xoxoctic off of left field

[micc2]

This does not have anything to do with this thread ( I do not think)
but this thread started me thinking about a phrase my grandmother used.
she was from Amozoc, Puebla.

she would say "esta APOXCAHUADO" is the root of this "aztequizmo"  poxcahui?

mario

Galen Brokaw wrote:

> Another way to explain that confusing "c" in "xoxoctic" would be to
> posit that the root word is actually a verb rather than a noun. To me
> the "xoxoctic" sounds an awful lot like adjectives formed from verbs
> such as "poxactic" from "poxahua, "poyactic" from "poyahua", "pozactic"
> from "pozahua", "pitzactic" from "pitzahua", etc. If this is the case,
> then the root word would be a verb xohua / xoxohua. Of course, all of
> the examples that I listed have "-ahua" endings rather than "-ohua". And
> I can't seem to find any verbs with an "-ohua" ending that use this
> "-ctic" construction. I don't know if that undermines my theory or not.
> If not, this would explain the morphology of the word.
> A possible problem with this interpretation, of course, is that it would
> seem that most (if not all?) Nahuatl words that refer to color are based
> on adjectivized nouns rather than adjectivized verbs, i.e. chiltic,
> iztac, tliltic, etc.
> Michael, I suspect that is one of the reasons why you posited a "xoctli"
> noun.
> Of course, the only question then would be what that noun would refer
> to. As with other colors, one would expect that the noun itself upon
> which the color adjective is based would not be abstract. In other
> words, we would expect this "xoctli" noun to refer to some physical
> object that is prototypically green.
> In support of the verb theory, the Florentine has the term "xoxouhqui"
> meaning fresh, green, raw, uncooked, and also gangrenous, which would
> seem to suggest that the root is a verb. On the other hand, Fran's
> dictionary lists an attestation of "xoxoquehu(i)" as meaning "se pone
> verde", which would seem to be consistent with the noun theory of
> "xoctli" as the root.
> Maybe what we are dealing with here is an archaic root that some people
> use as if it were a noun and some people use as if it were a verb. Or
> perhaps the same people even sometimes use it in constructions as if
> were a noun and sometimes in constructions as if it were a verb. I don't
> think this is an unreasonable hypothesis. If the original,
> non-metaphoric meaning of the root had been lost, then it would have
> been susceptible to being assimilated into different grammatical
> formalizations based on different generalizations about the type of word
> it is. And I assume the such generalizations might be based on folk
> etymologies or even non-semantic factors such as phonetic analogies. For
> example, some kind of cognitive relationship is established between the
> archaic root and a phonetically analogous word, which provides a
> cognitive basis for using the archaic root in the same type of
> constructions in which the phonetic analogy appears, which may or may
> not be grammatically consistent with the nature of the original word. In
> this case, the obvious candidate would be the "xo" element meaning foot,
> which would also appear to be an archaic form but perhaps more
> semantically transparent with regard to its original meaning and
> therefore more easily classified as a noun.
> I don't think that it is all that uncommon to find synchronic forms of
> the same archaic word that may be grammatically contradictory from a
> historical perspective, resulting at least from a morphological point of
> view in that synchronic linguistic liquid or silly putty that Michael
> was talking about.
> Of course, this kind of explanation should only be used as a last resort
> when all other morphological explanations fail. You see what kind of
> trouble we get into when Joe goes on a trip? :-)
> Galen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, John F. Schwaller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At 06:29 AM 6/25/2004, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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',
>>>
>>>
>>> [stuff cut out]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Basically I would posit the following [admitting that I am not an
>>> expert in
>>> these aspects]: we do not have a stem /xoc-/ meaning "green" because we
>>> have a stem /xo:-/ meaning "green."
>>
>>
>>
>> They would not be mutually exclusive. Languages in general often have
>> different terms meaning the same thing and those terms can resemble each
>> other.
>>
>>  Your construction analysis is
>>
>>> absolutely correct.  As you rightly point out the /-c-/ forms what we
>>> consider an adjective although in fact a form of the preterite, so
>>> there is
>>> a possibility that we could back form a noun out of the "adjective" but
>>> since we already have a perfectly good noun, why bother?
>>
>>
>>
>> The "back-forming" of such nouns in order to understand the underlying
>> structure of terms, indeed to nouns that no longer exist, is
>> a common phenomenon in Nahuatl. Also, it happens, a lot, with verbs, as
>> you know.
>>
>>
>>   I think the
>>
>>> critical point in the analysis is the jump from /xoxo:-/ to
>>> /xoxoc-/.  That's where I got lost.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Joe probably has a two-cents worth to toss in here but he's not
>> around at the moment. Maybe Fran can add something.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John F. Schwaller
>>> Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
>>> 315 Behmler Hall
>>> University of Minnesota, Morris
>>> 600 E 4th Street
>>> Morris, MN  56267
>>> 320-589-6015
>>> FAX 320-589-6399
>>> schwallr at mrs.umn.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> "...and cicadas sing
>> a rare and different tune..."
>>
>> R. Hunter
>>
>