<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">Estimados Listeros:<BR>
<BR>
I leave most of this to the more experienced grammarians on the list, but re two points:<BR>
<BR>
1), 'yexcan quiztica' </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><U>seems</U></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> very familiar to me, but I hesitate to say how common it is. Whenever there is a question about such things, I go through a lot of books and mss to see what is actually there, not what I think/assume is there. So I can say for sure that it looks familiar and expected, but beyond that I won't go for the moment. <BR>
<BR>
2), never hurts to keep in mind that the line in early Nahuatl between verb and noun is not as strictly drawn as it is in English and Spanish [just to mention two of the languages that a lot of researchers bring to their study of Nahuatl]. So don't beat yourselves up trying to make distinctions that may prove to be more elusive than expected. *Not that you shouldn't make every effort to break down, analyze, etc.*<BR>
<BR>
Ye ixquich.<BR>
Barry<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 4/7/07 5:40:26 PM, brokaw@buffalo.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">Dear Barry and David,<BR>
Thank you for your comments on yexanztica.<BR>
By way of background, Ben Leeming, a recently converted Nahuatl<BR>
enthusiast from the Boston area, sought out Pablo, recently transplanted<BR>
from Indiana to New Hampshire, and me (I am on leave from Buffalo<BR>
spending the year in New England) about getting together to work on a<BR>
Nahuatl text. So we all got together to form what Pablo has dubbed the<BR>
New England Nahuatl Circle. We started out looking at Richley Crapo's<BR>
recently published edition of the Anonimo mexicano. But having an<BR>
available translation wasn't as much fun, and Ben was interested in<BR>
reading Pedro de Gante’s _Doctrina cristiana_, which as far as we know<BR>
has never been translated. In fact, the only form we can find it in is a<BR>
facsimile of the original printed edition from the sixteenth century.<BR>
The passage which Pablo cited is on folio 2 verso of Gante's Doctrina.<BR>
Pablo was rather modest in the way he posed the question. He makes very<BR>
good use of Molina. In addition, we had already found other errors in<BR>
the text, and it seemed clear to us that there was an error here as<BR>
well. We even discussed the perhaps very likely possibility of a<BR>
non-Nahuatl speaking printer working with a Nahuatl manuscript, the<BR>
difficulties that this would inherently involve, and the kind of errors<BR>
that would inevitably be introduced in such a context. We came up with a<BR>
couple of theories as to what “yexanztica” was supposed to be, including<BR>
the one Barry pointed out. Ultimately, given the letters that are<BR>
present, it seems that there are simply some missing letters that need<BR>
to be inserted: “yex[c]an [qui]ztica.” But we thought we would throw it<BR>
out there to see if there might be something we were missing; or if one<BR>
of our other admittedly less likely theories might prove to be viable.<BR>
None of us have any previous experience with doctrinas in Nahuatl, so,<BR>
Barry, your confirmation that “yexcan quiztica” is common in such texts<BR>
is very helpful. By the way, in these colonial doctrinas, do they ever<BR>
say "yexcan quizca" or is it always "yexcan quiztica"? Is there a<BR>
pragmatic difference between these two forms?<BR>
The semantic problem with "quiztica" to which Pablo referred, was not<BR>
with how to translate this in a general sense, but rather how to break<BR>
it down morphologically.<BR>
It seemed to us that there were two possibilities: a verbal form and a<BR>
nominalized form. Molina defines “mieccan quiztica,” for example, as “it<BR>
divides up into many parts,” which suggests a verbal form, evidently the<BR>
present progressive: quiz[a] + ti (ligature) + ca (to be); and there are<BR>
other entries that confirm this verbal form. But there are also other<BR>
entries such as "toquiquiztica," which I assume is formed by<BR>
reduplicating the first syllable of “quiza” and means “our pores,” and<BR>
cenquiztica, meaning “something whole.” In these cases, there is a<BR>
formal homology with the verbal "quiztica," but with these terms it<BR>
seems that the ending is morphologically different, apparently “quiz[a]<BR>
+ ti (ligature) + ca (nominalizer). I guess the literal meaning of this<BR>
nominalized form as “something that came out” is what conveys the idea<BR>
of “part”: something that has come out or protrudes from something else<BR>
to which it belongs, thus distinguishing itself as a "part" of a larger<BR>
whole. According to this interpretation “cenquiztica” literally means<BR>
“s.t. that comes out completely or as a whole,” that is to say without<BR>
distinguishing itself from anything else to which it might have<BR>
inherently belonged.<BR>
In the passage in question, we might be able to read the “yexcan<BR>
quiztica” as a verbal form and the subsequent “quiztica” as a<BR>
nominalized form. Or maybe they are both the nominalized form. Or maybe<BR>
they are both verb forms. In the end, it does not really make that much<BR>
of a difference for the general meaning conveyed. We just wondered if<BR>
there was any way to disambiguate the morphology in any given instance.<BR>
The fact that in Nahuatl you don’t necessarily need a verb seems to make<BR>
it difficult in this case to determine what is going on grammatically,<BR>
because there appears to be a formal homology between two grammatically<BR>
different forms, one verbal and one nominalized. I wonder if this might<BR>
be ambiguous even to a native Nahuatl speaker.<BR>
Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
Galen<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Quoting Amapohuani@aol.com:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> --part1_c0a.13565d34.334869c7_boundary<BR>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"<BR>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<BR>
><BR>
> Estimado Pablo:<BR>
><BR>
> Apart from David Wright's email, just a reminder to all that it is<BR>
> helpful to<BR>
> let the list know what one is citing, for example, a publication or a<BR>
><BR>
> manuscript, title, year, page/folio, etc. That way, if some of us<BR>
> have the same book,<BR>
> or the ms has been published in a critical edition, then we can<BR>
> doublecheck<BR>
> the section it appears in, whether or not an item has been<BR>
> inadvertently<BR>
> spelled in a different way, and so on.<BR>
><BR>
> For example, it is my experience that sometimes books have outright<BR>
> errors,<BR>
> or a ms may be a copy of something, and in the process of copying the<BR>
> scribe(s)<BR>
> can literally misinterpret the characters and make an analysis more<BR>
> difficult. And some books and mss have more outright errors than<BR>
> others.<BR>
><BR>
> I think you have the thrust of the item, but to find the most<BR>
> recognizable/consultable [sorry for the invented word] constituent<BR>
> parts [not that you can't<BR>
> break them down even more] then it would look something like 'yexcan<BR>
> [or<BR>
> excan] quiztica' or 'yexcan [or excan] quizqui' or the like -- a<BR>
> standard statement<BR>
> in colonial Nahuatl doctrinas. By 'recognizable/consultable' I mean<BR>
> something<BR>
> that you can more readily look up in Molina, like these entries from<BR>
> Molina<BR>
> 2004 [the most recent version of the 1571 edition] on 36r of the<BR>
> NahtoSpan<BR>
> side: "Yexcan. en tres parts s, o lugares" [sic] followed by "Yexcan<BR>
> quizqui.<BR>
> partido o diuidido en tres partes."<BR>
><BR>
> Good luck with your studies.<BR>
><BR>
> Ye ixquich.<BR>
> Barry<BR>
><BR>
> In a message dated 4/6/07 6:42:08 PM, PGarcia@anselm.edu writes:<BR>
><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Nahuatl mailing list<BR>
Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"></FONT><BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.</HTML>