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.
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