Talk:oceloquichtli

RFV discussion: November 2018–May 2019
I think this word is a mistake.


 * 1)  +  should produce *ocelooquichtli. Nahuatl normally retains double vowels, it doesn't simplify them.
 * 2) The actual attested form is not, it's actually  (as in the Carochi quote), and it's always vocative.

A better explanation is that it comes from +. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 1 2 3 4 Aearthrise (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of those sources and I think they are wrong for the reasons stated above. The headword doesn't even match the quotations.
 * Here is a source that takes an opposing view. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your view. For moceloquichtli, I've found translations of unique man, noble man, and jaguar man- the same as oceloquichtli. Moceloquichtli appears to be a more accurate rendition of oceloquichtli. There have been various scholars who have taken ocelotl + oquichtli "oceloquichtli" to be used as the vocative form "moceloquichtle", such as Second Language Studies Professor Michael McCafferty who teaches Classical Nahuatl. There only exist two attested varieties that I can find in text, moceloquichtle and it's plural moceloquichtine. Aearthrise (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * RFV resolved, as far as I'm concerned. As we usually do in situations like this, each of the readings can be given an entry, and there should be explanatory usage notes, which I have just added. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If this is kept, then it should be marked as a ghost word that is only found in secondary sources, and the quotation from Carochi should be removed as moceloquichtle is not a possible inflected form of the alleged oceloquichtli. --Lvovmauro (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)