Talk:Classical Nahuatl

Mexico

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Languages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Try to at least leave short summaries of sections when moving their contents to sub-articles. A section with nothing but a single link isn't all that informative.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

Then use terms for which we actually have articles instead of using confusing redirects and redlinks to article that we will most likely never have articles. I noticed that the tree is taken straight from the Ethnologue entry and to the best of my knowledge SIL isn't the final and conclusive source for these things.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reccommend using the second of these classifications (Lastra and Canger) according to which Pipil is just an eastern peripheral Nahuatl dialect. I also reccomend calling general aztec for Nahuatl and link it to

·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent additions, and in particular the sentence:

"However, few communities still speak Classical Nahuatl as an evolved dialect of the language (such as 15th century Spanish to modern)."

could be read to imply there remain native speakers. Perhaps it's just a matter of rephrasing the intended statement, but it's not clear to me just what distinction is being claimed here. This seems to be akin to saying, "communities still speak Elizabethan English as an evolved dialect of the language"..?

Would a clearer statement be along the lines of "Classical Nahuatl is the antecedent of several contemporary dialects"? --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such statements were already found in the article. I have removed allusions to current native speakers. Speakers in Milpa Alta and Morelos most certainly do not speak Classical Nahuatl - to say so would be a misunderstaning of the term Classical Nahuatl it self. Classical nahuatl is now only a literary language.However it is true that since Classical Nahuatl was a central Dialect it is most closely related to the other central Dialects i.e. Those of Morelos and the State of Mexico.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted User:Fluence's addition of 3000 putative native speakers of Classical Nahuatl and a section on the modern orthographies which also has nothing to do with Classical Nahuatl since they are recently developed with the aim of writing the modern nahuatl variants. Before going further with this I think Fluence should explain on which grounds he believe there to be 3000 native speakers of Classical Nahuatl (References to reliable sources please) and why he thinks the modern orthographies has any relevance to the subject of the classical written language.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong but I know there was a reference about those 3000 Nahua speakers somewhere. I can't find it now however, so I won't insist on keeping that.

However, about the modern section, this has something to do with your friend Node ue. When he was an active user on the Nahuatl Wikipedia, he started switching the Classical Nahuatl ortography in use at the moment to a modern form I don't know where he came from with. Again, if you don't want me to comment on the modern ortography, I won't.

I'm adding back however, the alphabet section taken from Esperanto article as appears on Frances Kartunnen's dictionary since all /cu/, /hu/, /qu/, /tl/ and /tz/ appear as separate letters distinct from the common Latin alphabet.--Fluence 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the User:Node ue. I can, for the moment accept the inclusion of a key to the orthography employed in the nahuatl wikipedia. Although i do not think it is sufficiently significant for the matter of the present article. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. He mentioned you. He's more of a liar I thought. However, I found the article from El Universal, well-respected Mexican newspaper where is stated Classical Nahuatl is still spoken in Milpa Alta (it's by the end). Thus, it's not my guess, it's stated on a newspaper.--Fluence 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Universal is not a scientific journal, and in this case it is just wrong. It can be said that the Nahuatl spoken in Milpa Alta is quite similar to Classical Nahuatl but it is called "Milpa Aæta Nahuatl" and also has many differences from Classical Nahuatl.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]