ozcoa, ozcohua, izcoa, izcohua
Michael McCafferty
mmccaffe at indiana.edu
Tue Dec 10 02:58:19 UTC 2013
Hi, John,
The existence of the -ohua form would suggest, it seems, that the -oa
form is an orthographic reduction.
As for whether this is ozcohua or [i]zcohua, I wonder if the evidence
lies in items 3 and 4 that Joe sent earlier today:
ne[o]zcolo
nee[o]zcolo
An initial i- giving hypothetical *[i]zcohua would disappear under the
influence of ne-, as we see for example in nehmatiliz.
I can't think of an example where ne- precedes a word with initial o-,
but it seems to me that both vowels would remain. In the examples above
the word is not *nozcolo. It seems that the verb in question could be
[i]zcohua.
Then again, we have some snow fog tonight, so that might be getting in
my way to understanding.
Michael
Quoting John Sullivan <idiez at me.com>: of
> Sorry,
> I should have asked, is it ozcoa, ozcohua, izcoa or izcohua?
> John
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Nahuat-l
mailing list