Wiktionary talk:About Nahuatl
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Why is Classical Nahuatl not listed under Nahuatl. There are several varieties of Nahuatl, including this one. I have found that entries have pages showing the proper use of marking long vowels, which is essential to the classical language, and listing non marked spelling variations under alternate spellings. However there are case where the opposite occured which is incorrect. —This unsigned comment was added by Xihuanmollinia (talk • contribs) at 12:20, January 13, 2017 (UTC).
- I don't really know what you are requesting. We treat both the macrolanguage (Nahuatl [nah]) and various sublanguages (e.g. Central Nahuatl [nhn]) as valid languages to have entries in. Classical Nahuatl [nci] is clearly delineated from other varieties by the temporal aspect, so it certainly deserves to be kept separate given our current scheme for handling the Nahuatl lects. As for the issue of spelling variations, I really can't tell what you think is "incorrect" — please give specific examples of which language(s) and entries you are talking about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose the user means that some entries lemmatize the classical spelling and some lemmatize a different (less diacritical) one? Our current scheme is what Meta says. IMO it is not very coherent to treat both a macrolanguage and all its dialects as languages, though. If they are similar enough that we have entries headered as just "Nahuatl" (the macrolanguage), we should probably merge them, unless this is actually a case more like Latvian or Estonian, where the "macrolanguage" is the standard or most widespread dialect, and the "dialects" are its siblings rather than its children. Differences in pronunciation and vowel marking over time would not inherently be an impediment (cf Ancient Greek and Latin). - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)