<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Cuachitin,<BR>
<BR>
All sources that I have seen have related Ometeotl as being the same "person(s)" as Tloque Nahuaque, Yohualli-Ehecatl, Quetzalcoatl (Quetzalcuate?), and Moyocoyani. Different names relating to different attributes of one divine god, who being invisible (yohualli-ehecatl) is also everywhere near us (tloque nahuaque) and is also the creator of humanity (quetzalcoatl), yet is the creator of him/herself (moyocoyani), yet, it is one divine being (ometeotl). Due to these theological perspectives on Nahua though, I would translate Ometeotl as a metaphorical translation: " plurality of divine persons", or "god of plurality".<BR>
<BR>
timota,<BR>
<BR>
Pancho<BR>
<BR> <BR>> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:21:36 -0400<BR>> From: campbel@indiana.edu<BR>> To: ipedrozar@gmail.com<BR>> CC: nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Ometeotl<BR>> <BR>> Pedro,<BR>> <BR>> Things are frequently not as simple as we think they are... or wish<BR>> they were. If they were, I might be a chemist. But I'm glad I'm not.<BR>> I wouldn't have missed Nahuatl (and Nahuat-l) for anything.<BR>> <BR>> When we find that morphemes have variant forms, it is natural to<BR>> wonder if a particular form isn't connected with a particular "meaning<BR>> unit" (i.e., morpheme) that we are familiar with. If we are going to<BR>> entertain the possibility of that connection, we are frequently faced<BR>> the necessity of building "semantic bridges" between the basic<BR>> meanings of forms and the meanings of other forms (usually in<BR>> combination with others.<BR>> <BR>> An example:<BR>> <BR>> 1) When I started the English translation and morphological<BR>> analysis of Molina's 1571 Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary in about 1970, I<BR>> hadn't read Carochi -- and Andrews' and Karttunen's works were still<BR>> in the future.<BR>> I looked at Molina's entry:<BR>> Atlacatl. marinero , o mal hombre.<BR>> <BR>> The first part looked obvious... ("if Nahuatl morphology is *this*<BR>> simple..." I thought).<BR>> "a(tl)" = 'water' + "tlaca(tl)" = 'person, man' == "a-tlaca(tl)" --<BR>> 'water-man, sailor'.<BR>> But the second Spanish gloss made me pause -- what was bad about<BR>> sailors? And then I remembered reading that the people who took their<BR>> dugout canoes around the canals of central Mexico, peddling fruit,<BR>> vegetables, and game, sometimes left the people at their stopping<BR>> place less than pleased with their behavior. That seemed like a<BR>> satisfactory semantic bridge to me. So the behavior of water-persons<BR>> was a likely explanation for the extended meaning, even though there<BR>> is nothing inherent in 'water' or "atl" that hints at evil or bad<BR>> behavior.<BR>> <BR>> Years later, I benefitted from Carochi, Andrews, and Karttunen,<BR>> and learned that "a:tl" has a long vowel, and that the initial<BR>> element of "the other meaning" not only has a short vowel, but a<BR>> glottal stop as well --"ah-". Or, "ah-" 'not' + "tlacatl" 'person,<BR>> human' = 'not human, bad'. (It can be noted that I still don't<BR>> always write vowel length, but at least now, I admit it.)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The moral of the story is that all that seems simple may not be.<BR>> ...and that there is always more to know.<BR>> <BR>> ................<BR>> <BR>> On the issue of "ometeotl", I would first suggest that it may not<BR>> be a single word, maybe a two word phrase. There are other apparent<BR>> words might deceive us:<BR>> <BR>> coatlicue name of a divinity<BR>> really: coatl i-cue (her skirt is snakes)<BR>> <BR>> Coatlichan name of a town<BR>> really coatl i-chan (snake's house)<BR>> <BR>> Atlihuetzia name of a town (in Tlaxcala)<BR>> really atl i-huetziya(n) (water's falling place -- waterfall)<BR>> <BR>> .............................<BR>> <BR>> On the issue of the vowel dropping behavior of "o:me" and "e:yi",<BR>> the facts just don't support a simple "they drop their final vowels<BR>> before X" statement.<BR>> <BR>> "e:yi" obeys the general rule that "y" usually drops in direct<BR>> contact with "i", as in "ayi, celiya, chichiya, chiya,<BR>> ciyacatl, ihcuiya, piya, etc." It happens too after the other<BR>> front vowel "e", but not with such regularity: "ceya, meya".<BR>> So "eyi" shows up frequently as "ei".<BR>> <BR>> As Ivan and Mario recently pointed out, when "y" occurs in final<BR>> position, it changes to "x" ('sh'):<BR>> <BR>> castolcan omexcan in eighteen places<BR>> cempoalpa omexpa. twenty-three times<BR>> chicuexpa. eight times<BR>> excampa nacaceh triangular<BR>> <BR>> Sometimes "yi" deletes and leaves only the "e" segment:<BR>> <BR>> epantli. three rows<BR>> oc epoalcan in another sixty places<BR>> epoalilhuitl sixty days<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Given this kind of variation, I would hesitate to identify any<BR>> "e", "ex", or "ei" as a token of "eyi". And even more, I would walk<BR>> with great trepidation with regard to making a statement about the<BR>> worldview of a culture on the basis of such an identification.<BR>> <BR>> Iztayomeh,<BR>> <BR>> Joe<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Nahuatl mailing list<BR>> Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl<BR><br /><hr />Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <a href='http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009' target='_new'>Check it out.</a></body>
</html>