Cloud - Revision history

Jawad at 14:46, 29 January 2026

2026-01-29T14:46:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 29 January 2026
Line 58:		Line 58:
	Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.		Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.

			{{how to cite}}

	{{~~HOWTOCITE~~}}

	[[Category:English entries]]		[[Category:English entries]]

Magnus at 02:44, 8 June 2025

2025-06-08T02:44:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:44, 7 June 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:

	==mosi/mausi==		==mosi/mausi==
	Lionnet (1985#150) reconstructs ''mosi'' for "Sonoran" based on cognates in Opata, Nothern Eudeve and Tubar. Stubbs (2011#502) adds Nahua to the cognate set, and also ties it to cognates in Hopi and the Californian languages (Luiseño, Cupeño and Tübatülabal), reconstructing mosi for PUA. Hill (2020:MO-07) admits Takic but does not include Hopi or Tübatülabal. However the Nahuan form cited by Stubbs <''mixtli''> is not the only one found in Nahuan, and the vowel doesn't fit well with the proposed reconstruction.		Lionnet (1985#150) reconstructs ''[[mosi]]'' for "Sonoran" based on cognates in Opata, Nothern Eudeve and Tubar. Stubbs (2011#502) adds Nahua to the cognate set, and also ties it to cognates in Hopi and the Californian languages (Luiseño, Cupeño and Tübatülabal), reconstructing mosi for PUA. Hill (2020:MO-07) admits Takic but does not include Hopi or Tübatülabal. However the Nahuan form cited by Stubbs <''mixtli''> is not the only one found in Nahuan, and the vowel doesn't fit well with the proposed reconstruction.

	Lionnet (1985#150) reconstructs:		Lionnet (1985#150) reconstructs:
Line 37:		Line 37:

	==homau/na-homau==		==homau/na-homau==
	PSUA *''(na-)homau''		PSUA *''[[nahomau\|(na-)homau]]''
	:Hopi ''oomaw'' "cloud";		:Hopi ''oomaw'' "cloud";
	:Tarahumara ''na’oma'' "become cloudy, erased"		:Tarahumara ''na’oma'' "become cloudy, erased"
Line 46:		Line 46:
	==*hikoma==		==*hikoma==
	Tepiman:		Tepiman:
	PTEP ''hi-koma'' "cloud(y)" < PUA ''kuma'' "grey"		PTEP ''[[hikoma\|hi-koma]]'' "cloud(y)" < PUA ''kuma'' "grey"
	''hikomagi'' "cloudy" <sikomawi		''[[hikomagi]]'' "cloudy" <sikomawi
	:NT ''ikómaga''		:NT ''ikómaga''
	:ST ''hikma’''		:ST ''hikma’''

Magnus: /* hikoma /

2025-06-03T23:05:22Z

*hikoma

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 3 June 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:

	Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.		Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.



			{{HOWTOCITE}}

			[[Category:English entries]]

Magnus at 23:04, 3 June 2025

2025-06-03T23:04:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 3 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are at least three different Uto-Aztecan roots among the words used for "cloud" in Southern Uto-Aztecan languages:		There are at least three different Uto-Aztecan roots among the words used for "'''cloud'''" in Southern Uto-Aztecan languages:
	one that can be reconstructed as ''mosi'' or ''mausi'', attested in Nahuan, Coracholan, Tubar and Eudeve (and Hopi, and Takic);		one that can be reconstructed as ''mosi'' or ''mausi'', attested in Nahuan, Coracholan, Tubar and Eudeve (and Hopi, and Takic);
	another that can be reconstructed as *''(na-)homau'', attested in Tarahumara, Tubar and Yaqui (and Hopi);		another that can be reconstructed as *''(na-)homau'', attested in Tarahumara, Tubar and Yaqui (and Hopi);

Magnus at 23:03, 3 June 2025

2025-06-03T23:03:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:03, 3 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are at least three different Uto-Aztecan roots among the words used for "cloud" in Southern Uto-Aztecan languages: one that can be reconstructed as ''mosi'' or ''mausi'', attested in Nahuan, Coracholan, Tubar and Eudeve (and Hopi, and Takic); another that can be reconstructed as ''(na-)homau'', attested in Tarahumara, Tubar and Yaqui (and Hopi); And also one that can be reconstructed for proto-Tepiman as ''hikomagi'' and which is attested in Tepiman languages (and Northern Paiute) and possibly related to a PUA root meaning "gray". These might all descend from a proto-form omawi "cloud", but the developments that could lead from that form to to hikC-omawi, nah-omawi and mausi/*mosi are unclear.		There are at least three different Uto-Aztecan roots among the words used for "cloud" in Southern Uto-Aztecan languages:
			one that can be reconstructed as ''mosi'' or ''mausi'', attested in Nahuan, Coracholan, Tubar and Eudeve (and Hopi, and Takic);
			another that can be reconstructed as *''(na-)homau'', attested in Tarahumara, Tubar and Yaqui (and Hopi);
			And also one that can be reconstructed for proto-Tepiman as *''hikomagi'' and which is attested in Tepiman languages (and Northern Paiute) and possibly related to a PUA root meaning "gray".

			These might three forms might in turn all descend from a proto-form ''omawi'' "cloud", but the developments that could lead from that form to to ''hikC-omawi'', ''nah-omawi'' and ''mausi/*mosi'' are unclear at present.

	==mosi/mausi==		==mosi/mausi==

Magnus at 23:02, 3 June 2025

2025-06-03T23:02:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 3 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are at least three different Uto-Aztecan roots among the words used for "cloud" in Southern Uto-Aztecan languages: one that can be reconstructed as ''mosi'' or ''mausi'', attested in Nahuan, Coracholan, Tubar and Eudeve (and Hopi, and Takic); another that can be reconstructed as ''(na-)homau'', attested in Tarahumara, Tubar and Yaqui (and Hopi); And also one that can be reconstructed for proto-Tepiman as ''hikomagi'' and which is attested in Tepiman languages (and Northern Paiute) and possibly related to a PUA root meaning "gray".		There are at least three different Uto-Aztecan roots among the words used for "cloud" in Southern Uto-Aztecan languages: one that can be reconstructed as ''mosi'' or ''mausi'', attested in Nahuan, Coracholan, Tubar and Eudeve (and Hopi, and Takic); another that can be reconstructed as ''(na-)homau'', attested in Tarahumara, Tubar and Yaqui (and Hopi); And also one that can be reconstructed for proto-Tepiman as ''hikomagi'' and which is attested in Tepiman languages (and Northern Paiute) and possibly related to a PUA root meaning "gray". These might all descend from a proto-form omawi "cloud", but the developments that could lead from that form to to hikC-omawi, nah-omawi and mausi/*mosi are unclear.

	==mosi/mausi==		==mosi/mausi==

Magnus: /* mosi/mausi */

2025-06-03T23:00:20Z

*mosi/*mausi

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 3 June 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:Hch. '''aɨʃi'' ''<'a+xi>'' "vapor, neblina"		:Hch. '''aɨʃi'' ''<'a+xi>'' "vapor, neblina"

	The Nahuan forms are compatible with PCN ''maɨsi'' because Nahuan levels all diphthongs, this could give PCN ''maɨsi'' > PN [[mɨʃ\|''mɨʃ'']], o alternatively via pre-Nahua ''maíʃ'' which could give both ''me:ʃ-'' and ''mi:ʃ-''(but does not account for Guerrero Nahua ''moʃ-''). For this reason PN ''mɨʃ'' seems preferable. The Guerrero form ''moʃ-'' could come directly from PSUA mosi, but there is no way to explain the more widespread forms in /e/ or /i/ as derived from that form, while ''moʃ-'' can be explained as derived from ''mɨʃ'' or ''maɨʃ''. So in the end this is the better explanation for the Nahua and Corachol forms. It does not however solve the question of how the Corachol-Nahua form is related to the PSUA form mosi. Either we would have to posit that PCN ''maɨsi'' comes from PSUA mosi, where the diphthongization of o to aɨ does not follow any known development in the family; or we would posit ''mausi'' as the PSUA form with a development of mausi > mosi in Tubar/Eudeve/Opata '''and''' PNUA. This is also a hard scenario to explain. It seems improbable that the Nahua and Wixárika forms aren't related to the SUA forms in mosi, but explaining the development maɨsi/mosi will require new knowledge about the sound changes.		The Nahuan forms are compatible with PCN ''maɨsi'' because Nahuan levels all diphthongs, this could give PCN ''maɨsi'' > PN [[mɨʃ\|''mɨʃ'']], o alternatively via pre-Nahua ''maíʃ'' which could give both ''me:ʃ-'' and ''mi:ʃ-''(but does not account for Guerrero Nahua ''moʃ-''). For this reason PN ''mɨʃ'' seems preferable. The Guerrero form ''moʃ-'' could come directly from PSUA mosi, but there is no way to explain the more widespread forms in /e/ or /i/ as derived from that form, while ''moʃ-'' can be explained as derived from ''mɨʃ'' or ''maɨʃ''. So in the end this is the better explanation for the Nahua and Corachol forms. It does not however solve the question of how the Corachol-Nahua form is related to the PSUA form mosi. Either we would have to posit that PCN ''maɨsi'' comes from PSUA mosi, where the diphthongization of o to aɨ does not follow any known development in the family; or we would posit ''mausi'' as the PSUA form with a development of ''mausi > mosi'' in Tubar/Eudeve/Opata '''and''' PNUA. This is also a hard scenario to explain. It seems improbable that the Nahua and Wixárika forms aren't related to the SUA forms in ''mosi'', but explaining the development ''maɨsi/mosi'' will require new knowledge about the sound changes between these groups.

	==homau/na-homau==		==homau/na-homau==

Magnus: /* hikoma /

2025-06-03T22:55:02Z

*hikoma

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 3 June 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:
	:TO ''koomhai'' "mist, fog"		:TO ''koomhai'' "mist, fog"
	:NP ''kummi-bï'' "cloud"		:NP ''kummi-bï'' "cloud"
	~~'gray' at 'gray'; therefore,~~ these may relate to *kuma 'gray, dark color' with a prefixed element; see at 'gray’.
			According to Stubbs these may relate to *kuma 'gray, dark color' with a prefixed element; see at 'gray’.

	Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.		Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.

Magnus: /* hi-koma /

2025-06-03T22:51:31Z

*hi-koma

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 3 June 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:


	==*~~hi-koma~~==		==*hikoma==
	Tepiman:		Tepiman:
	PTEP ''hi-koma'' "cloud(y)" < PUA ''kuma'' "grey"		PTEP ''hi-koma'' "cloud(y)" < PUA ''kuma'' "grey"
Line 49:		Line 49:
	:NP ''kummi-bï'' "cloud"		:NP ''kummi-bï'' "cloud"
	'gray' at 'gray'; therefore, these may relate to *kuma 'gray, dark color' with a prefixed element; see at 'gray’.		'gray' at 'gray'; therefore, these may relate to *kuma 'gray, dark color' with a prefixed element; see at 'gray’.

			Could perhaps also be parsed ''hikV-omawi'', in which case it could lead back to the same root omaw as ''mausi'' and ''mosi'' and *''nahomawV''.

Magnus: /* mosi/mausi */

2025-06-03T22:47:31Z

*mosi/*mausi

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 3 June 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:Hch. '''aɨʃi'' ''<'a+xi>'' "vapor, neblina"		:Hch. '''aɨʃi'' ''<'a+xi>'' "vapor, neblina"

	The Nahuan forms are compatible with PCN ''maɨsi'' because Nahuan levels all diphthongs, this could give PCN ''maɨsi'' > PN [[mɨʃ\|''mɨʃ'']], o alternatively via pre-Nahua ''maíʃ'' which could give both ''me:ʃ-'' and ''mi:ʃ-''(but does not account for Guerrero Nahua ''moʃ-''). For this reason PN ''mɨʃ'' seems preferable. The Guerrero form ''moʃ-'' could come directly from PSUA mosi, but there is no way to explain the more widespread forms in /e/ or /i/ as derived from that form, while ''moʃ-'' can be explained as derived from ''mɨʃ'' or ''maɨʃ''. So in the end this is the better explanation for the Nahua and Corachol forms. It does not however solve the question of how the Corachol-Nahua form is related to the PSUA form mosi. Either we would have to posit that PCN ''maɨsi'' comes from PSUA mosi, where the diphthongization of o to aɨ does not follow any known development in the family; or we would posit ''mausi'' as the PSUA form with a development of mausi > mosi in Tubar/Eudeve/Opata '''and''' PNUA. This is also a hard scenario to explain. It seems improbable that the Nahua and Wixárika forms aren't related to the SUA forms in mosi, but it		The Nahuan forms are compatible with PCN ''maɨsi'' because Nahuan levels all diphthongs, this could give PCN ''maɨsi'' > PN [[mɨʃ\|''mɨʃ'']], o alternatively via pre-Nahua ''maíʃ'' which could give both ''me:ʃ-'' and ''mi:ʃ-''(but does not account for Guerrero Nahua ''moʃ-''). For this reason PN ''mɨʃ'' seems preferable. The Guerrero form ''moʃ-'' could come directly from PSUA mosi, but there is no way to explain the more widespread forms in /e/ or /i/ as derived from that form, while ''moʃ-'' can be explained as derived from ''mɨʃ'' or ''maɨʃ''. So in the end this is the better explanation for the Nahua and Corachol forms. It does not however solve the question of how the Corachol-Nahua form is related to the PSUA form mosi. Either we would have to posit that PCN ''maɨsi'' comes from PSUA mosi, where the diphthongization of o to aɨ does not follow any known development in the family; or we would posit ''mausi'' as the PSUA form with a development of mausi > mosi in Tubar/Eudeve/Opata '''and''' PNUA. This is also a hard scenario to explain. It seems improbable that the Nahua and Wixárika forms aren't related to the SUA forms in mosi, but explaining the development maɨsi/mosi will require new knowledge about the sound changes.

	==homau/na-homau==		==homau/na-homau==

Cloud - Revision history

Jawad at 14:46, 29 January 2026

Magnus at 02:44, 8 June 2025

Magnus: /* *hikoma */

Magnus at 23:04, 3 June 2025

Magnus at 23:03, 3 June 2025

Magnus at 23:02, 3 June 2025

Magnus: /* *mosi/*mausi */

Magnus: /* *hikoma */

Magnus: /* *hi-koma */

Magnus: /* *mosi/*mausi */

Magnus: /* hikoma /

Magnus: /* mosi/mausi */

Magnus: /* hikoma /

Magnus: /* hi-koma /

Magnus: /* mosi/mausi */