article on Aztecs II

[micc]

Richard Haly wrote:
>
> Ouch....
>
> languages (ie. non european ones) where this happens. The spelling of
> Moteuczomah as Moktekuzoma is (as J. Richard Andrews can teach us) a flag
> that this person doesn't know Nahuatl.


why do you say that Moktekuzoma is incorrect and moteuczomah is correct?

the problem arises with the othrographic representation of the Kw sound
in Tekwtli. originally it was written  by the spanish as
tecutli, teuctli and teoctli, by several sources.

But we know that the word has a kw sound and not a -cu sound nor a -euc
sound.
Like in xipe Totekw (Xipe totec)

Hmmm....




 This kind of PC appropriation
> (Chicano of Nahua) is one of the things that I (Ph.D in hand) hate about
> academia. First the reconquista and now the reteconquista.
>
> There are serious ethical issues of representation that such a book brings
> up. I, who have done over 25 years of "fieldwork" with Nahuas and speak it
> passably (understand it better) will only claim in my writings that what I
> write is
> a product of my _interaction_ with Nahua speakers. I am NOT PostModern
> enough to admit such readings of the sources as Vento apparently feels
> entitled to.
>
> ye ixquich.
>
> Richard Haly
>
> ----------
> >From: Mel Sanchez <melesan at pacbell.net>
> >To: Multiple recipients of list <nahuat-l at server.umt.edu>
> >Subject: Re: article on Aztecs II
> >Date: Sun, Aug 08, 1999, 21:07
> >
>
> > Take a look at this from amazon.com:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/book-contents/0761809201/qid=934166
> > 480/sr=1-17/002-5080852-7218268