Chimalpahin

[José Rabasa]

I follow your examples from English, but what I 
was trying to convey is that a literal 
translation of anaranjado, one that would take 
account of prefix and suffix would end up being a 
convoluted statement that would have little to do 
with the semantic and phenomenological event of 
perceiving "orange" as color. Would that be the 
case with Nahautl expression of color? Would our 
literal translations convey the experience of 
color for Nahuatl speakers?

>--- 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 ===