Tepotzoa

[idiez at MAC.COM]

Caroline,
	No, you wouldn`t translate it in the past. Nahuatl uses three verb 
tenses, preterite, customary present, and future,  to form what are 
called agentive nouns. In other words, if I have sold things 
(nitlanamacac), if I sell things everyday (nitlanamacani), or if I will 
sell things (nitlanamacaz), I am a seller. So all three of these verbal 
forms can at the same time be translated as the noun phrase "I am a 
seller or merchant".
	The form you are interested in, -huah, comes from an ancient verb 
which is no longer used as such. Therefore, when it is suffixed to a 
noun, the resulting construction can only be translated as an agentive 
noun, "the owner of....".
	There is an explanation of this in Lockhart's Nahuatl as Written, on 
pp. 53-56, and 70-71.
John

John Sullivan, Ph.D.
Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
Unidad Académica de Idiomas
Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
Director
Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas, A.C.
Tacuba 152, int. 47
Centro Histórico
Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
México
Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
idiez at mac.com
www.idiez.org.mx

On Feb 24, 2006, at 4:02 AM, Caroline Dodds wrote:

> John,
>
> Thanks so much for the helpful clarification and information. If 
> you'll forgive me a rather simple question - if this is the preterite 
> form, might one translate tepotzoa as he/she/it 'had a back' or 'was 
> covered with a back' (rather than 'HAS a back')?
>
> Best wishes and thanks again,
> Caroline
> -----
> Dr. Caroline Dodds
> Junior Research Fellow
> Sidney Sussex College
> Cambridge
> CB2 3HU
>
> Tel: 01223 (3)30867
> ced44 at cam.ac.uk
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <idiez at MAC.COM>
> To: <NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Tepotzoa
>
>
> Caroline,
> There are three possessor suffixes, -eh, -huah, and -yoh, which are
> attached to nouns and mean, "owner of" that noun. The last suffix,
> -yoh, extends the idea of owner to "to be covered with" the noun. All
> three suffixes are actually the singular preterite form of ancient
> verbs, and for that reason, the compound constructions, such as
> tepotzhuah, owner of a back", can be considered preterite agentive
> nouns. The plural forms of each suffix, -ehqueh, -huahqueh, and
> -yohqueh, owners of...., are actually the plural preterite forms of the
> ancient verbs.
> John
>
> John Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Profesor de lengua y cultura nahua
> Unidad Académica de Idiomas
> Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
> Director
> Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas, A.C.
> Tacuba 152, int. 47
> Centro Histórico
> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
> México
> Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415
> Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416
> Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048
> Celular: +52 (492) 544-5985
> idiez at mac.com
> www.idiez.org.mx
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Caroline Dodds wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> As a very occasional contributor but frequent lurker, I was hoping 
>> that someone on the list might be able to help me with the term 
>> 'tepotzoa'. I am writing an article about the decapitation of women 
>> in sacrificial practice, and have become increasingly interested in 
>> the word. It is used in the Florentine Codex (The Ceremonies, p.105) 
>> to describe the practice by which the ixiptla of Xilonen is 
>> sacrificed (by beheading) upon the back of a priest at the festival 
>> of Uey tecuilhuitl. The text reads: "auh yn icujtlapan mjcoaia, 
>> motocaiotia tepotzoa:". And the translation by Dibble and Anderson is 
>> given as "And when there was dying upon his back, it was called "it 
>> has a back". This makes it sound as if this is an official 'term' for 
>> this form of sacrifice, and so it seems quite surprising that it does 
>> not appear in relation to similar festivals (at Ochpaniztli for 
>> example).
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone had come across the term in other 
>> descriptions of sacrificial ritual and also about the translation as 
>> 'it has a back'. Are there other possible interpretations which might 
>> be placed on the term? And does the sense which comes across in the 
>> term that perhaps it might be almost a unifying of the priest and 
>> victim at the moment of sacrifice seem a fair one?
>>
>> I would also be delighted to hear of any articles etc which deal with 
>> the subject of female decapitation (particularly in ritual, rather 
>> than image, although the latter is also welcome). I have obviously 
>> seen quite a few, but any suggestions would be very gratefully 
>> received.
>>
>> Best wishes and thank you for your help.
>> Caroline
>> -----
>> Dr. Caroline Dodds
>> Junior Research Fellow
>> Sidney Sussex College
>> Cambridge
>> CB2 3HU
>>
>> Tel: 01223 (3)30867
>> ced44 at cam.ac.uk
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20060224/49306efb/attachment.bin>