Talk:athl

athl
in this edit blanked the entry and added a tag, with the edit summary "(No ist Classical nahuatl this word)". I reverted it as the wrong way to do it, but the basic point needs to be addressed: Is this spelling attestable as Classical Nahuatl? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Though the quotations at seem to attest it as a variant spelling of that word it's really more a of a misspelling at best. Even though the spelling of Classical Nahuatl wasn't fixed when it was still a spoken language, writing -tl as -thl isn't widespread and in any case doesn't represent a true alternative form or a different pronunciation. Some other variant spellings for Classical Nahuatl entries are useful because they see widespread use in contemporary  sources and serve as a link to entries using normalized spelling conventions for someone consulting a primary source. Though the Codex Magliabechiano (from where the quotation for athl is presumably taken) is in fact a primary source, the spelling used for that particular word is (as far as I know) unique to that source. Keeping athl as a separate entry would make it somewhat of a special snowflake among other entries for alternative  spellings, and so in my opinion it shouldn't be kept as such. –Koszmonaut (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it should? I'm not sure what the policy is considering has limited source material. —Koszmonaut (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For a language like Classical Nahuatl, I'd say if it's attested only once in a single manuscript, we should list it (and provide the source!) as an the normalized spelling. Which means, if someone can definitively confirm that it is in the Codex Magliabechiano, and can add the sentence or wherever in which it occurs to our entry, I would consider that adequately verified for our purposes. —Angr 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep if attested once. For the moment, athl doesn't contain an attestation or a link to one, so don't keep yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The quotation attesting the spelling athl seems to be taken from folio 12r. of the Codex Magliabechiano (as pictured here on the far right). The text corresponding to the quotation is already found at atl:, is it necessary on the page for athl? —Koszmonaut (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? I sometimes use quotes written in pre-reformed Irish spellings both on the entry in standard spelling and on the entry in original spelling. —Angr 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If this spelling is usd in the manuscript, I think we should keep it and keep the normalised spelling, as we do for Old Norse (compare hljóð, hliod). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed. (Thanks to Koszmonaut for linking to the manuscript that has the spelling.) - -sche (discuss) 06:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)