Talk:Gallitlalpan

RFV discussion: November 2019–January 2024


In actual Classical texts, the names for these countries are simply loaned from Spanish:, and. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español., Mexico City.
 * That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).
 * (That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New reference.


 * Commenting to cross-link a related discussion: Beer parlour/2019/December. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reality of Nahautl seems to be that the 1.4 million speakers of Nahuan languages, as divergent as they might be, do try to work online and in literature as speakers of Nahuatl, not many different dialects (wisely in my opinion); see the Nahuatl Wikipedia for example. I think we should recognize this, and not act as if writing in a common lect of a group of tiny related languages is the same as writing in long-extinct languages like Gothic or PIE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority of the editors of the Nahuatl Wikipedia do not seem to be native speakers and I'm not sure if their writing would even be intelligible to native speakers. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This RFV discussion has been open for more than four years. Let's try to find a resolution. If I recall correctly, we subject modern Latin to higher attestation standards than classical Latin: whereas we accept a single use or mention for classical Latin, we require three uses for modern Latin (like we do for WDLs and constructed languages). If we want to allow "Neo-Classical Nahuatl", I think it makes sense to apply a similar standard: one use or mention is enough for terms attested at the time (16th-17th centuries?), but the usual three uses would required for modern terms.
 * Whether we use this standard or simply exclude modern uses of Classical Nahuatl, this RFV should fail either way because there is only one citation for each term, from a modern text. : Does that seem reasonable? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * RFV failed per above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)