Nahuatlan?

[Matthew Vogel]

Man Steve, that was a bit harsh... then again, so was the undergrad.  You
kids behave.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Steve Swanson wrote:

> Dear undergraduate student,
>
> I think that a careful review of the postings regarding "nahuatlan" will
> show that the characterizations and labels to which you refer were
> being cited from a library's index system and its entry on Nahuatl
> related languages.  In that original email, it was pointed out that the
> labels used for those languages were an improvement over just calling
> them all "Aztec" languages, but the query was seeking advice from
> Nahuatl scholars and interested parties on this list as to the
> appropriateness
> of "Nahuatlan".  As your citation of Campbell and Karttunen indicate,
> we need to be conscious of our labels, and the spirit in which you write
> is appreciated.  However, since it appears that nobody in this thread,
> who you label "so-called scholars" from your position of anonymity,
> actually used those labels, your post seems somewhat misdirected.
>
> Addressing the spirit of your post, I agree that there are some
> negative implications for the use of the term "classic" or "classical"
> Nahuatl, as there are for a term like "classic" or "classical" Greek.
> My reading of these terms is that the "climax" of the civilization
> that used the language has passed, and the language spoken during
> that cultural "climax" is better, or more pure, or more relevant than
> modern forms of the language.  Does anyone on this list know how
> native speakers of Greek or Nahuatl (or any other language descended
> from a "classical" language) perceive or refer to older forms of their
> language?
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <War14655 at aol.com>
> To: <nahuat-l at server2.umt.edu>
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Nahuatlan?
>
>
> look at u, labeling the so-called ancient "aztec" language or so-called
> classical language as "extinct."  I think it's high-time that you rid
> yourself of that practice.  Even Joe Campbell admonishes that, "Scholars of
> Nahuatl are accustomed to talk about 'classical Nahuatl' and what is spoken
> today; yet the people who speak Nahuatl today are the desecndants of the
> people who spoke it five centuries ago.  The practice of isolating classical
> Nahuatl is rather like calling the English of Shakespeare's time "Classical
> English" while referring to English as it is spoken today in various places
> around the world as "the modern dialects."  It is not technically wrong, but
> if we don't do it for English, we should be wary of doing so for
> Nahuatl"(Campbell and Karttunen p2).  If this is a listserve of so-called
> scholars and a lowly undergrad student, like me, can see the error in this
> kind of mislabeling, then surely u guys see it too...
>
>