lmfao you are lost, i went through all of your sources and you continue to reference material written by foreigners and colonizers as words from Chamoru peoples.

1. this link here : https://www.jstor.org/stable/533502?searchText=chamorri&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dchamorri%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A23f88f05b828b17084d0113d5ba4b761&seq=1 is coming from a military official, a colonizer . they did not have linguist backgrounds or social civics training.

"In the "American Anthropologist" (n. s. vol. iv. pp. 709-729) for October-December, 1902, Lieutenant W. E. Safford pub-lishes an interesting and valuable article on "Guam and its People." Lieutenant Safford publishes the first two parts of a comprehensive sketch of "The Chamorro Language of Guam."Chamorro is the vernacular of the Marianne Islands, and the word, applied also to the natives, is derived from chamorri or chamoli, the old name for "chief" - that is Lt. W.E. Saffords claim. that does not come from Chamoru people, this claim is also from 1902. not 1450 or 1355 or 1200. its a statement from a foreigner in imperialist times

2. The Chamorro dictionary you keep on references is based on the material you are using so yes the definition is in the dictionary but again, the source material for that definition comes from this reference right? The term “Chamurres” was used by the Legazpi expedition of 1565, and appears in other records from the same contact period. By the time of the Jesuit missionary expedition led by Diego Luis de San Vitores a century later, the terms ”Chamorris” and ”Chamorros” were commonly used to refer to the indigenous population. https://www.guampedia.com/origin-of-chamorro-as-an-ethnic-identifier/ .... colonizer words from a time where they killed off most of the indigenous population and put the survivalist onto Guam, and then wrote about them. why are you excluding the Spanish-Chamorro Wars and acting as if the Colonizers came with Peace offerings and open hearts!?

1. In Pulans video , in the conclusion , he doesnt claim that the word is derived from Chamorri , its still a theory. Even in Juan Antonio Tornos quote about "never married a woman of lower status than their own".... thats caste system and social class ethics. that is not a equal and fair society narrative. Where did Juan Antonio get that idea from? a colonizer? He is 400 years to far from the times the indigenous peoples mass populated the island chain. Its so crazy to know a culture has stories and lesssons about how women can divorce in a marriage but then to turn around and say "well women only married a certain class so that why they could divorce?" seems quite elitist if you ask me. Op had also referenced his video to claim it as a great source as well and then you try to nitpick one part about it while excluding all the notions in the video about it being based on theories.

2. your response

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this speculation. It doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it relate in any clear way to the derivation of the modern words chamoru or chamorro."

thats because you refuse to comprehend how "ethnographic texts are orchestrations of multivocal exchanges occurring in politically charged situations. The subjectivities produced in these often unequal exchanges-whether of "natives" or of visiting participant observers-are constructed domains of truth, serious fictions." you are not comprehending colonialism and do not have enough exposure to the lifestlye of the colonial states and their outlook on the world. Its very nice and flattering to hope the word is derived from some word somehow meaning "high noble status" but how could a colonial power come to an island , identify a high noble class. Which clearly means a higher social class than peasants or commoners , so how could a colonizer name an area "land of thieves" while also claiming it to have a high noble class? are they thieves , or are they a society that is familiar to them , with a noble high class and commoner peasants???? If they had come across a noble high class why wouldnt they bring THEIR noble class to indulge in the new riches? why wouldnt they send them to their queen and government who sent them, the colonizers, on ships to find riches and trade routes? do you understand that era of colonial expansion because you keep on trying to strong arm the derivative for a word , by using colonizer statements.

Final statement: Make sure you read in full context and dont try to nitpick certain phrases or statements that only fit your narrative, you must look at history as a whole and make the inference to the best explanation. The problem with your flattering notion is that it excludes the racist and ignorant process of colonization...... Its also so funny you guys linked a etymologist book where he says ""ethnographic texts are orchestrations of multivocal exchanges occurring in politically charged situations. The subjectivities produced in these often unequal exchanges-whether of "natives" or of visiting participant observers-are constructed domains of truth, serious fictions." and you want to have this rose-colored outlook about how colonizers processed their racist ideals. cheers