Un toponimo tlaxcalteco

[r. joe campbell]

Chichiltic Coyotzin,

   I share your expectation about the location of locative suffixes, but
they can surprise us.  One way that they do the unexpected is by really
acting like nouns.  For example, in a modern dialect that I can't remember
right now, the postposition "-ican" (as in "icampa nocal" 'behind my
house') is verbed on to supply the verb "icanhuia" -- so "antechicanhuia"
means 'y'all follow us [supply us with "behind"].

   From the Florentine Codex come the following:

  te-a-tlan-huia      he drowns people
                       (he supplies people with a water place)

  te-a-tlan-mictia-ya she drowned people
                       (using "atlan" as an adverb)

  o-a-tlan-papacho-loh-queh
                      they were submerged repeatedly in water
                       (adverb use again)

  m[o]-a-tlan-huih-queh
                      they fell into water
                       (they supplied themselves with a water place)

  qui-meca-ti-tlan-tlalia
                      they place it within ropes
                       (apparently "that other" -tla:n)


Saludos,

Joe

p.s.  I'm sure that someone will come up with examples of two locative
suffixes -- besides "icampa nocal" (above):

   n[o]-ican-pa     behind me
    no   my
    ican behind
    pa   towards


>
> Also, I was wondering about your usage/translation of -tlan David. Firstly,
> would this not be an unusual position to place a locative suffix for a place
> name. Locative suffixes usually go at the end of  compounds(from what I've
> learnt and seen - my experience is limited and I could be wrong)?? However,
> the end of this compound would end up with two locative suffixes, -c being
> the second. This could suggest that a locative suffix -tlan would not be
> part of the structure of this compound??
>