attestations of itta, tlachiya vs. pohua

Wed Sep 14 23:09:12 UTC 2011

Hi Heather,

Like John, I was hoping someone would answer. I hesitated not because of 
the closed corpus issue, but because I'm swamped at the beginning of the 
semester and I know there are people on the list who can probably answer 
better than me anyway.
It seems to me that there are other issues in the translation that may 
resolve the question differently. And I think the larger context is 
important here. The text identifies the person who delivered the message 
as a priest from the temple of Tezcatlipoca. So the "teohua" is probably 
not referring to any old priest but to this specific priest who 
delivered the message. In isolation, maybe a priest's "tlapielli" might 
refer to papers or other things for which he is responsible. But it 
seems kind of odd that they wouldn't just refer to the papers in this 
context if that is what they meant.  Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but 
I believe that earlier in this episode, the term "tlapielli" or a form 
thereof is used several times to refer to this message delivered by the 
priest. So it sounds to me like they decide to consult with this priest 
about the message, the message that he was charged with delivering. So 
they ask him what he thinks about or "how he sees" the message. The 
Spanish translation would probably be "encomienda." I'm not sure why 
they use the plural form when they are talking to the priest. Maybe they 
see him as representing a group, and they are asking him what he and the 
other members of his group think. In any case, the references to 
"amatlamatqui" and "amatecqui" then would just be epithets for the priest.
Maybe I'm off here. This interpretation certainly isn't as interesting 
as the priest engaging in a kind of ritual with paper.

Galen

On 9/13/2011 11:20 PM, Tomas Amando Amaya Aquino wrote:
> Hola amigos listeros
> Nimitzyoltlapalohua Heather.
>
> Trataré de contribuir con un rápido comentario:
> El escribano o tlacuilo no usa* tlen* (qué) sino *quen *seguido directamente
> de antlachía y anquita. La traducción más literal sería: "Cómo miráis, como
> veis lo que tenéis a vuestro cuidado? Y ¿qué es lo que un sacerdote tiene a
> su cuidado? Las cosas sagradas. Bueno, pues podemos traducir "Cómo miráis,
> como veis los objetos sagrados? Si seguimos el hilo podremos traducir ¿Como
> perciben, como contemplan vuestros ojos los objetos sagrados? y también
> ¿Cómo se manifiestan a vuestros ojos los objetos sagrados?. Claro una
> interpretación más directa y sencilla, incluso que la de Tena, sería: ¿Cómo
> interpretáis vuestras pinturas?
> Resumiendo: la pregunta se refiere a cómo es el aspecto, la manifestación de
> las pinturas  a los ojos de los sacerdotes y ellos qué pueden decir al
> respecto.
> Desde luego aquí no cabe, pienso yo, el pohua, que en primera instancia
> remite a la idea de contar.
> Por supuesto que podemos imaginar un ritual para hacer que los objetos
> sagrados se manifiesten. En la actualidad los tlamatques o nahuales recurren
> al humo del incienso. Las formas del humo les dicen cosas. Queman papeles en
> el altar y las cenizas les dicen cosas. Arrojan pétalos sobre el agua quieta
> de una bandeja y los pétalos les dicen cosas al ir tomando forma. Etc. Etc.
> Lo importante aquí es que "son los objetos sagrados los que se manifiestan"
> y les dicen cosas a los sacerdotes. Los sacerdotes "no leen los objetos".
>
>
> Tomas Amaya
>
>
>
>
>
> 2011/9/13 IDIEZ<idiez at me.com>
>
>> Piyali Heather,
>>         I see you haven’t received any responses yet to your mail. I hope
>> you will, but I suspect that they will be few because of the nature of your
>> question, and that’s what I’d like to comment on. Most people that deal with
>> Classical Nahuatl texts, do so exclusively from within what we could call a
>> closed corpus. There’s a finite number of relations you can identify and
>> elaborate on between elements of a closed corpus. However, as you know,
>> Classical Nahuatl can also be looked at as documents registering moments and
>> variants of a language and culture that existed before the 1530s and
>> continues to exist today. You have studied Classical and Modern Nahuatl
>> together, and you have participated in the Tlatlacualtiah ceremony in
>> Tepecxitla, and you have seen first hand how Modern tepahtianih use paper in
>> the process of their communication with deities. And it’s not a pintura,
>> something that is painted, finished and then perhaps, looked over and
>> consulted. It’s paper that lives and embodies deity and has real
>> relationships with human beings. It is invoked rather than consulted. This
>> kind of blows a hole in the closed corpus. Or perhaps it puts the corpus in
>> it’s proper context, and in doing so permits us to look at it in newer and
>> more productive (as in researchers producing knowledge) ways.
>>         I don’t have an answer to your question, but it’s a fascinating one.
>> But more important is the methodology and expanded definition of corpus that
>> lies behind the question.
>> John
>>
>> John Sullivan, Ph.D.
>> Professor of Nahua language and culture
>> Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
>> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology
>> Tacuba 152, int. 43
>> Centro Histórico
>> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
>> Mexico
>> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415
>> Fax: +1 (858) 724-3030 (U.S.A.)
>> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048
>> Mobile (Mexico): +52 1 (492) 103-0195
>> Mobile (US): (615) 649-2790
>> idiez at me.com
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Heather Allen wrote:
>>
>>> Piyali nahuatlatos,
>>>
>>>
>>> This question arose while translating a section from the *Anales de
>>> Tlatelolco* recounting the fall of Tenochtitlan/Tlatelolco. Cortés has
>>> defeated Tenochtitlan but Tlatelolco still holds out. So he sends a
>> message
>>> to the tlahtoqueh suggesting that, for the good of the women and
>> children,
>>> they should surrender. In order to decide how to respond, the tlahtoqueh
>>> consult a priest. In the Nahuatl, one of the tlahtoqueh asks the priest,
>>> “quen antlachia quen anquita yn amotlapiello,” which Rafael Tena has
>>> translated as “¿qué veis, qué aparece en vuestras pinturas?”
>>>
>>>
>>> The verbs used here are *tlachi[y]a* and *itta*, which Karttunen has as
>> to
>>> see something and to see, respectively,while *tlapiello* (*tlapiyalo*)
>> are
>>> (loosely) things that are cared for or under someone’s stewardship. Tena
>> has
>>> translated tlapiello as “pinturas,” which certainly makes sense in this
>>> context. But my question is, are *tlachia* and *itta* the verbs commonly
>>> used to describe the action of interpreting a *pintura* in 16th and
>>> 17thcentury Nahuatl documents? Or is
>>> *pohua* more commonly attested to in reference to *pinturas*?
>>>
>>>
>>> I ask because it seems to me that this passage may be describing a ritual
>>> involving *amatl*, rather than a “reading” of a *pintura*. In other
>> words,
>>> the priest could be observing or examining amatl in a material sense,
>> rather
>>> than examining what is inscribed upon the *amatl*. If *pohua* is more
>> often
>>> used in reference to interpreting a pintura, that would support my hunch,
>>> especially since *tlapiello* could refer to *pinturas* but also other
>> sacred
>>> things the priest has in is care.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tlazcamati miac for your suggestions!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Below is the original passage in Nahuatl followed by Tena's translation:
>>>
>>>
>>> Nima ye quiualitoa Coyoueuezi tlacuchcalcatl: “Tla quiualnozaca teua”.
>>> Conilhuia:
>>> “Tla xiuallauh, quen antlachia quen anquita yn amotlapiello?”. Conitoa
>> teua
>>> amatlamatqui amatequi: “Nopilçinçiné, ma xicmocaquitica: ‘Tley nel
>>> tiquitozque? Ca ça nauilhuitl yn titlanapoualtizque. Auh y mach yehuatl
>> yn
>>> inauatil y Uitzilopochtli cayatle uetzi. Cuix ychtaca aanquimotilizque.
>> Ma
>>> uc tonacica, ca ça nauilhuitl yn titlanapoualtilizque.’” Auh y ye yuhqui
>> amo
>>> mouelcaqui, ye no yc peuh y yaoyotl. (116)
>>>
>>>
>>> Coyohuehuetzin dijo: “Que se consulte al sacerdote”. Le preguntaron,
>> pues, a
>>> éste: “¿Qué veis, qué aparece en vuestras pinturas?” Respondió el
>> sacerdote
>>> encargado de estudiar y recortar los papeles: “Señores, escuchadme: ¿Qué
>>> podemos decir? Faltan solo cuatro días para que se cumplan 80. Quizá es
>>> designio de Huitzilopochtli que nada suceda. O quizá en secreto vosotros
>>> mismos lo veréis. Esperemos, pues sólo faltan cuatro días para los 80”.
>> No
>>> quedaron contentos [con la respuesta], así que reanudaron la guerra.
>> (117)
>>>
>>> *Anales de Tlatelolco. *Ed. and trans. Rafael Tena. México: Cien de
>> México,
>>> 2004.* *116-117.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Heather Allen, PhD
>>> Visiting Assistant Professor
>>> Department of Spanish&  Portuguese
>>> University of Texas at Austin
>>> hallen at austin.utexas.edu
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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