Cuacha

[r. joe campbell]

Joanna,

    I don't know why people are attracted to the study of language
morphology, but there are lots of kinds of people out there -- some just
care about *what* a document says, without regard for the mechanics of
*how* it says it, some like to draw fascinating maps of subtle
pronunciations from to town, and others like to take educated guesses at
how a language (or a family of them developed through time).

   My Dad never quite decided whether 1) poking a seed in the ground and
helping it grow or 2) understanding everything about electricity was more
interesting.

   But when I entered graduate school and found a large box full of
Spanish morphology notes by Sol Saporta stuck back in a old cupboard,
I discovered what to do with my available time -- as Willie Nelson says,
"I'm just doin' what I would do if nobody was paying me fer it."  And now
retired, I can prove that I mean it.

   Nahuatl morphology is (I always say) like handball -- even a beginner
can derive a lot of satisfaction from since the ball keeps coming back to
you.  But as you practice and practice, you find that there was more to it
than seemed at first; the more you dig (pardon the mixed metaphor), the
richer it gets, so you're never bored -- the carrot is always there.

   Your message contained several ideas and you will find agreement and
disagreement, but I thought that I'd just send along some relevant data
about them.  "ihzolihui" and "zolli" are (seem to me) that they show the
closest chance of relationship.  I wouldn't say that about "xolochtli" and
"xolotl", since I'm more morphologically conversative that some people --
on the other hand, I like to feed on the ideas of people who are more
willing to take chances.

Relevant stuff follows in separate messages.

All the best,

Motocayo Joe



On Fri, 28 May 2004, Joanna M. Sanchez wrote:

>     It is certainly not unthinkable that a convergence between an original
> Nahuatl compound and an introduced term could have occurred over time by
> virtue of strong phonological and semantic similarity.  And the widely
> reported cha- is perhaps a shift from xo-/zo- owing to stress on the
> following -lo- syllable.  But  I still cannot help but think that
> cuach[a/o]lote is derived from Nahuatl, with possible etymologies being:
>
>    cua(i)tl + xolotl   or   cua(i)tl + zoloa
>
>     Rather than reflecting an unhealthy indulgence of exoticism, an
> hypothesis of Nahua origin is reasonable for a number of reasons, not the
> least of which is the productivity of cua(i)tl when referring to one's
> sensibility (or lack thereof).  Being dirty certainly had 'moral'
> connotations for the Nahua, a condition bearing on an individual's
> sensibility.  'Naturally' enough, terms for crazy or confused use cua(itl):
> cuatlapololiztli (madness) combines "head" with "lose; destroy."  Yet more
> notably, cua(i)tl is used in cuatatapah, "disheveled person," with
> tatapahtli being "worn out fabric."
>
>       Xolotl is also used in a variety of compounds (axolotl, mexolotl,
> xolochaui ), that can mean "doubled over; wrinkled" in a sense that implies
> physical deformity or dissaray, as precolumbian images of a ragged and
> deformed Xolotl bear out.  Xolotl had a canine identity, and dogs were
> strongly associated with filth. This seems consistent with the modern
> meanings reported (dirty/disheveled).  Further, xolopihtli (idiot; tonto)
> reinforces a reported semantic value, namely one untalented in either deed
> or appearance.
>
>     Zoloa, "wear something out," and ihzoloa, "abase, mistreat," are words
> that can also be associated with Nahua conceptions of 'filth' (according to
> Burkhart's examination of tlahzolli, "garbage") by referring to matter that
> has lost its ordered structure.
>
>            In any event, the word is widely used in Nahua regions of
> Jalisco, in addition to Mexico City and points north, further supportive of
> an indigenous origin.  Joanna
>