Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology

Moved text from Talk:Aztec/Usage --Richard 05:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin and meaning of the word Mexica

"Mexica is a term of uncertain origin. Some say it was the old Nahuatl word for the sun. Others say..." Some? Others? Does anyone have any references for who says this? -- Jmabel 21:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin 12:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC): Probably no even the aztecs knew the meaning, since the priest use a language with double meanings. Leon Portilla suges this:

"México significa "Ombligo de la Luna" en Náhuatl. Esta palabra viene de Mexitli que esta compuesta de metztli (Luna) y xictli (ombligo)."

the oficial menaning (in our history books, i can acertain from who), is:

el origen de la palabra es que deriva de de Mexictli, nombre dado al dios Huitzilopochtli, "el colibrí del sur" que condujo a los mexicas hacia la región lacustre de centro de México. Mexictli se compone de las raíces metl (maguey), xictli (ombligo) y el locativo co, su traducción sería "en el ombligo del maguey", lo cual nos habla del sentido mitológico que a esta planta le dieron las culturas prehispánicas.

---

My Spanish is not quite fluent but the English text in the article does not capture all that is said in the Spanish text above. In particular, there is no mention in this article or in the Mextili article of the god Huitzilopochtli. There is also no mention of the mythological symbolism (sentido mitológico) of the maguey plant in pre-Hispanic cultures. I would suggest that someone translate the Spanish text above and insert the translation into the article. Richard 08:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my stab at a translation: Mexico means "The Navel of the Moon" in Nahuatl. This word comes from "mexitli" that is made up of "metztli" (moon) and "xictli" (navel).

The origin of the word derives itself from "Mexictli", the name given to the god Huitzilopochtli "the hummingbird of the south" that conducts the Mezicans to the "lacustre" region in the center of Mexico. Mexictli is composed of the roots "metl" (maguey, a type of cactus), "xictli" (navel) and the locative "co", its translation would be "the navel of the maguey", which tells us of the mythological sense that the prehispanic cultures gave to this plant.

If anyone wants to add this, go ahead. I'm confident in my translation. [[LinaInverse 02:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]]

Article Title: Aztec vs. Mexica

On another note, why is this page under the title "Aztec"?, the Aztec term is a general one that refers to the Chichimecs, Acolhua, Tepanecs, and the Mexica, ounce they reached the valley, the "aztec" ceased to exist, culturally, liguistically, ethnically and politically. Seeing as how this page is clearly about the Mexica tribe, and the Mexica state, shouldnt the title of the page be changed. I mean its like wanting to check on American history and being directed to a page titled "Anglo".

--Red Heathen 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)RedHeathen

Point taken, but where would Aztec redirect? To Mexica? To Aztec (disambiguation)? We have to keep the users in mind. Perhaps you could change the beginning of the article to mention that it focuses on the Mexica, and that the term "Aztec" can also refer to the Chichimecs, Acolhua, and Tepanecs.--Curtis Clark 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AS the article states, the term aztec is very broad, but for most of the people, aztec means mexica. So i thinks we need to explain that aztec historically also refers to other people, and each one must have their own article. Now, chichimecas are not a particular people, the mexica sometimes refered to themselves also as "chichimieca". The article about chicimeca requieres a lot of atention. i will try to put more info on it. Nanahuatzin 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got the impression "aztec" is the most common term for "mexica". The difference should be noted in the article, of course, but even Britannica has the article under this title. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nahuatl / Náhuatl

A recent set of edits changed every instance of Nahuatl to Náhuatl. I realize that the latter is more correct in Spanish, but since this article is in English, I would expect Nahuatl. Also, I'm pretty sure Náhuatlacas (vs. Nahuatlacas) is wrong even in Spanish and I'm absolutely sure that naNáhuatl is a complete neologism. I'm not reverting for the moment, pending other views, but at least these last two I am very inclined to revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been a mechanical replacement. Changing Nahuatl to Náhuatl may or may not be appropriate (it should be discussed here), but creating naNáhuatl is absurd, so I'm reverting. Perhaps the criteria should be if the word is accented in contemporary written Nahuatl/Náhuatl. Is it? -- Infrogmation 15:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, náhuatl is correct in spanish, but nahuatlaca has the stressed vocal like nahuatláca, but in this case, in spanish it is not written. Technically speaking, in spanish it should be written "Nanáhuatl", but in many places you will find Nanahuatl. There is a rule in spanish ... that ortographic rules do not apply to proper names... What is the criteria for words derived form other languages? Nanahuatzin 23:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the increasing trend on Wikipedia is to use accent marks where appropriate. This defeats the above argument about dropping the accent mark because the article is English.

Richard 08:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the usage of the word Aztec as oppose to Mexica. Please let me know.Marcelino

Not realy opopsed. Aztlan refered to someone who comes from the mithycal Aztlan, and this should apply to the nahua tribes that lived in the Anahuac valley. Meshicas (Tenochcas and Tlatelolcas) were the last tribe to arrived. But in the XIX century, Aztec was changed to refered to the Meshica empire... This was a bit arbitrary, is used in our modern history books, but i want to point that this was not the original meaning of the word. Nanahuatzin 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciations of the Nahuatl words & names

Can somebody include pronounciations of the Nahuatl words & names? They're a bit tongue-twisting. Please, no IPA, it's gibberish to me (& doubtless many others). Unless you can link to an "equivalency", like dictionaries do: the schwa =[whatever]. K? Gracias! Trekphiler 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nahautl words are ordinarily accented on the penultimate (next-to-last) syllable. If they are not written with accents, they are accented as if Spanish; if the accent doesn't follow Spanish, accent marks are added (for example, Popocatépetl). Vowels have the Spanish value, as do most consonants. Some exceptions are "x", which is pronounced like the "sh" in "shoe" (this was the old Castilian pronunciation and is still found in Galician and Portuguese), and "tl", which is pronounced as "t" followed by the Welsh "ll" sound (keep the tip of your tongue in the "t" position, drop the sides of the tongue, and hiss). Nahuatl words are often long because they are synthesized or compounded from smaller pieces. Hence Popocatépetl: poca, "smoke"; popoca, "smokes" (plurals are formed several different ways, in this case by reduplication of the first syllable); tépetl, "mountain": "mountain of smokes".--Curtis Clark 07:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Montezuma vs. Moctezuma

The Moctezuma II article claims that Moctezuma is ostensibly the preferred name. I cannot confirm or deny this. I am however quite certain that Montezuma is the more commonly used name, so I propose a change to that title. Relevant Wikipedia guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Quote: Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Quote: If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

Awaiting reactions of course... Piet 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Montezuma sounds awfull  !!!!!!! (sorry you ask for my reaction...) I know this is an english enclyclopedia. But in the last years i have seen a trend to try to respect the original names: Sri-lanka, instead of Ceylan, Beijing instead of Pekin. So.. can we try to use Moctezuna, instead of the spaniard version of the name... Specially that even in Spain Montezuma is no longer used, (and not to mention that most mexicans would find montezuma offensive).. Please  :)

Also.. if you look at goggle you will find that most references to "Montezuma" dos not refer the the Aztec Tlatoani, but To Montezuma school, Montezuma county, city of Montezuma, Montezuna Castle, Montezuma Well,Montezuma's Reptiles etc, while Moctezuma would refer specifically to it.... Nanahuatzin 20:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Motecuhzoma vs. Moctezuma vs. Montezuma

I have just changed Motecuhzoma to Moctezuma since that is the most commonly used spelling on Wikipedia. Wikipedia style standards state that the Anglicized/Romanized spelling should be used which would suggest that we use Montezuma. However, Moctezuma seems to be the prevailing spelling in Wikipedia. IMO, we should determine what the preferred spelling is in scholarly articles and use that.

Richard 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just found this page Talk:Montezuma. I have moved this discussion there. Please read it and state your opinion there about the spelling that we should use. Once there is some resolution on that page, we should undertake an effort to regularize the spelling across all the relevant pages (there are many pages and many references to Moctezuma. Ouch!

Richard 20:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The prefferred spelling in scholarly articles is Motecuhzoma if using Richard J. Andrews orthography which is becoming the most accepted in aztec studies. Another transliteration that is accpetable is Moteuczoma or Moteczoma but this is not commonly used. This is because unlike the two other forms moctezuma and montezuma it reflects his actual name in Nahuatl. It is composed of the three parts "mo" the reflexvive pronoun , "tecuh/teuc" "lord" and "zōma" "frown" - the other forms introduce spurious letters like "n" or turn "tecu" into "cte" for no good reason. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

The following was recently cut from the article; I'm not sure why, it seems to me like it belongs there. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In Nahuatl, the native language of the Aztec, "Azteca" means "someone who comes from Aztlán", a mythical place in northern Mexico. However, the Aztec referred to themselves as Mexica (IPA [meˈʃihkah]) or Tenochca and Tlatelolca according their city of origin. Their use of the word azteca was like the modern use of Latino, or Mediterranean: a broad term that does not refer to a specific culture.

The modern usage of the name Aztec as a collective term, applied to all the peoples linked by trade, custom, religion , and language to the Mexica state, the Triple Alliance, was suggested by Alexander von Humboldt and adopted by Mexican scholars of 19th century, as a way to distance "modern" Mexicans from pre-conquest Mexicans.

"Mexica", the origin of the word Mexico, is a term of uncertain origin. Very different etymologies are proposed: the old Nahuatl word for the sun, the name of their leader Mexitli, a type of weed that grows in Lake Texcoco. The most renowned Nahuatl translator, Miguel León-Portilla, suggests that it means "navel of the moon" from Nahuatl metztli (moon) and xictli (navel) or, alternatively, it could mean navel of the maguey (Nahuatl metl).

[End cut material]

Mhhh. i would like to put it back, unles a reason is given.... Nanahuatzin 06:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That makes three of us. Reinstated. –Hajor 01:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers to questions

This message copied here from my Talk page so that others can read Rockero's responses

Hey homie, I've noticed the edits you've been making to Mexican historical articles. A lot of what you have been doing are changes that I have been wanting to make. I wanted to respond to some of your questions and concerns:

1. I think Moctezuma is a good compromise between the Gringo-centric "Montezuma" and the overly-pedantic "Motecuhzoma".
2. Aztec and almost all Mexican articles get vandalized all the time, and probably moreso than your average article. All we can do is be vigilant.
3. Ramirez Codex definitely deserves an article.
4. In my experience, many words that are capitalized in English (like words forming parts of book titles, etc.) are uncapitalized in Nahuatl.
5. I believe Nahua is a general term for speakers of Nahuatl languages. I believe it deserves capitalization.
6. Culture/tribe - I believe the reason for the distintion is due to the perceived "civilization" of the Mesoamerican cultures, which is contrasted with the perceived "savagery" of other Indigenous groups. "Tribu" is not generally used in Spanish except for groups seen as "primitive", whereas in English we don't really make that distinction. Before the triple alliance, most of the urban centers were self-governing city-states with their own dictinct (although related) culture and languages, although they did subdue one another from time to time. Maybe the alternative "cultural group" can be used instead of either of the previous two? Just a suggestion, about which I'm open to discussion.
7. "-teco" is the Nahuatl suffix for "person of". Tlaxcaltecos are natives of Tlaxcala, Cholulatecos are natives of Cholula, Aztecos are natives of Aztlan... so we should probably use the English suffixes where appropriate and call the people "tlaxcalans" and "cholulans", etc.
8. Indians/Native Americans - I believe there is a consensus page on this somewhere, but I don't recall where. I believe that the preference is for as much specificity as possible. That is, rather than saying "Mexican Indians", specify the cultural group if at all possible (i.e. Chontal). When this is not possible, I use Indigenous peoples of Mexico and Indigenous peoples of the Americas as my preferred links and sometimes pipe them in to other peoples' uses of "Indian" or "Native American". (There is also Indigenous peoples of the United States, etc.) In the academic community, the term "indigenous" is preferred. So I recommend writing like this: The Aztec are an [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|indigenous]] people of [[Mexico]]. They established their dominance over neighboring [[Indigenous peoples of Mexico|native]] groups in the 15th cent....

Just my two cents. KUTGW. Rockero 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I fail to see how one mistaken spelling can be a compromise between a correct and another mistaken one. Also there is no such thing as overly pedantic - isn't an encyclopedia about getting the highest degree of factionality? Plus most current studies use the "pedantic" form which as the only one has some claims to scientificness.
2. true.
3. true.
4. There are no agreed upon rules for capitalization in written nahuatl now nor was there in the sixteenth century.
5. In english it does, yes, as all other ethnic groups.
6. Generally in anthropology "tribe" is not used about highly complex societies such as those that are found in Mesoamerica. Also Tribe brings associations to the organization of native americans in the US. Mesoamericans (except maybe the nomadic ones) have never organized themselves into groups comparable to tribes but in ethnic groups based on affiliation to an urban center. I am of the opinion along with many Aztec scholars that the "Aztecs" weren't a people but a cultural complex shared by those people in central Mexico who spoke Nahuatl. In this understanding the Tlaxcalteca and Chololteca were also Aztecs - since they shared the same culture and language as the Mexica, Tlacopaneca and Texcoca.
7. -teco (pl. -tecos) is not Nahuatl - it is the Spanish rendering of the nahuatl suffix -tecatl (pl. -teca(h)).
8. For some reason scholars do not seem to be afraid of using the word "indian" about indigenous people in colonial times - it does in fact seem to be the standard terminology when distinguishing between colonizers and colonized in the colonial period. The aversion against the term "indian" in North America and "indio" in Mexico is only applied to modern descendants of the colonial indians - since they are the only ones who can take offense.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tlaxcala vs. Tlaxcalteca

So, how should we call the inhabitants of Tlaxcala?

Are they Tlaxcalteca (like Mixteca)?

or Tlaxcaltecos?

or Tlaxcaltecans?

I think the last is an Anglicism and is probably not correct but I'm not sure which of the first two is preferred.

In any event, we should pick one and be consistent about it. Unfortunately, I suspect we are not currently consistent about it.

At this rate, we may have to write a "Mesoamerican style guide".

Richard 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The more usual 'Anglicism' would be Tlaxcalan, not Tlaxcaltecan (which could gloss as "person of person of Tlaxcala"). The demonym "Tlaxcalan" is in fact preferred in many english sources, but not all, and "Tlaxcaltec" and (less commonly, "Tlaxcaltecan") are also found. Generally there are few hard and fast rules for forming Mesoamerican demonyms, although there are some widely-observed conventions, such as using only Maya for the nominal (both singular and plural) and adjectival forms (the exception being in the field of linguistics, where "Mayan" is the more usual adjective; linguists also tend towards "–an" forms generally). It is also quite common to dispense entirely with any modification of the noun (particularly with the "–tec" ones) when forming the adjective, so phrases such as "the Aztec forces" or "the Zapotec manuscripts" are quite acceptable.

It can also depend on whether you are referring to an individual or a group- the "–teco" form is probably more usually applied (insofar as it is applied) to describe an individual's origin or allegiance, rather than for the people themselves, taken as a whole. "Tlaxcalteca" on the other hand can be used for the people (like "–teco", this is influenced/imported from Spanish, and I would guess the feminine -a ending reflects that "la gente" and "la lengua" are feminine).

It's a worthwhile idea to establish some sort of consistency, but some latitude and variation will still remain.--cjllw | TALK 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

being a bit pedantic the correct is Tlaxcalteca. It comes from nahua, and probably should be used for nahua related topics... I has not plural nor feminine and masculine form... So Azteca, Mexica, Tlaxcalteca, Tlatelolca, Xochimilca, refer to one people or to the whole town or nation. At least that how it was used in prehispanic times (which raise an interest question.. )... The azteca also use this form to denominate some non nahuatl people, imposing their own point of view, like "Totonaca, Mixteca, Zapoteca". Of course if this convention became too problematic to the english reader we can say instead "The people of Tlaxcala" or something like that. Mi only problem with that.., for example, i dont know how the Totonaca called themselves... What probably we need (and it hsa been sugested)is a guide of pronunciation...  :) Nanahuatzin 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Along with Rockero and CJLL Wright, I wish to vote for Tlaxacalan because this Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, and therefore Tlaxacalan will be less confusing than Tlaxcalteca to the average user, and less clumsy than "people of Tlaxacala". We editors are so deep in these projects that it's easy to forget that our readers include grammar school kids and the like. Madman 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Tlaxcaltecs to mirror the use we already have with Mixtecs and Zapotecs, Tlapanecs, Olmecs, Aztecs etc.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

One more question: Indians vs. Native Americans

Here in the U.S., we are trained to talk about "Native Americans" instead of "Indians". In almost every article about Spaniards in the Americas, the native peoples are called Indians (or Aztec or whatever). I suspect this is a translation of the Spanish word "indios".

There are times when I use "Native Americans" out of habit. Should I force myself to use "Indians"? Could sound weird to some American readers but "Native American" could sound weird to a Hispano-hablante (Spanish speaker).

What do you think? Why not use Native Mexican Americans (they are Native Mexica/Mexicans of Mexico? or even Mexicanos since that is what moder day scholars use when they talk about the original people of Mexico, I think Cortez called them Culhua Mexicas, Mexicanos and even Indios)..

Richard 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I found very strange to use "native american" and probably most latinamericans would feel the same. We usually use it to refer to the "tribes" of north america... (That is Canada and US..) ..(So why not use Native Mexica/Mexican Americans or even Mexicanos).. probably because most latin americans resent the use of "Americans" to refer to the people of the US. "Indio" has some peyorative sense in spanish, so ussualy we prefer "indigena", i am not shure if the word "indigenous" has the same meaning, But most of our history in the last 500 years refere to the native population as "indios" so it has became an habit. But.. I undestand this is an English Enciclopedia, so i will try to adapt to what is more aceptable. Nanahuatzin 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I propose...

1) Native American is out for these articles (try Native Mexican Americans, Since these are people of the North American Continent of Mexic/Mexican heritage).. I think it really is used to refer to indigenous people in the U.S. and Canada.

2) Indians is out. It's considered pejorative in both the U.S. and Latin America. The only time it should be used is in quoted text. (If Columbus said "indios", then he said "indios". What can you do about it?)try Native Mexican Americans,

3) "Indigenous peoples" should be preferred. It's probably the most politically correct in both the U.S. and Latin America. However, we recognize that this phrase is not widely used in the articles Aztec, History of Mexico, Spanish Conquest of Mexico. So it may take some time to regularize usage across all the articles. (i.e. it's not our top priority)try Native Mexican Americans,

Richard 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Rockero below, the dilemma can be avoided by preferentially referring to these peoples by their specific names. If however the context demands that some collective designation be used, then "indigenous peoples" or some variant might indeed be the least problematic approach. We've even an entire article here devoted to this sometimes-vexing issue, see Native American name controversy. Note also that even though the terms 'Native American', "American Indian', et al can have different scopes and levels of acceptability depending on where you are from, and are not necessarily interchangeable, they remain valid and recognised terms which can also be used as long as the context is clear about to whom they refer. It's probably only necessary when contrasting these peoples with those who came later; the article(s) themselves will already place them as the indigenous or native Mesoamericans for the reader.--cjllw | TALK 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of my Indian... uh, Native American acquaintances are trying to reclaim the term "Indian", and refer to themselves as Indians (they are Tongva). There is one piece of folk etymology that the term comes from en diós, supposedly meaning "with God", the Spanish being impressed by the holiness of the indigenous people. Although I find the theory literally incredible, I've long been a proponent of reclaiming "witch" (in the sense of Wicca), so I see their point.--Curtis Clark 03:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)try Native Mexican Americans,

i agree with "Indigenous peoples". I will try to regularize my use. I knoe there is a movement to reclaim the term "indio", because no mater it´s origin.. it has almost 500 years of use. But this.. "it´s another story.."  :) Nanahuatzin 06:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)try Native Mexican Americans,

Question about capitalization of words

I would expect that Nahuatl would be capitalized but it is often in lowercase. Is this just an artifact of typing quickly or should it be in lower case?

Similarly, I would expect words like tlatoani, tlatimine and tizitl to be lowercase and italicized but sometimes they are capitalized (see Education section) and not italicized. Is this an error? Should the standard be that all Nahuatl words are lowercase and italicized?

Finally, what is a "nahua"? Is it someone who speaks Nahuatl? Should the word be capitalized like Aztec and Mexica?

Richard 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In spanish we usually only capitalize proper names.. So i usually forget to do it in english. I will try to be more carefull and consistent... There are not rules for writing nahuatl in european caracters, we usually use the rules of spanish. Yes, Nahua or Nahoa, refers to the grour of nahuatl speaking people, or Nahuatlaco. Acording to legend, there were seven nauatlacas tribes, that were to became the main nahua civilizations. Another section i need to write  :) Nanahuatzin 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I started, then withdrew an edit after I came across this discussion. I understand and to a point accept the usage "Aztec", but I think these days, it is entirely proper to amplify the proper usage "Mexica", not as a matter of political correctness, but simple factual correctness. I would like to re-insert my edit at the top, but for this I need to know the correct plural form of Mexica. Otherwise to assert that the Mexicas called themselves Mexicas is as false as "Aztecs". tmangrayTmangray 03:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In nahuatl, plural is used only for animated things, not for concepts. The correct form is "The azteca", and "the mexica". In spanish we use "mexicas" and "aztecas", but from an strict point of view this is also incorrect, as some scholars insist on remind us. Nanahuatzin 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Spanish" vs. "Spaniard"

I think "Spanish" is preferred over "Spaniard" (for Spanish people) these days. --Rockero 15:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My instinct on this is that I would tend to say "he/she is Spanish" but I would say "he/she is a Spaniard". Now, would we say "the Spaniards are great fans of soccer", "the Spanish are great fans of soccer" or "the Spanish people are great fans of soccer"?

I think I would say "the Spanish people are great fans of soccer" although I can believe that there might be a trend to say simply "the Spanish are great fans of soccer" in the same way that you would say "the Mexicans are great fans of soccer".

Now, how should we apply this to the Aztec and related articles? Should we say "the Spaniards" or "the Spanish". For me, I would lean towards "the Spaniards" because that's how I think about them in a historic context.

However, being an Anglophone Chinese-American with relatively little exposure to the Spanish and Mexican communities, I don't know how to evaluate Rockero's comment.

What are your thoughts?

Richard

Somehow.. it seems to me that "spaniard" sounds more appropiate for an historical article... but i think this should be decided by the native english speakers...  :) Nanahuatzin

Or by the Google Ngram Viewer... El Comandante (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Spain didnt exist at the time of the "spanish" conquest of Mexico. The hispanic peninsula was part of the Habsburgian Empire.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.20.146 (talk • contribs)

red ed and redirect ed done

meshica