Diferencia entre revisiones de «Huiquipedia:Tlatlahtoaloyan»
Contenido eliminado Contenido añadido
Sin resumen de edición |
|||
Pantli 184:
::Node Ue, you said: "It has already been decided. The policy is now to use Yankwik Nawa:tl orthography instead of Nahuatl Classica." Yankwik Nawa:tl is a clear system but may be not quite good to reflect the huge variety of dialectal Nahuatl, and Nahuatl is not yet an engineered language like many standarized ones previously were. Anyway '''''who''''' decided it? -[[User:Piolinfax|[[User:Piolinfax|Tochpapalotl]] ([[User talk:Piolinfax|Piolinfax]])]] 11:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::This policy has been decided on through e-mail by me and some fluent speakers who have either written some pages or have indicated on this or other pages that they are interested. The reason is because Yankwik Nawa:tl matches the SEA orthography which children are being taught at school and which is standard now, with a couple of exceptions, "tx" instead of "ch" (removal of an unnessecary extra), and using : to indicate long vowels instead of writing the vowel twice to remove ambiguities since in SEA orthography a double vowel is used to indicate both long vowels and two subsequent short vowels. Regarding dialectal Aztec, there *is* a standard which is modeled on the Classical form (not using the same orthography though). --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 05:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I still can't totally understand what the problem with the spelling '''tl''' is. Of course it doesn't show a "real pronounciation" but the same happens with the spelling in most of the known languages: only one example(between several probable hundreds); does "ch" sound in Italian, English, Spanish or French like the addition of the typical sound of "c+h" in those languages? No. If I want to learn Welsh and I come across the spelling "ll", I may think that it is pronounced like an "l", like an Spanish "ll", etc. but unless I hear to people pronouncing it (on tapes or otherwise) or I can understand the phonetical guiding from my learning source I shouldn't assume any pronounciation guided by the mere look of it. The same should happen to anyone trying to learn Nahuatl: one should be aware that spelling is just a convention. Trying to change such a <u>stable, easy and traditional</u> option as '''tl''' on the phonetic grounds that it is misleading seems to me a little too much. Should we complain about the misleading (for us) spelling of some Inupiaq sounds? What about the misleading English spelling '''gh''' or '''oo'''. Is misleading that in Polish '''rz''' and '''ż''' are pronounced the same way? Historical reasosns are important. The spelling '''tl'''happens to be one of the only spellings that seems to have been kept in most of the classical and current written Nahuatl texts (except in many linguistic studies were several phonetic scripts are used) virtually untouched. -[[User:Piolinfax|[[User:Piolinfax|Tochpapalotl]] ([[User talk:Piolinfax|Piolinfax]])]] 19:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::As I noted before, an option is to use "tl", but the problem with it is it doesn't fit a principle of 1 letter = 1 sound. Since it is currently used in all daily-use orthographies and the sound can be approximated roughly by a "t" followed by an "l", it is probably not a good idea to drop it but this was suggested by one person in the group. --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 05:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
> Anyway who decided it?
That's a good question, I can't see where amd by who the 'nawatl' spelling was officially decided. --Mixcoatl 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I have a good question too, do you know any Aztec at all? "Quetzalcoatl and not ''Kwetsalkoatl''" (a quote of yours) indicates an imperfect understanding of the sounds of the language since it would be in YN as "Ketzalkoatl", WITHOUT a '''w'''. If it were to be converted as '''kwe''', it would be written in classical orthography as '''cue''', and I would find it hard to believe if you tried to say anybody ever wrote a word "cuetzalcoatl". Regarding loans in general though, why is this of concern if the primary use of orthography is for writing a language in an everyday setting? Speakers of a language should not be concerned about how foreigners have written words borrowed from their language when they write the language in an everyday environment. If this were a worry, many languages would be using very different orthographies today, for example the standard Mandarin romanisation system is now HanYu PinYin (pronounced like Spanish "jáñu pín-in", not "jañu píñin"), but English borrowings such as Tai Chi, Mao Tsetung, Kuomintang, Taipei, Lao Tse, etc. use Wade-Giles romanisation, also for example in Central/Southern Arizona, placenames from O'odham are spelled, for example, "Ak Chin", "On Auk Mor", "San Xavier del Bac", "Gila Bend", and even "Arizona", using different older orthographies (the first one uses Saxton orthography, all the others use much older orthographies, in modern orthography they would be: Ak Cin, Onk Akimel, Va:k Cekṣanĭ ["Cekṣanĭ" means "district", not "San Xavier del"], Hila Vi:n, and Al Ṣon). --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 05:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| |||