ozcoa, ozcohua, izcoa, izcohua

[Campbell, R. Joe]

John,

   Unless I'm mistaken, the -ohua forms all come from the Florentine; 
Molina doesn't have -ohua.

   Of course, that doesn't have any weight.  What does weigh is the 
shape of the forms that our sources have.  On the issue of what the 
initial vowel of the stem is, Mol-1 S-N has "neozcoliztli", giving us 
the information that the 'o' is not part of the object prefix; the 
Florentine, Book 11, has 'quimozcooa' (with a 'quim-' prefix), "they 
warm them", corroborating the "o- initial" verb stem hypothesis.

   The 'oa' or 'ohua' question is resolved by a citation in M-2 N-S: 
the preterit of "ninozcoa' is 'oninozco[h]', not 'oninozcouh' (the 
final 'h' of 'oninozcoh') added here as a favor to fray Alonso).

   Oh, the issue of "oa" vs. "ohua" reminds me that I haven't 
regularized the "primary" or "display" spelling for these particular 
entries yet.  Of course, the database will maintain a double 
representation: display (regularized) vs. original.

Cheers,

Joe



Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>:

> Sorry,
> 	I should have asked, is it ozcoa, ozcohua, izcoa or izcohua?
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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