<Canchan> and not <Chan chan>: Definitely Quechumara and not Quingnam

In the present article I discuss the reservations and objections held (cfr. Urban, 2022) against my etymological proposal offered in Cerrón-Palomino (2020b), where I argue, based on overwhelming evidence, that the noun <Chanchán> is of Quechumaran origin, thereby discarding hypothetical alternatives put forward due to mere topo-linguistic inferences, the lack of onomastic acquaintance, or even the absence of an essential archival and documentary inquiry. In this respect, I stand by the etymology I proposed, which is explicit and rigorous to the scrutiny of any thorough specialist in the field. Thus, my article will examine and refute, on a step-by-step basis, the arguments that are questioned and allegedly counter-argued (see Urban, 2022), in order to demonstrate that my original proposal is not “categorically rejected” (p. 103), “questionable” (p. 106), “inadequate” (p. 107), “forced” (p. 117), etc., but is rather the result of an objective and unprejudiced endeavor. The arguments in question are (a) the filiation of the Protoquechuan (PQ) term *kanĉa, allegedly not shared with Protoaymaran (PA); (b) the proposal of the-n ending of the toponym as a reflection of the Aymaran possessive or adjudicator-ni, depicted as an artifice; (c) the use of the cult digraph <ch> in Andean onomastics, characterized as unusual; (d) the contrived etymological association between <Canda> and <Chanchan> that the aforementioned author readily accepts; (e) the meager resort to the reduplication of monosyllabic roots, purportedly conveying the <Chan Chan> toponym a Quingnam filiation; and (f) the pretended “conquering and spreading role” that Aymara and Quechua had in the north Peruvian coast, which Urban (2017) attributes to my proposal.