xoxoctic off of left field

[Galen Brokaw]

Mario,
Fran's dictionary lists "poxcahui" as "dank, moldy". So, it seems to me
that if "esta apoxcahuado" means "it is all dank or moldy" or something
similar, then it surely derives from poxcahui.
Galen




micc2 wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>