This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about 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.
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.
Lacrimosus (talk·contribs): 1. Whether or not it is an adverb or a noun as in English is irrelevant - translation of does not require the translation to use the same wordclass. 2. the translation given of mexicacopa clearly translates it as an adverbial phrase, so the reader is not mislead to believe that it is a noun. 3. I know of no instances of mexicatlahtolli being used to describe the language in colonial Nahuatl - if anything it was called Nahuatlahtolli.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. To answer the last point first, it's mentioned as an alternative to nahuatlahtolli in the preface to Launey, as well as other parts of the book such as lesson 17 where it is cited alongside nahutlahtolli as an example of a compound noun. If it didn't exist as the name of the language then I don't think it should be described as such ("it was simply called talking in the way of the Mexica" or something like that) but that shouldn't be necessary given that it existed as a normal nominal compound along the lines of other similar forms like e.g. teotlahtolli. Slacspeak up! 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the version does not currently descrope "mexicacopa" as a language "name", it clearly describes it as a way of describing the language. If the preface of Launey gives mexicatlahtolli then I have missed that, and that is some reason to add that. It is however not a reason to remove the much more common Mexicacopa. Instead of further revert warring, I suggest that if you want to insist on removing it, that we make an RfC to get input from other editors. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to do an RfC if necessary - on what basis are we calling it "much more common"? Launey says (in the preface) that you can call it nahuatlahtolli or alternatively mexicatlahtolli. He then mentions mexicacopa separately, not in the preface, implying that we have two preferred options in a basic introduction (like this article). If you wanted from the point of view of completeness to add to that "additionally, they also described it as speaking mexicacopa" you could - I'd say it isn't strictly necessary, but if there is some good basis for saying it's more common/appropriate we could look at it. Slacspeak up! 11:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I may have overestimated how common it is relative to other terms. The only hit I find on google scholar and google books for use of "mexicatlahtolli" is in a 20th century text from Milpa Alta. Lockhart 1981 and subsequently the Hills 1986 claim that "mexicacopa" is a back translation from "mexicana". They do not provide any evidence for this argument. (the Hills, being little versed with the colonial tradition, also claim that Nahuatl is a neologism which it clearly is not.) Lockhart in 1992 find two instances of documents using mexicacopa, and one using another, he does not mention which other word is used to identify the language in the third document. We may not have enough information to state which is more commonly occurring in the earliest texts, but Mexicacopa is certainly among the commonly occuring ways of identifying the language, along with nahuatlahtolli and macehualcopa.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)