[Aztlan] Calcos? Calque?

Thu Jul 19 18:37:43 UTC 2007

Brokawtzin,

The reason I want to use these Nahuatl terms is because I am trying to 
distance myself from the
theory of the "evolution of writing" as espoused by Bishop Warburton and 
I.J. Gelb.  Terms such as "hieroglyph", "glyph", "pictograph", and 
"ideograph" are ambiguous concepts, as well as ethnocentric.  As it is 
common with many scientists to use non-english words for scientific 
terminology by using Greek or Latin roots, I am also trying to use 
non-Greek/Latin roots for further developing a "writing" terminology in 
Nahuatl.

The Nahuatl terms I propose are obviously not organic Nahuatl concepts per 
say; But the theoretical application of these terms are important since 
Mesoamerican (specifically Central Mexican) writing was based primarily on 
"Semasiography" and served as a mixed system of writing which included 
"Logography", "Phoneticism", and "Syllabic" elements.  The Greek words 
themselves only serve to conceptualize the concept of writing as a 
theoretical function for "Near Eastern" writing, to quote I.J. Gelb.  As can 
be seen by research, Mesoamerica developed writing independently of Near 
Eastern cultures, and as such, a well developed terminology for studying the 
"mixed" system of writing in Mesoamerica is integral for continued research 
in this area.

In order to explain "Semasiography" as applied to Mesoamerican writing, I 
think that a terminology more in tune with an Indigenous perspective of its 
lexicon might be helpful in analyzing at least on a linguistic level the 
different aspects of writing as understood semantically and metaphorically; 
granted, they are calques.

By these Nahuatl terms, I intend to lay down the foundation for further 
analyzing and studying the writing systems as "understood" by Mesoamericans 
by using linguistic frameworks that outside of this current research could 
potentially be further developed for a complete study of Mesoamerican 
writing.  These same concepts could be used in Purepecha, Mazahua, Maya, 
etc.

Just to recap (correct me if I'm wrong):

For *Semasiography*
I proposed: *Nezcayoticuiloa* (I used Nezcayotia instead of Nezcayotl):
Nezcayotia [ne:zka:yo:tia]=to mean, denote, indicate something (Karttunen 
1983:172)

You proposed: *Nezcayocuilolli*

The problem I was having with Nezcayotia was that I didn't know what to do 
with the "-tia".  I had thought:
*Nezcayotiacuiloa*
*Nezcayoticuiloai*

Does the elimination of "-tia" change the meaning of the word to mean 
"Nezcayo(tl)?

Once again, Thank you for your feedback, your comments, your suggetions, and 
your words of caution; they will all be taken into consideration.

David F. Becraft
Anthropology
Southern Oregon University
Ashland, Oregon
http://www.sou.edu/mcnair/scholars/becraft.html

>From: Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu>
>To: David Becraft <david_becraft at hotmail.com>
>CC: Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Calcos? Calque?
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:12:44 -0400
>
>Pancho,
>There is a fundamental difference between defining a word and translating 
>it. I'm not sure exactly why you need or want to come up with Nahuatl 
>equivalents for the English terms you list, but no Nahuatl term is going to 
>be a transparent translation of any of those terms, because Nahuatl culture 
>has not conceptualized semiotic phenomena in the same way as Western 
>philosophy and linguistics. Ultimately, the definition of words are 
>conventional (i.e., determined and perpetuated through dialogic 
>communicative interactions). So the morphology of a term or phrase does not 
>necessarily have to exhaustively describe the concept you wish to convey. 
>In fact, if there is any desire for linguistic economy, it is often better 
>that it not do so in order to avoid overly unwieldy terms. In other words, 
>it can be conceptually metonymic. You just have to convince other people to 
>use it in the same way.
>Nahuatl usage does include some rather long and complex constructions, so 
>technically you certainly could formulate a Nahuatl word that conveys a lot 
>more descriptive detail. And this might even be a more authentic way of 
>creating a neologism, but I don't think there is any way to make it 
>completely transparent.
>It seems to me that most of the terms you have formulated (with the minor 
>revisions that I suggested) would work fine. You would just have to define 
>the terms prior to using them.
>I would also just say that as a linguistic exercise, I think that 
>formulating these types of neologisms can be interesting; but for a 
>research project on mesoamerican writing, I'm not sure what purpose such 
>translations would serve. To introduce such neologisms in that context 
>might run the risk of giving people the impression that these were organic 
>Nahuatl concepts.
>At the most general level, there are two theoretical approaches to 
>Mesoamerican writing. One would attempt to understand the writing systems 
>using indigenous concepts. The other approach relies on Western theories of 
>language, writing, and semiotics. (Of course, there are different 
>theoretical approaches within the more general category of Western theory, 
>and maybe within the indigenous perspective as well.) There are those who 
>will advocate a strictly indigenous perspective, because according to this 
>view imposing Western concepts effects a sort of violence on indigenous 
>culture. I see value in both approaches. It seems to me that they are 
>different sorts of projects. But I think it is important not to ascribe any 
>sort of inherent conceptual paradigm to the object of study itself. I'm not 
>sure if that is what you are attempting to do, but I thought I would just 
>include this cautionary note, for whatever it is worth.
>
>Best,
>Galen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>David Becraft wrote:
>>Mr. Brokaw,
>>
>>Thank you for your help!  The calques I suggested; do they make sense in 
>>contrast to the Greek terms?  Are there other words that could be used to 
>>further define these concepts of writing?  Any other suggestions besides 
>>what I presented as calques?
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Pancho Becraft
>>
>>
>>>From: Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu>
>>>To: David Becraft <david_becraft at hotmail.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Calcos? Calque?
>>>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:17:35 -0400
>>>
>>>David,
>>>I would just point out a couple of things. First, all of the English 
>>>words you have listed are nouns, but most of the Nahuatl definitions are 
>>>verbs. The noun form of the verb "cuiloa" which refers to writing is 
>>>"tlacuilolli." Just converting the "cuiloa" portion of your terms into 
>>>"cuilolli" would probably solve this problem. See other comments below.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>Semasiography--------------------------------------------------------Nezcayoticuiloa
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think you need the "ti" in there. I think it should just be 
>>>"nezcayocuilolli."
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Glottography-----------------------------------------------------------Nenepilcuiloa
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nenepilcuilolli
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Logography------------------------------------------------------------Tlatolcuiloa
>>>>
>>>
>>>The difficulty here is that "tlahtolli" is a more general term meaning 
>>>"speech," but that often has the meaning "word" in translation. Other 
>>>terms that are often translated as "word" are "camatl" and "tentli," 
>>>which literally mean "mouth" and "lip" respectively; but again, they are 
>>>also more general. Even when they specified adding "cen" on the 
>>>beginning, which means "one" as in "cencamatl," it doesn't necessarily 
>>>mean "one word." It can mean "one statement." It seems to me that the 
>>>closest you could come to conveying the actual meaning of "logography," 
>>>you would have to use some sort of modifier such as "nenecni," "iyoca," 
>>>or "noncua" (or even better "nononcua"), which all convey the idea of 
>>>something like "separately." Another possibility of which I'm not exactly 
>>>sure is to use "xelihui" in there somewhere, which means "to split."
>>>Of course, these are neologisms anyway, so you can always just decide on 
>>>a term like "tlahtolcuilolli" this and define its use as "logography."
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Phonography----------------------------------------------------------Caquizcuiloa
>>>>
>>>
>>>caquizcuilolli
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Syllable-----------------------------------------------------------------Tlatolcotonqui
>>>>
>>>
>>>same issues as with tlahtolcuilolli. You might also use just 
>>>"tlatoltontli." There are other possibilities that might better convey 
>>>the notion of "a piece of a word/speech"; but there is no getting around 
>>>the conceptual barrier.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sign 
>>>>(phoneme)-------------------------------------------------------Nezcayotl
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nezcayotl works as sign, but as I'm sure you know, "sign" is not the same 
>>>as "phoneme."
>>>
>>>
>>>>Graphic 
>>>>Sign----------------------------------------------------------Nezcayocuiloa
>>>>
>>>
>>>Technically, I think you might want to use "tlacuilolnezcayotl."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tlashtlawi,
>>>>
>>>>David Becraft
>>>>Anthropology
>>>>Southern Oregon University
>>>>Ashland, Oregon
>>>>
>>>>becraftd at students.sou.edu
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Aztlan mailing list
>>>>Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>>>>http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>http://liveearth.msn.com
>>
>>
>

_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com

_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl