translation

[Michael McCafferty]

Quoting Susana Moraleda-Dragotto <susana at DRAGOTTO.COM>:

>>     However I was wondering, if green is XOXOCTIC, why is "green place"
XOPAN
> and not XOXOPAN? or XOXOCPAN?

Xoxopan is certainly grammatical, but the *name* for the time is "set in
stone," so to speak in the form xopan.


What part of the word is the removable one?

Susana,

**Everything** is removable. :)

But sometimes when you remove something, all you have in your hands is
*parts*.

I'm not sure exactly how to approach your question but I'll throw out some
ideas and perhaps others will join in.

There is a basic stem in Nahuatl /xo:-/ that means 'green'. It does appear in
a non-reduplicative form, as in /xo:tl/ 'a green thing', but it seems to
appear most commonly in the reduplicated form /xoxo:-/ (note with a short
vowel in the first syllable. This reduplicated initial stem forms common
verbs, such as xoxo:hui 'to become green', with its own derived terms, such
the agentive noun xoxo:uhqui, constructed on the preterit stem, meaning 'a
green thing' (literally 'it has become green').

Now, there is also, as you note above, "xoxoc-". We see this in, for example,
xoxoctic (where,note, both o's are short vowels).  Xoxoctic, often
translated "green," as if an adjective, actually means 'it has become green'.

-ti is a very productive verb suffix in Nahuatl. It is joined to noun stems to
create "millions" of verbs that essentially express the idea of "similar".
For example, cihua:tl 'woman' -> cihua:- + -ti -> cihua:ti 'to become (like) a
woman'. With the addition of the past tense suffix -c, you get
cihua:tic 'he/she/it has become (like) a woman'. This translates in English
to "effeminate".

(Now, at this point, the territory gets a bit shakey underfoot for me, so I'd
appreciate anyone's joining in who has a more solid understanding of what
follows.)

What the foregoing implies is that there is a noun stem in the form of /xoc-/
(/c/ = /k/) that means 'green'. Of course, this means that this stem is either
homophonous with or identical to the stem for 'pot', /xoc-/. At the same time,
maybe that -c- can be explained another way. Ahmo nicmati.

> imagined it would be "TIC". (chichilTIC, cozTIC, nexTIC, tlilTIC)

Susana, I'm not sure what "it" means in your question.


 Or else, is
> XOXO in XOXOCTIC already a duplication? so the real word would be XOCTIC?

"Xoctic" may be possible, but I don't remember seeing it. I only know the
reduplicated form. Some stems are only used in their reduplicated forms.


>     As for the source, actually Mike Swanton made the correct guess: it is
> part of Castaneda's mythology, and more precisely to Carol Tiggs' (one of the
> other two modern "shamans"). The piece is supposed to be pronounced at the
> entrance of the Catedral de Tula in order to get into an altered state of
> consciousness, (I respect Castaneda, and I don't feel I am in a position to
> judge anything)...
>
>     Xoxopanxoco is supposed to be a personage known as the "retador de la
> muerte"......  but this is all too complicated...
>
>     By the way, why does "cuicanitl" have an absolutive suffix? I thought
> agentives didn't.

I've seen them do it on occasion. It's not a common thing, and it may be
mostly a poetic practice. In this connection, it's probably important to
remember, though, that every language has **immense flexibility**. It's almost
impossible to see that quality when you're learning a foreign language as an
adult. To the adult learner, a second language may appear, in the beginning,
to be composed of concrete building blocks, when in fact it's very much like a
liquid, or silly putty.   :-)




Michael