospi Vaticano. Las ixcuinames son la que iniciaron el sacrificio del flechamiento en Tula, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, era a honra de Ixcuina que era desollado el primer prisionero capturado por los guerreros Tlaxcaltecas, Historia de Tlaxcala. A Tlazolteotl se le nombra diosa de la carnalidad, de la sexualidad, de la lujuria pero tambien se le nombra diosa de las inmundicias, y se le llama Tlaelcuani diosa devoradora de cosas sucias o devoradora del excremento. Muchos investigadores modernos de la religi?n mexica interpretan como excremento , la mancha que las imagenes pictoricas de Tlazolteotl tienen en los c?dices, en vez de interpretarla simplemente como hule o como pintura y hacen tambi?n sin?nimos simb?licos al excremento con los pecados en el terreno sexual , adoptando con ello una visi?n del siglo XVI. Pero cabe preguntarse si la sexualidad , el placer sexual, era considerados como inmundicia, como excremento por los indios, si la diosa Tlazolteotl que tutelaba el placer sexual, es otro caso de esa mirada distinta de los indios prehisp?nicos sobre lo que los occidentales consideramos escatol?gico o estamos aqu? en otro terreno frente a un visi?n impuesta por el cristianismo medieval de los conquistadores espa?oles y los frailes a su servicio. En la concepci?n del cristianismo medieval que culturalmente portaban los conquistadores espa?oles la sexualidad, el placer sexual, es considerado el pecado de la lujuria y la lujuria es equiparada a la cloaca, la lujuria es tierra de la mierda (cuitlapa), la lujuria es suciedad , ensucia como la mierda dice Fray Andres de Olmos en su Texto nahuatl del Tratado de los siete pecados capitales. p 107 BUscando explicar a los indfos que es el pecado de la lujuria. En la sexualidad o carnalidad , la ?nica activida que aceptan los frailes es la relaci?n sexual con fines de reproducci?n, para hacer hijos , y a?n esta hecha pocas veces y sin placer actitudes a la que llaman virtudes de la templanza y la continencia . La investigadora Patrice Giasson en su art?culo publicado en la revista Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl N? 32 propone, cre? con raz?n, que la idea de Tlazolteotl como deidad del pecado, entendiendo como tal, el placer sexual y la sexualidad es una idea surgida en el siglo XVI, idea producida por los frailes cristianos antes que una concepci?n de los mesoamericanos y se?ala como esta interpretaci?n ha orientado y te?ido las interporetaciones modernas. A ello a?ad? una duda necesaria: Cual es realmente la ra?z del nombre de la diosa: Tlazolli (basura desperdicio) lo que da Tlazolteotl diosa de la inmundicia o era Tlazo (precioso costoso) lo que da Tlazoteotl la diosa preciosa. La similitud fon?tica de ambos t?rminos parece incluso un juego de palabras, una similitud fon?tica detectada por los frailes y usada por ellos para sus fines de adoctrrinamiento religioso Tenemos en nahuatl otras palabras para nombra la suciedad ademas de Tlazolli: suciedad, basura, desperdicio, inmundicia sucio: catzactic, tzoyoc, catzactic. Suciedad : catzactiliztli, zotl, catzahualiztli Uno de los ejemplos de esa influencia medieval en las interpretaciones modernas esta en Jos? Alcina Franch qui?n en su art?culo ?Procreaci?n amor y sexo entre los mexica ? estudios de Cultura Nahuatl N? 21, hace afirmaciones como que ?la moral sexual en la sociedad azteca era relativamente parecida o comparable a la espa?ola de la ?poca del contacto.? termino vergonzante para no decir la conquista espa?ola y la destrucci?n del mundo prehisp?nico. Continua Alcina ? Hay muchos datos que corroboran esta opini?n; s?lo mencionar? uno que me parece de extraordinaria importancia : la existencia del concepto de pecado y su aplicaci?n casi exclusiva al pecado sexual o carnal, lo que aproxima al pueblo tenochca al castellano, extreme?o o andaluz que llegaba a su encuentro en aquel momento? ecn n?21 p60 A?ade Alcina ?todo lo que no estuviese dirigido a la procreaci?n era considerado como lujurioso y , por lo tanto pecaminoso? p60 Alcina nos recuerda que seg?n el sabio porfiriano Cecilio R?belo ?el nombre de Tlazolteotl deriva de Tla= cosa ; y Zolli viejo, usado y gastado (literalmente: ?cosa vieja? y ?y en sentido figurado: ?basura, suciedad, inmundicia ?) ,Teotl diosa y Alcina ortodoxo con la interpretaci?n dominante concluye la traducci?n: Tlazolteotl = ?Diosa de la basura, de la inmundicia? Aceptar que lo usado y gastado sea sin?nimo de basura es una estulticia pero hasta la fecha hay quien lo acepta y de tama?a estulticia sobre ella se construyen interpretaciones de la religi?n prehisp?nica. La diosa ya usada es la diosa que ya no es virgen la diosa que ya fue cogida, la diosa cuya vagina fue usada por un varon para una copula, que fue usada como sujeto pasivo , no que us? ella, la diosa, como sujeto activo, pues el uso de los organos genitales y ?roticos femeninos, es atributo masculino desde la visi?n machista, de la cual esta impregnada la religi?n prehisp?nica, . Si todo lo usado fuera considerado basura imaginemos la carga material y moral que esta concepci?n impondr?a sobre los indios en un sociedad donde la religi?n llenaba todos los poros de la vida social. Bajo esta concepci?n que equipara lo usado con basura , el imperio colhua mexica pasar?a a ser el mejor ejemplo hist?rico del consumismo extremo dejando muy atr?s al decadente imperio norteamericano. Los pobres indios habr?an muerto extenuados al no tener momento de reposo ante la necesidad de construir todo el tiempo nuevos templos para que sus dioses no vivieran en los templos ya usados , esto es, entre la basura y el excremento. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From cuecuex at gmail.com Sun May 24 03:50:22 2009 From: cuecuex at gmail.com (roberto romero) Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 22:50:22 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 3 Message-ID: Estimados David Wright Y Antony Appleyard No deja de ser intrigante el hecho que consigna Wright acerca de que "no haya no he visto el nombre otom? de Cuitlahuac en ninguna fuente novohispana en esta lengua" Este hecho es explicable en el caso del nombre del X Tlatoani Mexica, antiguo se?or de iztapalapa, pues la relaci?n de los se?ores mexicas en las fuentes otomis que menciona, todas coloniales se interrumpe con Moctezuma el menor, el mismo que recibio pacificamente a los conquistadores espa?oles para a los tres dias ser secuestrado por estos. La que si es raro que no haya el t?rmino Cuitlahuac equivalente en otomi para nombrar al pueblo de Cuitlahuac y a los Cuitlahuacas , pueblos que dieron origen a las localidades que ahora llamamos Tlahuac y Mizquic, pueblos cuya presencia en el la regi?n del valle de M?xico se presume mas antigua que la de los mexicas. Sabiendo que ambos pueblos eran considerados parte de los llamados chalmecas, cabe preguntarse como los otomis nombraba a los Chalmecas o a los habitantes de Chalma A los Chalmecas deben haber conocido los otomis mas a?n cuando dicho nombre de Chalmeca era el mismo que ten?an los sacerdotes auxiliares en el sacrificio, cuyo doloroso filo hicieron probar los mexicas a los otomis despu?s de derrotarlos. Distinguiendose los pueblos Chalmecas , los cuitlahuacas, por su especialidad en el cultivo chinampero cabe preguntarse ?como los otomis llamaban a las chinampas? Sabemos de cultivo chinampero que se realizaba en territorio de los Tepanecas y en tierras del valle de Toluca. Si bien la realizaban los amos de los otomis en la ?poca prehisp?nica esta fue practicada por los otomis en los primeros a?os de la colonia por lo menos en el Valle de Toluca. ? como llamaban los otomis al abono que se usaba para dicho cultivo chinampero? Abono entre el cual estaba el estiercol o excremento animal y humano. Por otro lado los terminos "calcos" de plata, oro y plomo que Wright se?ala existen entre el otomi y el nahuatl , en ambos casos con el significado de excremento divino y la antig?edad del termino otomi , que tambien considero es mayor, nos permite descartar la hipotesis que sugiere Appleyard acerca de que el uso de la raiz Cuitlatl como termino para nombrar al excremento es un significado "mas moderno" que proviene del argot o es un eufemismo. Se?ala Wright que "Entre los dioses del panteon otomi tambien estaba la diosa " Nopot?ej?, ?la deidad del excremento?, probablemente el nombre otom? de Tlazolteotl, ?la diosa de la basura?. La palabra pot?ei, ?excremento?, se encuentra en Urbano, 1990: 239r (?Hezes generalmente?). J?, equivalente de la voz n?huatl teotl, significa ?deidad? seg?n la misma fuente" Era Tlazolteotl diosa de la basura, deidad del excremento cmo nos dijeron los frailes cronistas y nos repiten la mayoria de los investigadores contemporaneos? En el espa?ol el dicionario de la real academia se?ala los siguientes significados para excremento: 1. m. Residuos del alimento que, despu?s de hecha la digesti?n, despide el cuerpo por el ano. 2. m. Residuo metab?lico del organismo. 3. m. Residuo que se produce en las plantas por putrefacci?n. Siendo el primero de los significados el mas usado por los que tenemos la cultura espa?ola el que equipara excremento a mierda y excretar a cagar , a defecar, Pero excremento ,excretar Y excreci?n tiene otros significados sin?nimos uno de ellos es evacuaci?n , evacuar, secrecion y secretar . Si nos atenemos a las imagenes de Tlazolteolt que vemos en los c?dices la diosa excreta, la diosa evacua: 1) .- un humano que serian formas sinonimas de decir pare. As? aparece con la p?el de un desollado en la l?mina del Borb?nico http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/borbonicus/img_page11.html 2.- una flor asi aparece en el c?dice vaticanus http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/vaticanus3773/img_page74.html En Biolog?a, se llama secreci?n (del lat?n secretio) al proceso por el que un ser vivo vierte al exterior sustancias de cualquier clase. Tambi?n se llama secreci?n a la sustancia liberada. El acto de verter una secreci?n se llama secretar. Excreci?n (es) y Secreciones indistintantamente podemos llamar al moco , a las lagrimas, al sudor , a la saliva, al semen , al flujo vaginal, etc Si nos atenemos a la tutela sobre la carnalidad, el placer sexual y la sexualidad actividades todas en las que fisiologicamente los humanos sanos fisica y mentalmente , mujeres y hombres, secretamos y excretamos diversos fluidos En ese sentido la diosa Tlazolteotl como diosa de la sexualidad es un diosa de las excreciones y las secreciones , de los excrementos metab?licos. La reducci?n de excreci?n a mierda , y de placer sexual o sexualidad a mierda es un concepto cristiano y fue importado por los frailes y conquistadores esp?oles y adjudicado a la diosa Tlazolteotl entendida por los frailes como diosa de la lujuria, y como en en la concepci?n cristiana lujuria = mierda , es la diosa de la mierda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Mon May 25 15:45:46 2009 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:45:46 -0500 Subject: Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Estimado Roberto: Es muy interesante todo lo que dices sobre este campo sem?ntico tan vital y tan cercano para todos los seres humanos y otras especies animales. Se ve que el tema da para una obra amplia, tal vez un libro o una tesis, que ser?a una contribuci?n importante a los estudios mesoamericanistas. Trat? de encontrar las respuestas a las preguntas que planteas sobre las palabras en otom? para ciertos top?nimos y otros conceptos; una revisi?n somera de las fuentes que tengo a la mano dio un resultado negativo. Es altamente probable que haya existido alguna vez un top?nimo otom? para Cuitlahuac, que con la adici?n del prefijo gentilicio m?- se pudo haber convertido en gentilicio. En Mesoam?rica era raro que se usaran pr?stamos morf?micos o fon?ticos en los top?nimos; lo usual eran los calcos, como mencion? en mi ?ltimo mensaje. Lo que sucede es que hay relativamente pocos documentos en esta lengua, en comparaci?n con el enorme corpus de manuscritos e impresos novohispanos en n?huatl (aunque esta supuesta carencia ha sido exagerada; cuando sale el nuevo suplemento al Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources del Handbook of Middle American Indians, se va a ver que hay m?s material en otom? de lo que generalmente se pensaba). Otra l?nea de investigaci?n es ver qu? grupos otom?es tienen contacto hoy con los lugares cuyos nombres otom?es queremos averiguar, y preguntarles c?mo llaman a ese lugar. En algunos casos sobreviven todav?a los antiguos top?nimos. Los vocabularios modernos, de los cuales hay varios publicados, a veces tienen informaci?n de este tipo. Saludos, David De: nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces at lists.famsi.org] En nombre de roberto romero Enviado el: s?bado, 23 de mayo de 2009 10:50 p.m. Para: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org Asunto: [Nahuat-l] Cuitlahuac Cuitlatl 3 Estimados David Wright Y Antony Appleyard No deja de ser intrigante el hecho que consigna Wright acerca de que "no haya no he visto el nombre otom? de Cuitlahuac en ninguna fuente novohispana en esta lengua" Este hecho es explicable en el caso del nombre del X Tlatoani Mexica, antiguo se?or de iztapalapa, pues la relaci?n de los se?ores mexicas en las fuentes otomis que menciona, todas coloniales se interrumpe con Moctezuma el menor, el mismo que recibio pacificamente a los conquistadores espa?oles para a los tres dias ser secuestrado por estos. La que si es raro que no haya el t?rmino Cuitlahuac equivalente en otomi para nombrar al pueblo de Cuitlahuac y a los Cuitlahuacas , pueblos que dieron origen a las localidades que ahora llamamos Tlahuac y Mizquic, pueblos cuya presencia en el la regi?n del valle de M?xico se presume mas antigua que la de los mexicas. Sabiendo que ambos pueblos eran considerados parte de los llamados chalmecas, cabe preguntarse como los otomis nombraba a los Chalmecas o a los habitantes de Chalma A los Chalmecas deben haber conocido los otomis mas a?n cuando dicho nombre de Chalmeca era el mismo que ten?an los sacerdotes auxiliares en el sacrificio, cuyo doloroso filo hicieron probar los mexicas a los otomis despu?s de derrotarlos. Distinguiendose los pueblos Chalmecas , los cuitlahuacas, por su especialidad en el cultivo chinampero cabe preguntarse ?como los otomis llamaban a las chinampas? Sabemos de cultivo chinampero que se realizaba en territorio de los Tepanecas y en tierras del valle de Toluca. Si bien la realizaban los amos de los otomis en la ?poca prehisp?nica esta fue practicada por los otomis en los primeros a?os de la colonia por lo menos en el Valle de Toluca. ? como llamaban los otomis al abono que se usaba para dicho cultivo chinampero? Abono entre el cual estaba el estiercol o excremento animal y humano. Por otro lado los terminos "calcos" de plata, oro y plomo que Wright se?ala existen entre el otomi y el nahuatl , en ambos casos con el significado de excremento divino y la antig?edad del termino otomi , que tambien considero es mayor, nos permite descartar la hipotesis que sugiere Appleyard acerca de que el uso de la raiz Cuitlatl como termino para nombrar al excremento es un significado "mas moderno" que proviene del argot o es un eufemismo. Se?ala Wright que "Entre los dioses del panteon otomi tambien estaba la diosa " Nopot?ej?, ?la deidad del excremento?, probablemente el nombre otom? de Tlazolteotl, ?la diosa de la basura?. La palabra pot?ei, ?excremento?, se encuentra en Urbano, 1990: 239r (?Hezes generalmente?). J?, equivalente de la voz n?huatl teotl, significa ?deidad? seg?n la misma fuente" Era Tlazolteotl diosa de la basura, deidad del excremento cmo nos dijeron los frailes cronistas y nos repiten la mayoria de los investigadores contemporaneos? En el espa?ol el dicionario de la real academia se?ala los siguientes significados para excremento: 1. m. Residuos del alimento que, despu?s de hecha la digesti?n, despide el cuerpo por el ano. 2. m. Residuo metab?lico del organismo. 3. m. Residuo que se produce en las plantas por putrefacci?n. Siendo el primero de los significados el mas usado por los que tenemos la cultura espa?ola el que equipara excremento a mierda y excretar a cagar , a defecar, Pero excremento ,excretar Y excreci?n tiene otros significados sin?nimos uno de ellos es evacuaci?n , evacuar, secrecion y secretar . Si nos atenemos a las imagenes de Tlazolteolt que vemos en los c?dices la diosa excreta, la diosa evacua: 1) .- un humano que serian formas sinonimas de decir pare. As? aparece con la p?el de un desollado en la l?mina del Borb?nico http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/borbonicus/img_page11.html 2.- una flor asi aparece en el c?dice vaticanus http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/graz/vaticanus3773/img_page74.html En Biolog?a, se llama secreci?n (del lat?n secretio) al proceso por el que un ser vivo vierte al exterior sustancias de cualquier clase. Tambi?n se llama secreci?n a la sustancia liberada. El acto de verter una secreci?n se llama secretar. Excreci?n (es) y Secreciones indistintantamente podemos llamar al moco , a las lagrimas, al sudor , a la saliva, al semen , al flujo vaginal, etc Si nos atenemos a la tutela sobre la carnalidad, el placer sexual y la sexualidad actividades todas en las que fisiologicamente los humanos sanos fisica y mentalmente , mujeres y hombres, secretamos y excretamos diversos fluidos En ese sentido la diosa Tlazolteotl como diosa de la sexualidad es un diosa de las excreciones y las secreciones , de los excrementos metab?licos. La reducci?n de excreci?n a mierda , y de placer sexual o sexualidad a mierda es un concepto cristiano y fue importado por los frailes y conquistadores esp?oles y adjudicado a la diosa Tlazolteotl entendida por los frailes como diosa de la lujuria, y como en en la concepci?n cristiana lujuria = mierda , es la diosa de la mierda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl