Tepotzoa

[Caroline Dodds]

Dear John,

Of course - I am confusing the preterite tense in different languages! Thanks so much for clarifying things and for putting up with my highly inexpert attempts. 

Caroline
-----
Dr. Caroline Dodds
Junior Research Fellow
Sidney Sussex College 
Cambridge 
CB2 3HU

Tel: 01223 (3)30867
Mob: 07740675610
ced44 at cam.ac.uk

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: idiez at MAC.COM 
  To: NAHUAT-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU 
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:01 PM
  Subject: Re: Tepotzoa


  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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20060224/e48b02bc/attachment.htm>