<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I enjoyed the sacred landscape meaning of “altepetl” that was provided by Dr. Sullivan.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>I learned in my “History of English” class that Modern English has “self-explaining compounds,” or what the authors define as “compounds of two or more native words whose meaning in combination is either self-evident or has been rendered clear by association and usage.” The book says Old English and modern German are full of self-explaining compounds. The authors argue that it was a way to conserve the native vocabulary without having to borrow from other languages (lest we lose our culture so the saying goes). </DIV>
<DIV><BR>I’m thinking that these “self-explaining compounds” in English are approximately “Tatpurusa” dvandva compounds. Some examples are given in “History of English” such as “greenhouse, railway, sewing machine, one-way street, and coffee-table book.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anyway, now that I think I know what dvandra means, what is the relationship between a dvandra and assimilation in Nahuatl? I still don’t get it even after looking at Citlayani’s examples now pasted below: </DIV>
<DIV><BR>(1) Dvanda<BR>a:tl (water) + tepe:tl (hill) = a:ltepe:tl <BR>A town needs water for irrigation and a hill to keep out of floods.<BR>Thus the components have equal status and the compound is a dvandva.<BR>The basic meaning is "it is water (and) it is a hill", "it is water and<BR>a hill", originally two words, and people gradually started letting<BR>them run together into one; and the sequence -tlt- became -lt-.</DIV>
<DIV>(2) Dvanda. <BR>na:huatl + tlahto:lli is also a dvandva: "it is something<BR>clear-sounding (and) it is a language", became na:huallahto:lli ; the<BR>sequence -tltl- became -ll-.</DIV>
<DIV>(3) Not a Dvandva. <BR>a:tl + tla:lli (earth) = a:tla:lli 'irrigated land', as it is (a<BR>sort of) land, but it is not (a sort of) water: it is an ordinary<BR>compound, not a dvandva.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>There still does not seem to be an explanation for identifying a dvanda in Nahuatl and for following a specified assimilation pattern as a result. As students, are we even supposed to look for the distinction of a dvanda when we are practicing assimilation patterns? Any thoughts would be welcomed. tlazohkamati.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>citlalin xochime<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message from Davius Sanctex <davius_sanctex@TERRA.ES>: -------------- <BR><BR><BR>> Juan, <BR>> <BR>> A dvandva, for example X-Y, is a coordinate lexical compound in wich both <BR>> terms are equally in status and being semantically roughly equivalent of X <BR>> and Y. The terms a loanword from a tradiotional sanscrit grammatical term <BR>> (other three types of compounds are distinguished in sanscrit according to <BR>> its semantic type or syntactical prominence (pra:dha:nyam): Tatpurusa <BR>> compounds, in wich a compound of the for XY is a type of Y, avyayi:bha:va or <BR>> inflecitonal invariant compounds and Bahuvri:hi compounds in wich XY denotes <BR>> a type of entity not relaterd semantically to X or Y]. <BR>> <BR>> Examples of these types in Spanish and English are: <BR>> Tatpurusa: "fireman", "fountain-pen", "fish-hook" / "hombre rana" <BR>> Bahuvri:hi: ? / pasacalles, nochebueno, matasuegras <BR>> Dvandva: ? / carricoche, bolilápiz, "sofá cama". <BR>> <BR>> I think most compounds in Englis are Tatpurusa Compounds. In Spanish <BR>> Bahuvri:hi compounds are more abundant. Dvandva compounds are rare in both <BR>> language but not in sanscrito or nahuatl. (Some adverbial expresions in <BR>> Spanish like "a quema ropa" are similar to avyayi:bha:va compounds of <BR>> sanscrit). <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Davius Sanctex </BLOCKQUOTE>
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
</body>
</html>