Pronunciation of Quetzalcoatl

[sacha]

I hope that the people talking about Quetzalcoatl here know how to pronounce it. It is pronounced keh-tsal-KO-at with a final voiceless l -- the -atl ending is a single syllable (the -tl is a fusion of t and voiceless l into a single sound). IF one cannot pronounce it that way, with the voiceless l, it is preferable to anglicize it by dropping the voiceless l altogether (as many dialects of Nahuatl do) than to anglicize it by pronouncing the l voiced as a separate syllable, eg., "ket-sal-ko-wattle" (or worse, "kwet-sal-ko-wattle") as I have often heard it mispronounced.

[ May 03, 2006, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: sacha ]

[Dna]

I, for one, stand corrected.

Thanks Sacha.

[johnny]

so how do we pronounce "jesus"?

[Douglas]

johnny,

In Greek, it would have been close to something like "Ee-ay-suess" (the "ay" sound being pronounced like the "ay" sound in "ray", and the "suess" being pronounced just like the "Suess" in "Dr. Suess" [if I'm spelling it correctly]). For those not familiar with "Dr. Suess", here is another way to model the pronunciation of "Jesus" in Greek: "Ee-ay-sue-ss".

[Douglas]

And, I think pronouncing the final "l" in "Quetzalcoatl" is more poetic/rhythmic/flowing than to leave it silent. Maybe originally it was pronounced, and only over time was it dropped.

[sacha]

Of course the final l "once was" pronounced -- and it still is pronounced (at least, in classical Nahuatl, though not in every Nahuatl dialect). It simply is not and never has been an English-style voiced l.

The final sound, represented by l, is voiceless. ("Voiced" vs "voiceless" refers to use or non-use of the vocal cords; for example, the difference between the /z/ and /s/ sounds is that the former is voiced and the latter is voiceless.) The /t/ and the /voiceless l/ are fused to form what to Nahuatl speakers is a single sound -- much as in English, /t/ and /sh/ are fused to form what is for English speakers a single sound, /ch/.

The voiceless l sound, common also in Pacific Northwest Indian languages, sounds like the voiceless /th/ of "thing" pronounced with the tongue in the /l/ position (the air goes around the sides of the tongue). It has been spelled by English-speakers as "th" or "lth," and if you could not pronounce voiceless l, you could approximate the final syllable of Quetzalcoatl by pronouncing "atl" as "-at'th," as long as you could pronounce it as one syllable.

The important thing is that the -atl ending has to be pronounced as a single syllable. If one must anglicize the pronunciation, due to inability to pronounce the sounds correctly, it is preferable to drop the voiceless l altogether and pronounce the t alone than to separate the sounds into two syllables (-attle). And remember that the stress is on the penultimate syllable (co).

[ May 03, 2006, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: sacha ]

[craazyman]

My name is actually pronouced without the final "n" and with an accent on the middle syllable, as in "Cray-ZEE-Mah". I am originally from France, and that's the tradition there.

I don't get offended when people call me "Craazyman" in the English manner, especially if they are good looking women or men with sound business proposals that I believe I can profit from. In either case, they can call me "George" or "Al" or "Sam" as long as the circumstances of our encounter remain favorable.

The question that a polite person might have is, how to know me when they first meet me so as to use the correct locution to preserve good manners. I would say this, if you look up in the clouds and see a huge face with an Alfred E. Neuman expression, that's probably me, on the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman

[johnny]

thank you, douglas. how about in aramaic?

[sacha]

Well, people can pronounce it as they wish, anglicize it as they wish; just so those who care can know that anglicizing it by dropping the final voiceless l altogether is much closer to the correct pronunciation than anglicizing it by making the l a separate syllable.

(The -tl is the nominative case ending for nouns, so it is dropped or altered anyway when nouns are in other grammatical cases or in compounds.)

And Nahuatl words are stressed on the penultimate syllable, so the stress is on the syllable co.

(Years ago, I had a boyfriend whose first language was Nahuatl, and he made sure I knew how to pronounce Nahuatl words correctly. It mattered to him. Especially my knowing the correct pronunciation of "Quetzalcoatl" mattered to him -- a name that is much more important and sacred to Nahuatl speakers than "craazyman" is to most French speakers. It also mattered to him since Nahuatl is a threatened and oppressed language -- whereas French is not.)

[ May 02, 2006, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: sacha ]

[craazyman]

I think he was very lucky to have a girlfried who cared enough about him to care about the pronunciation of important words in his language. You sound like a nice person.

Actually, Sacha, I'm just a joker from Virginia, USA. I can't even speak French. And I've only been to Paris two times, as a tourist. But the thing that makes me wonder is: Why is it that when a European man (especially a French man) phonetically massacres an American woman's name it's considered "romantic", but when an American massacres a foreign name it can be construed as ugly and insensitive.

I used to run around with a Euro crowd in the old days in New York, hitting the bars and clubs at all hours. I met lots of European & foreign women who couldn't pronounce my American name worth a damn. But I forgave them.

[Douglas]

sacha,

It might be all right with you if, to be more poetic and flowing, I decided to pronounce your name Douglas as doh-LAH-ha, but not all Douglases might like that. Where are the limits when it comes to changing others' names to sound aesthetic?

"Doh-LAH-ha", eh? Let me practice that for awhile, and I'll get back with you. ("Doh-LAH-ha"..."DOH!-lah-HA"..."Doh-LAH-ha"..."Doh-a deer, a female deer"..."Doh-LAH-ha")

[waterthere]

I've been trying to lurk as consistently as possible here but I feel like I've missed something...

Douglas, have you responded to Daniel's pointed post from awhile back? If so, where...?

Love,

Waterthere

[Isaiah Mpski]

Yes and Douglas,tell us about the tattoo that Christ has on His thigh.

[Douglas]

waterthere,

I plan to do so this weekend, if not before. Finals are done for me today (Wednesday, May 3), and my free time will once again be for the most part free.

[whitewave]

Sacha is right that it is important to pronounce things correctly, especially the name of such a powerful force as Quetzalcoatl.

This was stressed to me by a yoga teacher when learning Sanskrit chants. Spoken words are charged with vibrational energy. If we mispronounce them we do not access the full power of that energy, or even end up summoning some other force with our words.

Speakers of American English have mostly forgotten the sacred power of words. By taking back our language by paying attention to each word we use, we have the opportunity to re-align the world vibrationally, to create harmony and peace.

[Douglas]

Isaiah,

According to Revelation 19:16, Jesus, at least at the time of His Second Coming, has "on His robe, and on His thigh", the following written:

KING OF KINGS,
AND LORD OF LORDS.

Note that it doesn't say that it is "tattooed" on His thigh, nor that it is necessarily permanently placed on His thigh. If you'd like to divert this thread in any other direction, please let us know.

[Isaiah Mpski]

Yes,now I want you to discuss for us the burning bush that Moses followed.
As I understand it-according to Wolf-who was banished by Daniel a while ago-such an abomination-
the story was recorded in ancient language that was akin to hieroglypics(sic)and there are many ways to interpret a symbol of a burning Bush.Given the fact that Moses was in Ethopia-had taken an Ethopian wife whose father was a priest in the Rosterferian(another sic)religion I think Moses was a pothead or opium smoker and was inclined to medative thought which he put down in writing.
So here,those of us who really know our bible history know the Christ is going to be one like unto Moses-a murdering,pot smoking renegade.
Douglas I hope by know you are coming to realize that there is more than one way of seeing Christianity than what you have been instilled with.Quetzalcoatl may really turn out to be called Christ.

[Douglas]

whitewave,

Sacha is right that it is important to pronounce things correctly, especially the name of such a powerful force as Quetzalcoatl.

So, if the original pronunciation of the name included the final "l" sound, which is the "correct" pronunciation: the current one, or the original one? If it is the current one, then the "correct" pronunciation in the future might be different, and why it would be important to be currently "correct" seems vague, at best.

[Douglas]

Isaiah,

Yes,now I want you to discuss for us the burning bush that Moses followed.

Well, as I now have only a couple of minutes, all I can say for certain is that it was not the younger Bush lit up.

[sacha]

quote:Sacha is right that it is important to pronounce things correctly, especially the name of such a powerful force as Quetzalcoatl.

So, if the original pronunciation of the name included the final "l" sound, which is the "correct" pronunciation: the current one, or the original one? If it is the current one, then the "correct" pronunciation in the future might be different, and why it would be important to be currently "correct" seems vague, at best.

The current pronunciation and the original pronunciation are both correct, because they are the same. Just what makes you think the pronunciation has changed?

If you are really interested, maybe you should have actually read what I posted? Should I post it again, would you actually read it this time?

The final sound, represented by l, is voiceless. ("Voiced" vs "voiceless" refers to use or non-use of the vocal cords; for example, the difference between the /z/ and /s/ sounds is that the former is voiced and the latter is voiceless.) The /t/ and the /voiceless l/ are fused to form what to Nahuatl speakers is a single sound -- much as in English, /t/ and /sh/ are fused to form what is for English speakers a single sound, /ch/.

The voiceless l sound, common also in Pacific Northwest Indian languages, sounds like the voiceless /th/ of "thing" pronounced with the tongue in the /l/ position (the air goes around the sides of the tongue). It has been spelled by English-speakers as "th" or "lth," and if you could not pronounce voiceless l, you could approximate the final syllable of Quetzalcoatl by pronouncing "atl" as "-at'th," as long as you could pronounce it as one syllable.

The important thing is that the -atl ending has to be pronounced as a single syllable. If one must anglicize the pronunciation, due to inability to pronounce the sounds correctly, it is preferable to drop the voiceless l altogether and pronounce the t alone than to separate the sounds into two syllables (-attle). And remember that the stress is on the penultimate syllable (co).

[ May 03, 2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: sacha ]

[Douglas]

sacha,

If you are really interested, maybe you should have actually read what I posted? Should I post it again, would you actually read it this time?

I was, and am "really interested". And, I actually read what you had posted, before. The problem is either with my understanding, or with your original failure to make it clear that the pronunciation of "Quetzalcoatl" has not changed at all over the years. Even in your recent, helpful quote of yourself, you do not make it clear whether it has or not. I, however, was noting that English evolves, and pronunciations within English have changed, in some circumstances. But English is not the native tongue of the great Quetzalcoatl, so I imagine I shouldn't have even considered comparing the two.

Your politeness and courtesy are duly noted, though.

[ May 03, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Douglas ]

[sacha]

I thought, from all you wrote here, that you were just playing games.

As to whether Nahuatl pronunciation has changed -- we are talking about the classical Nahuatl language when we discuss the pronunciation of Mexica entities. Some dialects of contemporary Nahuatl do drop the final voiceless l, and some others drop the -tl ending altogether (which is the nominative noun case ending). (Those dialects are, of course, respectively known as Nahuat and Nahua.)

So that is why it is more or less acceptable to anglicize Quetzalcoatl by dropping the voiceless l. Or you can pronounce it as a voiced l, if you can do that and still make the -atl one syllable.

All languages change over time, and if you go back far enough, classical Nahuatl pronunciations would be different too, but there is no evidence that the -atl ending was ever pronounced as two syllables ("attle").

[ May 03, 2006, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: sacha ]

[JCCamp007]

During my imaginary employment as government physician I have been privliged to meet a few storied people.
Mr Landis Wilson who was the project engineer for the railroad that was built to take supplies for the building of the Panama canal.He told me that he had a three mile right of way in any direction as long as he was basically heading south and that he went right through the middle of every pyramid he found.
My point here-to all of you is,that the pronunciation-particularily for Quetzalcoatl is not so important as the meaning of the man.
Later during the Reagan administration and his Central American wars I saw pictures of carvings from temples near the Mexican and Guatamalan borders which can be no longer photographed that displayed Quetzalcoatl obviously carrying a staff which looked like a cross.
When did Quetzacoatl live?

[whitewave]

Is it possible that the evolution of languages as noted here is one of the factors that has contributed to our perceived separation from the Divine?

Barbara Hand Clow writes in Alchemy of Nine Dimensions, that the universe manifests itself through sound waves that generate the Platonic forms of sacred geometry. If we warp the sounds, do we warp the forms we create with them?

The Tower of Babel comes to mind, the story of how we came to speak many languages, a parable that speaks to our separation from God, and the warfare that has ensued within ourselves since, a battle we have projected outward on to the world.

Much of the success of my shamanic journey has been from choosing the right words to rebirth myself. I began consumed with despair, but am now translucent, lit from within, and able to share this light.

I believe that going back to the roots of the words we use is a way to re-establish a connection with the Divine Mind.

Perhaps the evolution that created this sense of separation occurred in order for us to become pro-active, conscious participants in creation. Self-aware and sacred caretakers of Earth, our home.

[Douglas]

And what do you think it is written in on my thigh Douglas-magic marker.

I try not to think about such things. But the point I was making about Jesus' thigh was that it might have been a piece of clothing or even a sort of belt. If He was pictured as wearing a robe, and was riding a horse, I can imagine that Middle-Eastern people of the time would have had some sort of undergarment, or perhaps even a strap around the thigh for carrying various items. I don't know, of course.

Note that I'm not saying that the meaning of the passage is not that Jesus actually had/has something written on His thigh, nor that it is not permanent. I'm just saying that these latter views aren't necessarily implied by the passage.