Chimalpahin

[ANTHONY APPLEYARD]

--- José Rabasa <jrabasa at CALMAIL.BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:
> ... Would the experience of chiltic be similar to that of anaranjado
> in Spanish which would translate into English as "it became like an
> orange" (and if we take the suffix "-ado" to imply "the presence of",
> we could render it as "with the presence of orange-likeness", ...

The Spanish suffix [-ado] is from Latin [-atus]. [naranjado] is more
like "oranged". Similarly, English "pink" for the color, came from the
flower called a pink, which came from the "pinked" shape of the edges
of its petals (compare the usage of "pinking" in dressmaking.)
Similarly with English "violet" from the flower called a violet.
Similatly with English "magenta", which was originally the name of a
chemical dye, which was named after a place in north Italy where
Napoleon III won a battle.







 or something in that line)? As
> for centetl, shouldn't we differentiate the
> qualified "noun," one stone, from the function of
> centetl as a numeral for counting round objects,
> perhaps tamales, but not tortillas? You state
> that Nahuatl is an oral language, but if the
> concept of orality is irremediably bound by
> circularity and dependence on definitions of
> literacy and grammaticality, what is the point of
> retaining this concept? Wouldn't it be more sound
> to speak of representations or transcriptions of
> speech and voice, rather than the reified notion
> that there exist oral languages out there without
> the ambiguity that is entailed by speaking about
> orality on the basis of written texts?  Should we
> read Chimalphain and Teçoçomoc as the last
> representatives of the Nahua intellectuals
> trained by Sahagun?  Did a project of creating a
> Nahuatl written culture on a par with Latin and
> Spanish end with them?
>
> Jose
>
>
> >[Note: I apologize for the length of this response to Jose, but I
> figure
> >anybody not interested in the discussion can always just delete it.
> >Also, I want to include the caveat that I am not dogmatic and lay no
> >claim to any special authority in these matters, and welcome anybody
> to
> >jump into the discussion. As I have told Fritz, for me one of the
> values
> >of Nahuat-l is that these kinds of discussion help keep me thinking
> >about Nahuatl.]
> >
> >Jose,
> >I think I may have given you the wrong impression about what I was
> >trying to say. I was not claiming that what we call adjectives can
> >modify verbs in Nahuatl. It seems to me that not only is it not
> common
> >for adjectives to modify verbs in Nahuatl, but it is impossible for
> two
> >reasons. First, if we use such terms as "adjective" and "verb" that
> come
> >from our traditional grammar, then by definition and logical
> necessity
> >an adjective cannot modify a verb. Leaving aside the philosophical
> >question about whether thought is based upon a priori or a
> posteriori
> >concepts, "adjective" and "verb" are logical linguistic concepts or
> >categories rather than empirical ones. In other words, although
> there
> >certainly are prototypical empirical linguistic forms associated
> with
> >certain grammatical categories, the category itself is not
> determined by
> >that empirical form but rather by its logical opposition to other
> >linguistic categories. So, by definition, anything that functionally
> >modifies a verb is an adverb and cannot be an adjective no matter
> what
> >empirical form it takes. The point I was trying to make is that
> words in
> >any language can often serve different grammatical functions (and
> this
> >is true of both Nahuatl and English). So, for example, although we
> >identify Nahuatl words that take absolutive suffixes as nouns, those
> >words can also function as adverbs. In the case of "cecente" you
> said
> >that it was an adjective, and I was just taking your word for it
> that
> >maybe you had come across some other context (i.e., not imbedded in
> a
> >verb) in which it might function as what we identify as an
> adjective. I
> >can't think of any such case off-hand, but I haven't really looked.
> It
> >does happen in English. In phrases like "dinner plate," for example,
> the
> >noun "dinner" functions like an adjective. I think the point Rikke
> made
> >and that I was trying to reiterate was not that centetl is
> functioning
> >here as a noun, but rather that "tetl" is a noun. And I was just
> adding
> >that it is embedded in the verb along with its accompanying
> quantifier
> >and functioning in a way similar to the logical category that
> >corresponds to an adverb in our logical grammar. In other words, I
> was
> >trying to avoid the issue of whether or not "cecente" might function
> in
> >some other grammatical context (not imbedded in a verb) as an
> adjective,
> >and merely emphasized the fact that technically it is a noun which
> >appears to function in this context as an adverb. None of this,
> though,
> >implies that adjectives can modify verbs; at least I hope it
> doesn't.
> >The second reason it would be impossible is that most regular
> Nahuatl
> >"adjectives" are actually verbs or verb phrases. There are
> exceptions,
> >but one of the interesting things about Nahuatl is that many of the
> >ideas we express using adjectives, Nahuatl expresses using
> verbalized
> >nouns or merely the past tense of a verb. So to say "red" or
> "pointed,"
> >for example, you use words that literally mean "it became a red
> pepper"
> >[chichiltic] and "it became a thorn" [huitztic] respectively. And to
> >express adjectives like "fat", for example, you say "it got fat"
> >[tomahuac]. So in such cases, these verbs and verb phrases are the
> >closest equivalent to what we call adjectives. The English example
> of
> >"pointed" belongs to an interesting class of adjectives in that they
> too
> >are verbal forms that are used as adjectives, and we also have forms
> >like "pointy," which appear to be formed from nouns. In any case,
> this
> >illustrates the kind of difficulty in applying the metalanguage of
> >European grammar to Nahuatl as if it there were an isomorphic
> >relationship between the languages.
> >I started to write up some comments on the other issues that you
> raise
> >in relation to what I was saying about grammaticality, but I could
> see
> >that it would have gotten really long and it basically duplicates
> part
> >of a much larger argument that I have been writing up dealing with
> the
> >relation between language and secondary media such as Mesoamerican
> >pictography and the Andean khipu. So, I will desist for the moment
> and
> >hope to continue this dialogue later. And I am sure we will have
> plenty
> >of opportunities to do so, since we seem to always end up on the
> same
> >conference and symposium panels.
> >But with regard to Chimalpahin, I just want to clarify that I did
> not
> >say that Chimalpahin was "oral." I said that Nahuatl was an oral
> >language. I was trying to make the argument that regardless of the
> >possibility of other types of grammaticalization at different levels
> >(about which I agree with you), Nahuatl had not (and still has not)
> been
> >organically grammaticalized on the linguistic level that
> phonographic
> >writing highlights and emphasizes as was the case with Latin and
> >Spanish. And if we accept that such linguistic differences as those
> >noted above indicate different linguistic ontologies, then even if
> >Nahuatl had been organically grammaticalized at that level, it would
> >have looked very different from Spanish grammar. Furthermore, the
> fact
> >that Nahuatl had not gone through a process of grammaticalization at
> >this level or in this dimension has certain implications, which
> again is
> >part of my larger argument. But it is in this sense that I say that
> >Nahuatl was an oral language: it had not been organically
> >grammaticalized in relation to a secondary alphabetic medium. I
> should
> >also add that this is very different from saying that the Nahuas
> >belonged to an oral culture.
> >Going back to Chimalpahin, if I understand you correctly, you are
> saying
> >that the language in Chimalpahin's Nahuatl text exhibits some kind
> of
> >shift as a result of his participation in, or adherence to, an
> >alphabetic ideology and the grammaticalization project of the
> Spaniards.
>
=== message truncated ===