Disputatio:Vitzliputzli
Iustinus at Vicipaedia seems to have decided on Vitzliputzli as a spelling, though that doesn’t actually appear in any of our sources cited so far. Given the absence of any strong consensus, the best spelling given the conventions used would probably be Vitzlipuztli, i.e.:
| attested Latin |
modern spelling |
|---|---|
| ho/v/v | hu |
| i/i/i | i |
| tz/tz/zt | tz/tztz |
| il/l/l | il |
| i/i/i/ | o |
| po/pu/pu | po |
| cht/z/zt | cht |
| li/li/li | li |
until further evidence. Or am I just way overthinking this? —Myces Tiberinus 05:19 aug 28, 2005 (UTC)
- As I have no authorities on this name beyond those already quoted, I guess we'll have to chalk up the current spelling to my own mistake. --Iustinus 05:34 aug 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't call it a mistake proper, because Vitzliputzli as spelled *is* attested, only not, apparently, in Latin outside the taxonomic sense (which should probably count for something, only my brain was all fronked up with fifty things at once and didn't think to include it... but with cht/z/zt/tz we'd likely end up with Vitzliputztli. Which isn't entirely awful in itself.) —Myces Tiberinus 06:57 aug 28, 2005 (UTC)