lo siento mucho

[Michael McCafferty]

Not to be a dead cahuayo,

"yxci" could of course be 'his/her/its foot/feet', the possessor prefix 
i: fusing with the i of icxi when written.

Tomas's "on" is o.k., too. -tech has several meaning, the essential one 
being "contact with the surface on the side of something".

Examples of meanings that are different in English include:

cuauhtitech in nemi  'it lives in the trees'

caltech or caltitech  'against the house' 'touching the house'

cuauhtitech quimilpia:yah in to:to:meh 'they were tying birds to sticks'

no tech yetinemi  'i've got it on me'

i:tech monequi 'he needs it' (in this translation "tech" disappears)


Michael




Quoting Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>:

> THREE TYPOS OF MY OWN BELOW:
>
>
>
> Quoting Michael McCafferty <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>:
>
>> Ken, Tomas, y otros listeros,
>>
>> The explanation below is not quite right, I don't think. Let's back up
>> for a moment.
>>
>> The original form that Ken wrote was "ynitech yxci yhcuiliuhtica".
>>
>> We can write this in, shall we say?, the Andrewsian Alphabet as
>>
>> in i:tech ixci (?) ihcuiliuticah
>
>
> THIS SHOULD READ:
>
> in i:tech ixci (?) ihcuiliuhticah
>
>>
>>
>> I'm assuming "ixci" is an original copy error or a Ken keyboarding
>> error standing for icxi 'foot/feet'.
>>
>>
>> ihcuiliutica
>
> AND THIS SHOULD BE
>
> ihcuiliuhtica
>
>
> is not a "present progressive". This is an example of how
>> an intransitive verb can join with -ti-cah to produce what is usually
>> translated into English as an adjective, sometimes a noun:
>>
>> chica:hua  become strong
>> chica:uticah
>
> AND THAT SHOULD BE  chica:uhticah
>
>
>
>
>
> it is strong, or something that is strong
>>
>> tlacoxe:lihui  divide in half
>> tlahcoxe:liuhticah  it is divided in half; something divided in half
>>
>>
>> 'adjacent to the foot/feet it is written, there is written, something
>> got written' (I like the last one best).
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting t_amaya at megared.net.mx:
>>
>>>
>>> 	Hallo Ken Kitayama,
>>>
>>> 	  BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
>>> My first reading is. "on his foot, it is written ...", my seccond: "on
>>> his foot, it is painted"
>>>
>>> 	Explaining: ca and oc (tica and toc) can be used for a resultant
>>> state, if you want to express the progressive tense you have to say
>>> e.g. tlahcuiliuhtica, quiihcuiliuhtica (he is writting (something), he
>>> is painting it); i.e. we have to use the "thing" or "accusative"
>>> particle.
>>>
>>> 	For me, according to the context, the verb may mean "to write" or
>>> "to paint".
>>>
>>> 	Exemple in nahuat of Cuetzalan: in quinequía, choloz ilpihtoc
>>> (ilpihtica) yn axno (the donkey is tied because he wanted to escape)
>>>
>>> 	You also have the particle tech, whose meaning is precisely "on".
>>> Pay attention: depending on the context the text could mean: "on his
>>> food, that is painted ..." ; it depends if you read: yn itech yxci,
>>> ihcuiliuhtica, or: in itech ixci ihcuiliuhtica.
>>>
>>> 	Exemples: Yn itech imetz (foot in Cuetzalan nahuat), ihcuiliuhtica
>>> ce totot; on his foot, it is painted a bird. In itech
>>> imetz-ihcuiliuhtica, motta ce totot (on his painted foot one can see a
>>> bird).
>>>
>>> 	I hope it helps you
>>>
>>> 	Nimitztlapaloa.
>>>
>>> 	Tomas Amaya
>>> On Sun 28/03/10 6:30 PM , "Ken Kitayama" kk2443 at columbia.edu sent:
>>>  My name is Ken Kitayama; I am a senior at Columbia University
>>> working on a project dealing with corporal images in colonial New
>>> Spain.  I have come across a 17th century document that uses the
>>> phrase "ynitech yxci yhcuiliuhtica".  I have two questions.  First,
>>> from my understanding, the verb "yhcuiliuhtica" as written is in the
>>> present progressive tense, but this interpretation does not make sense
>>> within the rest of the document.  So I was wondering if anyone had
>>> seen the "-ca" prefix used as a verb of a resultant state ("it is
>>> painted/inscribed").  Secondly, I am having trouble interpreting the
>>> meaning of the verb "yhcuiliuhtica" itself.  I would like to know
>>> whether it has to do with the verb "to paint" as in applying pigment
>>> to the surface of the skin, or if it has to do more with an
>>> interpretation like "to inscribe", where the skin is actually broken
>>> and pigment is introduced inside the skin itself.  Thanks for your
>>> help.
>>> --
>>> Ken Kitayama
>>> Columbia College 2010
>>> 3620 Lerner Hall
>>> New York, NY 10027
>>> -------------------------
>>> Este e-mail fue enviado usando Webmail Meg at red.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nahuatl mailing list
>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nahuatl mailing list
> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>




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