attestations of itta, tlachiya vs. pohua

Wed Sep 14 03:20:51 UTC 2011

Hola amigos listeros
Nimitzyoltlapalohua Heather.

Trataré de contribuir con un rápido comentario:
El escribano o tlacuilo no usa* tlen* (qué) sino *quen *seguido directamente
de antlachía y anquita. La traducción más literal sería: "Cómo miráis, como
veis lo que tenéis a vuestro cuidado? Y ¿qué es lo que un sacerdote tiene a
su cuidado? Las cosas sagradas. Bueno, pues podemos traducir "Cómo miráis,
como veis los objetos sagrados? Si seguimos el hilo podremos traducir ¿Como
perciben, como contemplan vuestros ojos los objetos sagrados? y también
¿Cómo se manifiestan a vuestros ojos los objetos sagrados?. Claro una
interpretación más directa y sencilla, incluso que la de Tena, sería: ¿Cómo
interpretáis vuestras pinturas?
Resumiendo: la pregunta se refiere a cómo es el aspecto, la manifestación de
las pinturas  a los ojos de los sacerdotes y ellos qué pueden decir al
respecto.
Desde luego aquí no cabe, pienso yo, el pohua, que en primera instancia
remite a la idea de contar.
Por supuesto que podemos imaginar un ritual para hacer que los objetos
sagrados se manifiesten. En la actualidad los tlamatques o nahuales recurren
al humo del incienso. Las formas del humo les dicen cosas. Queman papeles en
el altar y las cenizas les dicen cosas. Arrojan pétalos sobre el agua quieta
de una bandeja y los pétalos les dicen cosas al ir tomando forma. Etc. Etc.
Lo importante aquí es que "son los objetos sagrados los que se manifiestan"
y les dicen cosas a los sacerdotes. Los sacerdotes "no leen los objetos".

Tomas Amaya

2011/9/13 IDIEZ <idiez at me.com>

> Piyali Heather,
>        I see you haven’t received any responses yet to your mail. I hope
> you will, but I suspect that they will be few because of the nature of your
> question, and that’s what I’d like to comment on. Most people that deal with
> Classical Nahuatl texts, do so exclusively from within what we could call a
> closed corpus. There’s a finite number of relations you can identify and
> elaborate on between elements of a closed corpus. However, as you know,
> Classical Nahuatl can also be looked at as documents registering moments and
> variants of a language and culture that existed before the 1530s and
> continues to exist today. You have studied Classical and Modern Nahuatl
> together, and you have participated in the Tlatlacualtiah ceremony in
> Tepecxitla, and you have seen first hand how Modern tepahtianih use paper in
> the process of their communication with deities. And it’s not a pintura,
> something that is painted, finished and then perhaps, looked over and
> consulted. It’s paper that lives and embodies deity and has real
> relationships with human beings. It is invoked rather than consulted. This
> kind of blows a hole in the closed corpus. Or perhaps it puts the corpus in
> it’s proper context, and in doing so permits us to look at it in newer and
> more productive (as in researchers producing knowledge) ways.
>        I don’t have an answer to your question, but it’s a fascinating one.
> But more important is the methodology and expanded definition of corpus that
> lies behind the question.
> John
>
> John Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Professor of Nahua language and culture
> Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology
> Tacuba 152, int. 43
> Centro Histórico
> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
> Mexico
> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415
> Fax: +1 (858) 724-3030 (U.S.A.)
> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048
> Mobile (Mexico): +52 1 (492) 103-0195
> Mobile (US): (615) 649-2790
> idiez at me.com
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Heather Allen wrote:
>
> > Piyali nahuatlatos,
> >
> >
> > This question arose while translating a section from the *Anales de
> > Tlatelolco* recounting the fall of Tenochtitlan/Tlatelolco. Cortés has
> > defeated Tenochtitlan but Tlatelolco still holds out. So he sends a
> message
> > to the tlahtoqueh suggesting that, for the good of the women and
> children,
> > they should surrender. In order to decide how to respond, the tlahtoqueh
> > consult a priest. In the Nahuatl, one of the tlahtoqueh asks the priest,
> > “quen antlachia quen anquita yn amotlapiello,” which Rafael Tena has
> > translated as “¿qué veis, qué aparece en vuestras pinturas?”
> >
> >
> > The verbs used here are *tlachi[y]a* and *itta*, which Karttunen has as
> to
> > see something and to see, respectively,while *tlapiello* (*tlapiyalo*)
> are
> > (loosely) things that are cared for or under someone’s stewardship. Tena
> has
> > translated tlapiello as “pinturas,” which certainly makes sense in this
> > context. But my question is, are *tlachia* and *itta* the verbs commonly
> > used to describe the action of interpreting a *pintura* in 16th and
> > 17thcentury Nahuatl documents? Or is
> > *pohua* more commonly attested to in reference to *pinturas*?
> >
> >
> > I ask because it seems to me that this passage may be describing a ritual
> > involving *amatl*, rather than a “reading” of a *pintura*. In other
> words,
> > the priest could be observing or examining amatl in a material sense,
> rather
> > than examining what is inscribed upon the *amatl*. If *pohua* is more
> often
> > used in reference to interpreting a pintura, that would support my hunch,
> > especially since *tlapiello* could refer to *pinturas* but also other
> sacred
> > things the priest has in is care.
> >
> >
> > Tlazcamati miac for your suggestions!
> >
> >
> >
> > Below is the original passage in Nahuatl followed by Tena's translation:
> >
> >
> > Nima ye quiualitoa Coyoueuezi tlacuchcalcatl: “Tla quiualnozaca teua”.
> > Conilhuia:
> > “Tla xiuallauh, quen antlachia quen anquita yn amotlapiello?”. Conitoa
> teua
> > amatlamatqui amatequi: “Nopilçinçiné, ma xicmocaquitica: ‘Tley nel
> > tiquitozque? Ca ça nauilhuitl yn titlanapoualtizque. Auh y mach yehuatl
> yn
> > inauatil y Uitzilopochtli cayatle uetzi. Cuix ychtaca aanquimotilizque.
> Ma
> > uc tonacica, ca ça nauilhuitl yn titlanapoualtilizque.’” Auh y ye yuhqui
> amo
> > mouelcaqui, ye no yc peuh y yaoyotl. (116)
> >
> >
> > Coyohuehuetzin dijo: “Que se consulte al sacerdote”. Le preguntaron,
> pues, a
> > éste: “¿Qué veis, qué aparece en vuestras pinturas?” Respondió el
> sacerdote
> > encargado de estudiar y recortar los papeles: “Señores, escuchadme: ¿Qué
> > podemos decir? Faltan solo cuatro días para que se cumplan 80. Quizá es
> > designio de Huitzilopochtli que nada suceda. O quizá en secreto vosotros
> > mismos lo veréis. Esperemos, pues sólo faltan cuatro días para los 80”.
> No
> > quedaron contentos [con la respuesta], así que reanudaron la guerra.
> (117)
> >
> >
> > *Anales de Tlatelolco. *Ed. and trans. Rafael Tena. México: Cien de
> México,
> > 2004.* *116-117.
> >
> > --
> > Heather Allen, PhD
> > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > Department of Spanish & Portuguese
> > University of Texas at Austin
> > hallen at austin.utexas.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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