Not only are you citing Wikipedia (bad enough), but the citation contradicts the 'article'.
Some claim his name means lord of the big nose but i've seen his picture and his hooter isn't that long, and besides, given his position i would imagine it means more like a sharp nose for business. But that still isn't as snappy as his other alias - Lord of the Vanguard - which is a lot more noble and a lot less stupid.
Merchants would carry a utatl cane as they mooched from village to village peddling their wares, and at night-time would tie them all together into a nice neat bundle before sprinkling them with blood from their ears. Apparently this 'we love you' ritual in Yacatecuhtli's honor would guarantee great success in future business ventures, not to mention protection from viscous beasts and robbers on their long distance trips, but i don't suppose it did their ears much good.
I know you love your jews a lot that you need to come up with as many excuses to defend them but this is an archieve from 6 years ago , do you really think i edited this article 6 years ago just to post it here 6 years later? Other sites say the same thing about this god
a deity whose name literally meant "Nose Lord;" but, the word nose lent itself to words with the meaning of leader, leading, etc., so this was a deity who was special to the vanguard merchants, who penetrated the province of Anahuac looking for trade goods (which could expand the empire)
---- Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros Memoriales, ed. Thelma D. Sullivan, et al. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997), 99.
Can we just marvel at the fact that a friar's 16th century dictionary is still considered authoritative? Even if it's because no speakers of the language survived, what an absolute legend.
This is a much better source. You should have cited this one instead, not Wikipedia, let alone such a terrible Wikipedia article. Preferably, you should find a second topic to post about though.
History left Easter Eggs for future people to find
Not only are you citing Wikipedia (bad enough), but the citation contradicts the 'article'.
Did you just edit the 'article' yourself?
I know you love your jews a lot that you need to come up with as many excuses to defend them but this is an archieve from 6 years ago , do you really think i edited this article 6 years ago just to post it here 6 years later? Other sites say the same thing about this god
https://aaada.org.au/items/?item=16341
https://nahuatl.wired-humanities.org/content/yacatecuhtli
Woah there!
Nobody mensch-end Jews.
That was you.
Imagine if Yacatecuhtli sneezed! xD
Do you think his sneeze would be stronger than either Superman's or The Incredible Hulks?
Is it really an 'excuse' to point out that the stated source does not back up the claims in an article that cites this source?
Fair enough. You didn't do it. I'm not even going to check this, because there is no way you'd make this claim if it weren't true.
But it's still wrong, of course.
As this site said https://nahuatl.wired-humanities.org/content/yacatecuhtli
---- Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros Memoriales, ed. Thelma D. Sullivan, et al. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997), 99.
What is wrong about it?
Can we just marvel at the fact that a friar's 16th century dictionary is still considered authoritative? Even if it's because no speakers of the language survived, what an absolute legend.
This is a much better source. You should have cited this one instead, not Wikipedia, let alone such a terrible Wikipedia article. Preferably, you should find a second topic to post about though.
Shut up jew
You're not very bright, are you?
"Everyone with a large nose is a jew"
Well done, faggot.
its just a coincidence.
To you? Never.
Everything is a Cohencidence.