Talk:Hueyi Tlatoani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
|
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:
|
|
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is also supported by the WikiProject Aztec sub-project. |
|
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
|
|
I've changed this pages name from tlatoani. The word tlatoani was used to refer to any member of the Aztec nobility, the emperors were called Hueyi Tlatoani.
Now, is there anyone who wants to change all links from Tlatoani to Hueyi Tlatoani? :P --Mixcoatl 02:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Puppet" rulers?
Is the epithet "puppet" entirely NPOV, perhaps some more neutral description would be better. Thoughts?--cjllw | TALK 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point, although I think "puppet" describes them perfectly. Any thoughts on NPOV descriptions? "Spanish-appointed"? Madman 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"Spanish-appointed" or similar could work. Perhaps if some source explicitly calls them "puppets", that could be mentioned or expanded upon.--cjllw | TALK 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not all those rulers were puppets. While apointed by the spanish, only the first three could be considered puppets. The other, while taking orders form the spanish, had some liberty, and even fought along the spanish. After the last one Luis de Santa María Na[na]cacipactzin, Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) was under the direction of judges, who were not originary from Tenochtitlan, so aztec cronicles, like "Relacion anonima de Tlatelolco" does not considered them as Tlatoques or "rulers". In this acount Nacacipatzin is counted as the 27th (and last) aztec ruler. Nanahuatzin 09:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of Singular v Plural
In my understanding of (Huasteca) Nahuatl, -ani is the plural suffix and -que(tl) is the singular suffix meaning "doer of something". But the article currently says tlatoque is plural... Can someone who knows Classical Nahuatl help verify this? --Krubo 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article is correct. -ni is an agentive (often called habitual) suffix deriving from a verb X a noun with the meaning "someone who X'es" or "someone who can X". Nouns derived with this suffix have several different plural patterns: sometimes they pluralize just with a -h (a saltillo), sometimes with a -meh, and sometimes with a -queh. tlahtōani always pluralize with -queh thus tlahtōqueh was the correct plural in classical náhuatl. The suffix Queh or quetl also has other functions beside it does form the agentive in some modern dialecs (I gather you are familiar with Xilitla Nahuatl where it may have this function). In classical nahuatl this suffix had the form -qui not -quetl as I think it dos in xilitla. Maunus 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Then the singular and plural agentive/habitual -(a)ni and -que(tl) are swapped in Classical and Huasteca Nahuatl. Perhaps the qui/quetl forms make sense because only -quetl (Huasteca singular agentive) can have a -tl singular noun ending, perhaps. I am now avidly reading your Nahuatl dialects page. PS: I have been flummoxed by the "saltillo" you mention (eg, is it [h] or [ʔ], etc.) and would appreciate any links to info on it. --Krubo 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The saltillo is [ʔ].Maunus 08:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article is correct. -ni is an agentive (often called habitual) suffix deriving from a verb X a noun with the meaning "someone who X'es" or "someone who can X". Nouns derived with this suffix have several different plural patterns: sometimes they pluralize just with a -h (a saltillo), sometimes with a -meh, and sometimes with a -queh. tlahtōani always pluralize with -queh thus tlahtōqueh was the correct plural in classical náhuatl. The suffix Queh or quetl also has other functions beside it does form the agentive in some modern dialecs (I gather you are familiar with Xilitla Nahuatl where it may have this function). In classical nahuatl this suffix had the form -qui not -quetl as I think it dos in xilitla. Maunus 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
