RE: Opinions Solicited

[Ing. Juan Manuel Chavaria]

    I think it's better using original spelling and punctuation than a
"regularized" one, because, Which "regularization" are you going to use???
One for english readers? or one for spanish readers? or even one for
norwegian readers?


    I will be publishing an English translation of a sixteenth century Aztec
history (relatively) soon and I have a major decision to make about the way
I present the Nahuatl text. My original intent was to present the Nahuatl
text in the two-colum (Nahuatl-English) format with the original spelling
and punctuation, so that these features of the original manuscript would be
available for study (for such purposes as identifying provenance and related
things). Somewhere along the line, I let myself be convinced by a reviewer
that regularizing the spelling to a modern orthography would make the text
more useful to a broader range of students, and I did that. Now, I'm having
second thoughts, particularly since the most recent reviewer has reiterated
my original thinking and strongly recommended restoring the original
spelling and punctuation. Since this was my original intent, I'd lean
towards following that advice, but since Nahuatl research is *not* my
primary area of expertise, I'd really like to hear what those of you who
work in the area believe to be the better approach: a straight transcription
of the original text or a modernized orthography for the Nahuatl column?

    Richley Crapo



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20040728/40b2eff2/attachment.html>