Talk:Cuauhtlatoani
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Clarity
[edit]I have no idea what this article is trying to say. Can the writer or someone who actually knows clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormchaser (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, yeah, BADLY in need of attention from the original author. This article is actually worse than useless because it provides absolutely no clear information. Holy crap. I fixed up some of the writing, but the information is beyond salvageing from anyone other than the original author. Stormchaser (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article appears to have been (poorly) machine-translated from the equivalent one on es.wiki by a visiting editor from there— I'd left them a msg with some pointers on where to go for translation assistance, but they may or may not be back. The article on es.wiki wasn't that good or particularly accurate to start with. So yes, complete overhaul is required, if not actual merging. BTW, did you mean to replace the merge proposal tag? --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- At first, I did mean to get rid of the merge tag, but as I clarified I realized that the articles actually did have something in common. It can be put back in if necessary. Stormchaser (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Looking into it a bit more, there are sources which distinguish the functions of this title (should really be cuauhtlatoani) from tlatoani, so I guess these can remain unmerged. I'll move it to the name appearing in the sources, and when I get around to it will try to turn it into an article about the office itself; I think there were more individuals with this title than are presented in the list. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- At first, I did mean to get rid of the merge tag, but as I clarified I realized that the articles actually did have something in common. It can be put back in if necessary. Stormchaser (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, it's now renamed, re-written and I've added in a couple of refs. I cut out the last section altogether. There might still be an argument for combining with tlatoani, but the couple of sources I checked were happy to differentiate the function and scope of these two titles. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Much much much better. Thanks very much, man. You win one free internet. Stormchaser (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, it's now renamed, re-written and I've added in a couple of refs. I cut out the last section altogether. There might still be an argument for combining with tlatoani, but the couple of sources I checked were happy to differentiate the function and scope of these two titles. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a major, although understandable, mistake in this article, namely in the translation of nahuatl term quauhtlahtoani or cuauhtlahtoani as "the one who speaks like eagle". The morphem cuauh here doesn't come from cuauhtli, meaning an eagle, but from cuahuitl, i.e. a tree or wood. Adding the morpheme cuauh to a noun means that something is false or only similar to the real thing, just like the English prefix "mock-", e.g. cuauhpilli meaning "wooden" i.e. created, not hereditary, nobility. So the term cuauhtlahtoani should be rather translated as a "wooden king" meaning a mock-king or a petty king. In this context it makes sense why this term was applied to the early Aztec chieftains (who weren't yet "true" tlahtoque) or to vassal rulers (who were inferior to Hueyi Tlahtoani of Tenochtitlan). This isn't the case if we translate the term as a "the one who speaks like eagle", which, concerning the high position of eagle in Aztec believes, should rather mean someone superior to the normal tlahtoani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.147.36 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)