Nahuatl Scholar Interview: R. Joe Campbell

Believe it or not, this was Joe's first selfie.
It's Joe on the left.
(taken in Guadalajara July, 2018)

In this blogpost, I give you an interview with one of the great Nahuatl scholars alive today, R. Joe Campbell. I have had the good fortune to meet Joe a number of times at Nahuatl meetings, and in 2018 when we met at the Uto-Aztecan meetings in Guadalajara Joe and I hung out together for a couple of days after the meetings. I asked if I could do an interview with him for my blog, and he agreed. Then the interview sat there for awhile, so I asked Joe if he wanted to update it with some more details, which he did. And here it is, the first in a series of interviews with great Nahuatl scholars.

Joe is one of the popularizers of the Nahuatl orthography system sometimes known as "Andrews-Campbell-Karttunen" orthography, which was first developed by J. Richard Andrews, subsequently employed in Joe's and Fran Karttunen’s influential "Foundation Course in Nahuatl Grammar", and Frances Karttunen's "Analytical Dictionary". (His first major work, “A Morphological Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl” came out in 1985 and precedes his use of the Andrews orthography.) He is also a pioneer in computerized Nahuatl study, having begun working on Nahuatl computerized lexicography back when computers were the size of a building and used punch cards. He is still working on two major works: an integrated version of all of Alonso de Molina's three dictionaries, analyzed into individual morphemes and with the possibility of running all kinds of searches for combinations of different morphemes and a dictionary combining the vocabulary of both Molina and the Florentine Codex.

Joe has worked with Nahuatl for more than 50 years, and in this interview he tells a little about his career in Nahuatl studies and his different contributions to the field. 

MPH: So Joe, would you mind telling a little bit about how you got into Nahuatl in the first place and when?

RJC: OK, In 1962, I was a graduate student at the University of Illinois studying Spanish linguistics. And I took a couple of courses with Ken Hale, who was a young PhD, fresh out of Indiana University studying with Carl Voegelin, and in the spring of 1962, he said "Joe, some of the anthropology students are going to Mexico this summer and they're going to study Nahuatl. We're going to Tepoztlán and they're going to do fieldwork." And he said "you could go along, and would you be interested in going along and studying the Spanish dialect of Tepoztlán and see what the effects of Nahuatl were on the Spanish?" And I said "Oh, I'd really like to do that." And so, my then-wife and I and two daughters came to Mexico, and they went to spend the summer with her parents in Guadalajara and I went directly to Tepoztlán. And Ken and I went up to San Juan Tlacotenco at the top of the mountain, and while we were there we met a guy that spoke Nahuatl fluently -- one of the youngest people in town that did -- met him, made friends with him. And then later on Ken took me to see a rather elderly man who had fought during the revolution and sat me down to study with him, and as we worked along I found that he was a very nice guy, but he was very impatient. I didn't have a good ear at the time. I think it has gotten a lot better now. But when he said, I asked him how to say "camino" and he said "ohtli", and I said "otli", and he said "no! ohtli!", and I said "sí, otli". And with his reaction, I saw that he and I probably couldn't work together. We turned out to be very good friends all summer, and I found a much

Joe working with a friend from Tepoztlán

younger person to work with, with considerably more patience.

MPH: So what did you do when you came back from Tepoztlán? How did you continue with you Nahuatl studies after your first visit?

RJC:I wrote a paper for Ken, and then with the things I had to do, write the thesis at Illinois and search for a job at Indiana, Nahuatl sort of got put on the backburner. I got my first job at Indiana University and after I had been there well, like five years, one of the young professors came down the hall and he was doing legwork for the chairman, looking for a federal grant. Because the federal government was interested in doing unusual languages, languages that were not likely to be spoken by ...quote ..."the enemy". And he said, if we apply for a grant and say that we can offer Nahuatl, would you be willing to teach it? And I said, "well I am really not prepared to teach it on the basis of six weeks of experience", and also with the intervening years. And so I said "I would be willing to do it if I had an informant, if I had somebody to work with me in the class". And they came back to me and said "We're more than willing to do that; we'll pay for an informant and all the expenses and everything, but ... you would need to go find somebody". And to make a long story short, I was going to be in Mexico all the summer of 1970, and I went to Tepoztlan -- a friend of mine in Tepoztlan, Karen Dakin -- and she paired me up with a friend of hers, the anthropologist Judith Friedlander, and we went to Hueyapan and we found a young lady who was very happy to go to the United States and work for a year, that was Elvira [Hérnandez]. 

MPH: So you really learned Nahuatl when you were teaching it with Doña Elvira Hernández from Hueyapan?

Joe with Elvira Hernández in Hueyapan

RJC: That is exactly right. She and I, we started at the beginning of the school year. And she educated me in class, and then we had three hours a week out of class, and it was just like having an intensive teacher.

MPH: And when did you start getting into studying the colonial version of the language?

RJC: When Elvira came back to Mexico, I taught Nahuatl for two more years by myself and used sources like González Casanova's folktales and a lot of structural material. But during those two years I started realizing that if I really wanted to get more details of Nahuatl I would have to look at printed sources. So I started putting the Molina 1571 Nahuatl-Spanish half dictionary on punched cards. And it ended up that the whole second half of 1571 fit on something like 20,000 cards. That's ten boxes of cards. And then from there on, I worked in San Antonio with the whole card deck, inserting English translations into the boxes. So it swelled up, and so in one year -- from I think it was 75-76 -- I managed to translate all of the Spanish of the second half into English. And while I was doing that I was realizing that I should also enter the record by means of another punched card with the morphology codes typed out on that card.

MPH: So maybe you can explain a little, what is a perforated card and what is a morphology code?

Perforated card used for early digital computing.

RJC: A punched card was a card with eighty columns for punching holes in different combinations to represent letters. And people who used them actually started understanding what the perforations meant: There was a top row and a second row and the top row and second row then correlated with a set down below of one through ten and a combination of top and 1 was an A and top and 2 was a B and so on. 

MPH: Ok, so it was a very simple form of machine readable code? 

RJC: Yes, it weighed a lot more than a floppy disk.

MPH: So basically it would be fair to say that you were probably one of the first people to start using computational technology for working with Nahuatl?

RJC: I was the first one that I knew of, and I don't remember anybody else doing it while I was working on it in the seventies. But here you must remember that when we’re talking about punch cards, ‘computerized’ only means how we stored and re-arranges data. I have seen more than one suggestion that somehow the morphological analyses are done “by computer” and adds. They are NOT. Every morphological analysis is my considered opinion. The computer really has nothing to do with it.

MPH: So, the first work of yours that I became aware of was an article that you had in IJAL in 1976, about the phonology of Hueyapan Nahuatl, which I read for the first time before I went to do field work in Hueyapan myself in 2003. Could you summarize how that article came about and what is the interesting part of the argument?

RJC: I am not sure if I can remember the data very well, but I was working with paradigms that I learned from Elvira and I was trying to come up with a very logical description of the morphology. And it turns out that when you look at the representation of some words it is very straight forward: there is part one, two and three and they sound the same in either present tense or preterit. But then there was some verbs that looked like they had an underlying /w/ that was phonetically a [v] that in the preterit would turn into a velar [ŋ]. And, I thought well it's underlyingly a /w/ its phonetically a [v] and in another form it is an [n], what kind of segment could that possibly be? So because of the influence of an article by Sol Saporta in Spanish where he talked about the problem of palatal l and l and y in Spanish, in words like [mil] "thousand" and [miyón] "million" [this article], I came up with the idea that what that segment was could probably be a /ŋw/ a velar nasal with a labial release. So that would explain why Hueyapan Nahuatl had the present tense form [noga:va] "I stay", and the preterit form  [onoga:ŋ] "I stayed". 

MPH: Then another really important thing you've done has been the foundation course. How did that come about?

RJC: When I went back, well I went from San Antonio to Nebraska and stayed in Nebraska for two years, and then I went back to Indiana. And they had the Nahuatl course waiting for me when I got there and asked me to do that. And so, I didn't have a textbook, and I thought, rather than do a sort of struggling course the way I did in the early 70s, I thought what I ought to do would be to write simply a series of disconnected lessons, starting with the most simple things and doing lots of exercises where people had to do recognition and recall. And I started writing as many lessons as it took to get through the semester. And as I gave the course a couple of times more during the 80s, I wrote more and more lessons. -- Not a lot of explanation, because the explanations were mainly things that I did in class. But I gave them a lot of heavy take-home stuff to work on and come back and build up their memory on things. And as a matter of fact in 1987, I had already shown this rather big stack of exercises to Fran Karttunen who had been a friend of mine for a long long time. And at one point Fran said - that was in 1987 - she was going to have a government funded institute in the summer of ’89, and would I teach the modern dialect and she would do the classical track and could we use a selection from my set of exercises. And if we could, she would supply a denser set of explanations so it would be easier to work on at home; and she would also put in the vowel length which I had not taken the trouble to do. And that's what we did, we used it for a six week National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institute in Austin Texas. 

MPH: And then the other thing is that when you finished the translation of the 1571 Molina in 1975, that was not at all the last thing you did on the Molinas. Can you tell us a little about what you have been doing with the Molina dictionary since then? 

Frontispiece of Molina's 1571 vocabulario

RJC:The translation of the second part of the 1571 dictionary was just the first step. I followed it up by preparing a morphological analysis of the Nahuatl vocabulary of the Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary and doing the programming to make it possible to sort all Nahuatl entries along with their morphological analyses and English translations under each of their component morphemes.

I happened to show the resulting print-out to professors Lloyd Kasten and John Nitti of the University of Wisconsin during a reception at our house following a lecture that they gave in Bloomington involving the use of computing technology in the study and preparation of old documents. This was probably in 1984. They expressed interest in having the Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies publish the morpheme index and gave me explicit instructions to make it possible for me to insert the printing codes into my data so that the final publication came directly from the computer tape that I submitted to them -- by this time I had moved past cards-- since re-setting something so complicated would have been impossible. Somewhere there is a picture of me standing at the Post Office window posing with the 12x12 inch package in my hand. The result was my A Morphological Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl: a morpheme index to the vocabulario en lengua mexicana y castellana of Fray Alonso de Molina (Madison, 1985). 

The morphology I did in the Morphological Dictionary is somewhat more rudimentary than what I am doing now. For instance if you have a word like <tlacatl>, that is a simple morpheme (well actually, it’s two, but people don’t think much about the -tl being separate), but if you have a word like <nitetlacatilia> there are actually five pieces. In the Morphological Dictionary I just coded this as tlacatl-verb-caus for the noun tlaca-tl, the verb-forming morpheme -ti- (become) and the causative -lia. I did not code the ni- (I) -te- (someone) or the other personal prefixes at all. 

Later I made up numerical codes for the prefixes that would set them up in ways that were reasonable instead of spelling them out and I made a number of separate categories for the verb-forming morphemes as well as for the causative and benefactive morphemes and the preterits. Today the morphology for nitetlacatilia is p11-p53-tla:catl-v01a-caus04. I still treat the absolutive suffixes as part of the spelling for the noun morphemes because it makes the nouns more recognizable for most people.

Since I had done the English translation of the 1571 dictionary...The 1571 dictionary is really two dictionaries and I call them Molina 1 and Molina 2 - and I had only worked on Molina 2 - the Nahuatl-Spanish. And so I thought that what I should do would be to put in the 1555 and the first half, the Molina 1, into machine readable form. By then I had graduated from punched cards to putting them in in electronic mode - just keying them in, which struck me as a rather strange thing to do rather than using cards, but I did that. And I by-passed translating the other two dictionaries in favor of spending all my time inserting morpheme codes after each entry in all three Molina dictionaries. My goal here is what I call The Integrated Molina Dictionary -- the gathered Nahuatl entries with their morphological analyses, their Spanish equivalents and, where I have it from M2, the English translations of the Spanish. This is actually very nearly finished, except that I keep setting it aside to work on the Florentine Codex vocabulary.

MPH: So basically, rather than just translating the Spanish translation of the Nahuatl word, what you did was to also analyze the Nahuatl word piece for piece and type it up as part of the entries for the three Molina dictionaries. So about how many entries is that for the entire Molina corpus?

RJC: Well, actually, it wasn’t “in addition” to translating. I only translated the Spanish of Molina2. Ok, I can't remember off the top of my head. But the Molina 2, the Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary has 23,623 words, and the 1555 has something over 15,000 and I don't remember what the Molina 1, the Spanish-Nahuatl, has - but it is somewhere in between those figures. And of course one of the kind of things I did was to write a program to sort Molina 1555 and Molina 1 and 2 together on lexical items, and then I had a cluster that showed what each dictionary said about any given item.

MPH: So how about many entries do you have in your morpheme database at this point?

RJC: So I am a little bit unclear on this, because I also have an extra little ambitious thing that I did, which was to also code items for various kinds of things; say I would code them for an error that Molina did in parsing things, for example when Molina stripped the prefixes of a verb he would sometimes he would cut off the beginning of the verb itself. So I put in a code so that I could gather all of those things. And I was also interested in the fact that there was a certain amount of spelling variation like the dropping of n, y and w, and so I coded for either dropping or retention. And if you simply add all of the codes for those different kinds of notes plus the morphemes, right now, my "morpheme" count is around one million one hundred thousand.

MPH: That's a lot of words. Can you tell us briefly some of the cool things that your program can do with that data? The type of searches you can run and the kind of information you can extract?

RJC: The very first thing I was aiming at was being able to give an alphabetical index of all the words in the three Molinas integrated, and that is pure vanilla dictionary construction. But the next thing I wanted to do was to compile a list of morphemes so that anybody could look up alphabetically in a list of morphemes and find all the words in any one of the three Molinas that had that morpheme. So from the very beginning I was constructing a morpheme index of the whole thing. And then because of some of the advantages I saw in looking at the whole vocabulary from the end of the word, I also wrote a program that could give you a backwards index. So for example everything that ended in -tilia, you'd find every single word that had that. Parallelly and not meaning to get distracted fom Molina, but yes I did get distracted from Molina, I also together with a friend of mine from France, Marc Eisinger, we put the Nahuatl of the Florentine Codex into machine readable form, we each did one book and another, and then he did the entire verification of all the Florentine Codex, just a monstrous job. (Verification is when you re-enter data so that a program can find where one copy differs from the other.) And then I spent three years in the late eighties integrating the Nahuatl and the Dibble and Anderson English translation - it took three years to get them to match sentences. And then I spent a long time adding a regularized spelling line to the Florentine entries so that the computer could bring together instances of a word that was spelled differently in different places. And then, I could correlate words from the Florentine with words from Molina, that's one thing, and then the other thing independently from Molina, since the Florentine was text it was sentences in contexts, it would be interesting for anyone to see how a given word was used, in context, so I wrote a concordance program that will allow you to interrogate the Florentine database for any string that you wanted. For instance... well, there were two different things: one would construct an index based on any alphabetical representation so you could look for "tlacat" or you could extend it and look for "tlacatil", whatever... But the other thing was, and certainly based on favors that people did me in enlightening me - Fred Householder at Indiana had a computer colleague that had been doing some work on texts and he had the idea of hanging codes on words in context… He wasn't working on Nahuatl but I turned it into working on Nahuatl. If you wanted to look at anything that was related to <tlacatl> then you could hang a morpheme under that and you could make an index of every morpheme and then you would get the word in-text, in context. So what I did was to label, I had to fill in for every word that I could, and that means a lot that I couldn't, I made every word in the sentence a key to that sentence and then every translation of those given Nahuatl words was a key to the Nahuatl word which was a key to the sentence. In this way I could retrieve a lot of interesting information.

MPH: So you have been working on this for 43 years. When are you going to be done, and what is the final product going to look like?

RJC: I originally hoped... Well I keep changing my mind about what the goal could possibly be. The original goal was to do Molina. But then I started realizing that it would be a lot more valuable to do a combined study of the Molina and the Florentine. And then I started realizing that it was very unlikely that I would have time in life to do all of it, so I said Ok, I will just do Molina. But while I have been working on Molina I never stopped analyzing sections of the Florentine. As a matter of fact it is not sections of the Florentine, but I look for a given thing in the Florentine, and I go through and find every token of it and mark it for whatever it needs - morphology, phonetic variation and things like that. And if there are errors in the Dibble and Anderson translation, I put in a note on every sentence where I find that going on. And every time I do, I always think, I am in awe of what they did, but we are all humans, we all make mistakes.

MPH: Yes, and we can keep improving on it. Thank you very much Joe, for telling us about your work.

RJC: You're welcome, I enjoyed it.

---

Here, we end the blog with a list of some of Joe's most significant publications (several coauthored with his wife Mary Clayton who is also a Nahuatl scholar):

• Campbell, R. J. (1976). Underlying/ŋw/in Hueyapan nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics, 42(1), pp. 46-50.

• Campbell, R. J. (1985). A Morphological Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl: A Morpheme Index to the Vocabulario en Lengua Mexicana Y Castellana of Fray Alonso de Molina. Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. University of Texas.

• Campbell, R. J., & Clayton, M. L. (1988). Bernardino de Sahagún’s Contributions to the Lexicon of Classical Nahuatl. The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún: Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century Aztec Mexico, pp. 295-314.

• Campbell, R. J., & Karttunen, F. E. (1989). Foundation course in Nahuatl grammar (Vol. 1). Institute of Latin American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin.

• Clayton, Mary L., and R. Joe Campbell. (2002) "Alonso de Molina as Lexicographer." Making Dictionaries: Preserving Indigenous Languages of the Americas. pp. 336-90.

How to spell Nahuatl? Nawatl? Nauatl?

My last blog post was about how the Nahua people wrote before the arrival of Europeans with their alphabetic writing system. But almost all Nahuatl texts from the colonial period onwards are of course written in alphabetic writing. In this blog post, I describe the many different conventions for writing Nahuatl using the Latin script.

For the past 80 years, Nahuatl scholars have argued about how to standardize Nahuatl orthography and what conventions to use. Different groups of scholars and activists have recommended  and supported different systems. Sometimes scholars and Nahauatl activists seem to be spending more time arguing about how to write Nahuatl than they do on actually writing it. There are even cases where a single community has two different lanugage revitalization projects that refuse to cooperate because they use different spelling systems!

In this post, I try to describe the different types of writing conventions that are in use for Nahuatl, and to show their relation to different schools of thought within Nahuatl scholarship.

Roughly we can classify Nahuatl orthographies into two main types, each of which has a bunch of variatoins. One group we can call "Classical orthographies", because they base their orthographic choices on the conventions used by the Spanish speaking friars who wrote the first alphabetic texts in the early 16th century. The other group we can call "Modern orthographies" because they were introduced by academic linguists working to find the most linguistically efficient ways to represent the Nahuatl language in writing in the early 20th century. Both types of orthographies can be used to represent colonial Nahuatl as well as contemporary varieties.

For the current purpose we can define the two types of orthographies in this way:

• Classical Orthographies: are those that value continuity with the colonial tradition of nahuatl writing - and which adopt colonial conventions because of the value they have as connectors with that tradition.
• Modern Orthographies: are those that value linguistic efficiency and which aim to represent the Nahuatl language in ways that are either easier to learn or which facilitate a higher analytical precision by representing linguistic elements (phonemes, morphemes) in ways that are minimally variable and maximally efficient.

In practice most orthographies include elements of both "classical" and "modern" principles. 

Classical Orthographies: 

Sometimes people talk about "classical orthography" as if it is a single well-established standard. Really it is not, and it never was. In the 16th century when Nahuatl was first written alphabetically, the idea of a standardized orthography didn't even exist - and there was no established orthography for any of the spoken main languages such as English or Spanish (as anyone trying to read Shakespeare or Cortés' letters will realize). Authors writing in any of these languages simply used the writing conventions they learned from their teachers and put them to the best possible use to get their points across in the easiest way. They tended to write these languages as they were spoken, representing the sounds more or less as they pronounced them. And when they began writing Nahuatl they did the same, tried to use the conventions they knew from writing Spanish to represent the sounds of Nahuatl. This is why the only thing that is really shared by all "classical orthographies" is the fact that they represent the sounds that exist both in Nahuatl and in Spanish using the letters that were most commonly used in Spanish to represent these sounds. For example, Spanish had adopted the Latin convention of writing the sound [k] with the letter <c> before the vowels [a] and [o] but with the letters <qu> before the vowels [i] and [e]. Luckily, actually most of the sounds in Nahuatl are also found in Spanish, which meant that this method was fairly succesful. And in fact in the 16th century, Spanish phonology was even more similar to that of Nahuatl - because at that time Spanish didnt have the harsh j-sound (like in scottish Loch), but instead had a soft sh-sound as in fish which also exists in Nahuatl. They wrote this sound with the letter <x>, because that is how they generally wrote the sh-sound in Spanish. Only over the next century did Spanish gradually change the sh-sound to the harsh j-sound (and eventually began writing it with a j). (This, incidentally, is why the x is pronounced harshly in words like Mexico/Mejico, Oaxaca and Xalapa/Jalapa - but not in the corresponding Nahuatl versions which are pronounced meshi'ko, washakak and shalapan).

However there are some sounds that are found in Nahuatl that do not exist in Spanish: Primarily, the Nahuatl signature sound the tl (written in the International Phonetic Alphabet as  [t͡ɬ]), but this turned out to be easy to write with the letter combination <tl>. The sound [kw]  (as in queen )likewise turned out to be easy to write, since this sound also existed in Spanish as (although in Spanish it is a combination of k and u, and not a single consonant sound) so they wrote it <qu> or <cu>. The Nahuatl consonant [ t͡s] also didnt exist in Spanoish, but the Friars knew the sound from Hebrew and wrote it in the same way they would when transliterating the scripture using the letter combination <tz>. Nahuatl also had the consonant sound [w] (as in "wat?") which was not found in Spanish - friars couldn't quite decide on how to write this one, but usually they simply represented it with the vowel letter <u> - sometimes combined with a consonant letter such as <hu> or <gu> (More about this below, under Canger's orthography).

But the most difficult sounds to write were the glottal stop (or h) neither of which existed in Spanish; and the distinction between long and short vowel duration. At first most friars didn't even realize that these sounds actually existed in Nahuatl, so they simply didnt write them! This is the main difference between the orthographies of the Franciscan friars and the Jesuits.

Franciscan style orthographies:

In the 16th century the most widely used Nahuatl orthographies were those developed by the Franciscans. The Franciscans had a highly practical approach to evangelizing, without too many theoretical considerations - they just did whatever seemed to work (which sometimes got them on the wrong side of other ecclesiastic orders such as the more orthodox Dominicans). The same approach worked in the area of orthography, where the Franciscans never pined much about being consistent or about how best to write. This pragmatic approach was probably partly what allowed the Franciscans friars and their indigenous aides to author the most extensive documentation of  any Indigenous language in the colonial Americas. The 16th century saw major Nahuatl works like Andres de Olmos' Nahuatl grammar, Bernardino de Sahagún's 12 volume encyclopedia about Indigenous Nahua culture (now called the Florentine Codex) and Alonso de Molina's vocabularies. None of these works represented the saltillo or the vowel length distinction, and they were extremely inconsistent in representing sounds like [w] and [j]  - and even so they worked fine and thousands of Nahuas learned to write using these loose conventions. Apparently they didn't loose much sleep worrying about the fact that the representation of some minimal pairs was ambiguous (e.g. [tla:tia] "to hide" and [tlatia] "to burn" both of which was written <tlatia>, or [paʔti] "to become well" or [pa:ti] "to melt" both of which were written <pati>, and even the difference between plural and singular of verbs in the present tense as [kochi] "he sleeps" and [kochiʔ] "they sleep" were both written <cochi>). When Franciscans sometimes heard the saltillo (they only ever seem to have heard it bwhen it occurred before another consonant) and decided to write it, they used the letter <h> giving <pahti> "to cure", <pati> "to melt". 

Other than these conventions Franciscans (and the vast majority of colonial 

Nahuatl authors) were very unruly in their orthographies - for example they used the letters u and o interchangeably for the vowels [o] and [o:], they used the letters <i> and <j> and <y> interchangeably both for the vowel [i] and the consonant [j], they used <hu>, <u> and <o> intechangeably for the consonant [w] and used the letters <z>, <c>  and <ç> for the sound [s]. '

Really, by modern standards the Franciscan orthography was a mess - and yet we are fully able to read it today just as they were back in the 16th century. This tells me that consistency and standardization of orthographies is vastly overrated. 

Jesuit style orthographies: 

Page from Carochi's 1645 grammar which uses macron to show long vowels
and circumflex accent to show wordfinal saltillo.

Among the catholic orders the Jesuits have a reputation for being studious and academically inclined. The jesuit orthographic tradition for Nahuatl embodies this reputation for thoughtfulness, and Jesuits were among the first scholars to have theoretical insights about how the Nahuatl language differed from Spanish and other well known languages and how this ought to influence the way the language was written. Nonetheless, most of the honor for these insights should probably be given to the first Nahuatl grammarian who was also a Nahua person and a Nahuatl native speaker: the jesuit priest Antonio del Rincon. He wrote a short grammar in which he noted the existence of the saltillo and vowel length distinction and to suggest marking it in writing to represent the language more faithfully. His suggestions were taken up a fifty years later by fellow Jesuit Horacio Carochi who introduced a fully developed system for marking vowel length and saltillo systematically. Following Rincon, Carochi used diacritical marks to show these distinctions and he marked the saltillo with an accent (grave, or circumflex) and vowel length with a macron.

Hence the words "to cure" and "to melt" he wrote <pàti> and <pāti> respectively and the difference between "he sleeps" and "they sleep" he wrote <cochi> and <cochî>. Sometimes he marked short vowels with a breve sign <ă>, but he did not do this consistently (since it is redundant to mark both long and short, he only marked short vowels when a long vowel would change the meaning).

The Andrews-Campbell-Karttunen orthography:

Karttunen's dictionary which has
popularized the ACK orthography.

In the mid-twentieth century American historians discovered the rich trove of Nahuatl language writings and began working with them. Among the earliest historians looking at these works were Arthur Anderson and Charles Dibble who translated Sahagun's Florentine Codex into English. Another scholar to take up the study of Nahuatl was the grammarian  J. Richard Andrews, who published his grammar of the "classical" language in 1975. He chose an orthography that was linguistically accurate marking all the phonemes including the vowel length distinction and the saltillo - and which combined aspects of the Franciscan and Jesuit tradition. Specifically he adopted Carochi's use of macron for marking long vowels, and the tradition penchant for marking the saltillo with <h>. He conventionalized the use of <hu> to write the sound <w> before a vowel and <uh> syllable-finally

Andrews' orthography was in turn adopted and conventionalized further by R. Joe Campbell and Frances Karttunen in their Foundation Course and in Campbell's morphological dictionary, and the important dictionary of Frances Karttunen (the first full Nahuatl-English dictionary, and the first to consistently mark the vowel length distinction). This orthography was further adopted by the school of historians trained by James Lockhart who collaborated with Karttunen in the 1970s. Today, almost all new editions of colonial Nahuatl texts adopt the Andrews-Campbell-Karttunen orthography as the standard (although many of them choose not to mark vowel length). 

One problematic feature of the ACK orthography (thanks to John Sullivan for introducing this term which i stole from one of his facebook statuses) is that it uses the letter <h> in three distinct functions - as the saltillo and as a part of the <hu>-digraph used to write [w] and as part of the <ch> digraph. This gives spellings with two consecutive h's such as  michhuacan [mit͡ʃwaʔka:n] (name of the state Michoacan - "Place of Fishowners"), or ohhui [oʔwi]"difficult". And it also creates near-ambiguity in cases where a [k] sound written with <c> precedes a [w] written with <hu>  over a syllable boundary (e.g. cachuia "to provide someone with sandals" where the reader has to realize that the <ch> is pronounced as [kw] and not [ch].) From the point of view of a proponent of a modern "efficiency based" orthography, clusters like <hhu>, <chhu> and <chu> where the letter <h> has a different value, comes across as unelegant and unnecessary - even though it is not technically ambiguous.

The use of <h> for saltillo also has the problem that it makes it impossible to distinguish in writing between varieties that pronounce the saltillo as a glottal stop, and those that pronounce it as an [h] - and it also somewhat implies that the h-pronunciation is the norm, when in fact we know that the normative pronunciation in the Nahua capital of Tenochtitlan was the glottal stop. 

The main advantages of the ACK orthography is that 1. it is very similar to the ortography used for most colonial texts and makes the transition from the study of the grammars (using Andrews and Karttunen's works) to the reading of colonial texts very easy, 2. it marks each Nahuatl phoneme with a single letter (or letter combination) and uses only symbols found on a standard American keyboard. 

Launey's orthography

About the same time that Andrews was working in the US, a French linguist was also working on a major analysis of the Nahuatl language based on the Florentine Codex and on Carochi's grammar. Michel Launey published a full didactic grammar of Nahuatl in French in 1979. He chose to use Carochi's conventions for marking saltillo with diacritic marks, standardizing them, and getting rid of the breve accent on short vowels. Since Launey's work was first published only in French and Spanish, (and a somewhat inadequate English translation in 2011) it mostly gained currency in Europe and Mexico, and among linguists more than among historians. His main work, the 1986 thèse d'etat, still exists only in French. It is to my mind the single best grammar of colonial Nahuatl written - surpassing the work of Andrews, and that of Carochi (francophone readers can check it out here). 

The Carochi-Launey orthography has the advantage that because the saltillo is marked as a diacritic it avoids the collisions of digraphs that are found in the ACK orthography, and it avoids implicitly suggesting the pronunciation <h> as the way to pronounce the saltillo.

Canger's orthography

Una Canger is a Danish linguist (and my first Nahuatl teacher) and writes in many different orthographies - this is because she works with many contemporary varieties and adopt the conventions that work best with the variety and its speakers and her own linguistic sensibilities. For the writing of Nahuatl she has made one important proposal. 

In a 2011 article, Canger described the how it happened that Nahuatl grammarians ended up writing the sound [w] with the letter combination <hu>. She shows that the tradition originates with the Franciscan Andres de Olmos - but she also shows that he did not always write the phoneme [w] as <hu> or <uh> - in fact he mostly did this when the [w] followed a consonant or preceded a word boundary or a consonant in the subsequent syllable. When the u was For example he wrote the word [siwatl] "woman" as <çiuatl>, but the word [yeʔwatl] "he/she/it" he writes <yehuatl> and the word "my wife" [nosiwaw] he writes <noçiuauh>. This leads Canger to suggest that what Olmos was doing was that he was using the <h> to show to the reader that the <w> is pronounced differently when it occurs wordfinally or before or after a consonant than when it occurs between two vowels. In fact drawing on her knowledge of contemporary Nahuatl, Canger suggests that it is exactly the aspiration that often accompanies the devoiced variant of <w> that Olmos was representing with the h (this argument is also strengthened by the fact that Olmos also writes h after the letter l in the same positions - since l also devoices under those conditions). Canger then shows that subsequent grammarians adopted Olmos convention of using hu without understanding the way that he used it, and instead of writing only devoiced w with h they used it across the board. This confusion is the ultimate reason for the problematic digraphs found in the ACK orthography and other orthographies that use the <hu> convention. Instead, Canger suggests returning to Olmos original principle - representing the [w] sound with the vowel letter <u>. Hence Canger does not write "nahuatl" but nauatl (as did Olmos and many colonial authors) or else nawatl writing the [w] as <w>. 

While it seems that Canger would prefer a more modern orthography using k and w and s instead of c/qu and u and z/c, she suggests that also scholars who prefer a classical style of orthography ought to return to writing [w] as <u>. Canger's proposal shares all the advantages of the ACK and Launey orthographies - and avoids the problematic digraphs combination found in both of them. The main drawback is that the other orthographies are already in wide usage and that by now it will be quite hard to get people to start writing Nauatl instead of Nahuatl.

Comparison of "Classical orthographies":

	IPA	Franciscan	Jesuit	ACK	Launey	Canger
”Nahuatl”	nawat͡ɬ	nauatl /nahuatl	nahuatl	nahuatl	nahuatl	nauatl
”He/she/it”	jeʔwat͡ɬ	yehuatl	yèhuatl	yehhuatl	yèhuatl	yehuatl
”we do it”	tikt͡ʃi:waʔ	ticchiua /ticchihua	nicchīhuâ	nicchīhuah	ticchīhuâ	ticchīuah /ticchīuâ

Modern orthographies: 

"Modern" orthographies also differ among themselves - but they share the principle that they aim for maximal efficiency rather than maximal continuity with colonial writing traditions. But efficiency can be measured in different ways that are not always compatible. One criterion of efficience might be simple graphic efficiency to have the smallest and most parsimonious array of graphic units  - for example following the principle of "one phoneme - one letter". This kind of "phonemic efficiency" would prefer to remove all the digraphic letters (tl, tz, ch, kw) so that no letter is used to represent two different phonemes and no phoneme is represented by two distinct typographic units. Another kind of efficiency would be to make sure that the orthography is maximally easy to learn - a kind of "pedagogical efficiency". Another kind of efficiency is to make sure that the orthography is maximally accessible to linguists - for example by using symbols for sound values that are internationally established in the linguistic community (e.g. in the same values as in the International Phonetic alphabet, or the Americanist Phonetic Alphabet). 

The Americanist orthography

The Americanist orthography stems from the earliest studies of contemporary spoken Nahuatl by American and Mexican US-trained linguists in the first half of the 20th century. They tended to use a phonetic notatoin system now known as APA (Americanist Phonetic Alphabet), which aimed towards being strictly phonemic and based on the principle of one letter per phoneme. Hence they used single letter symbols for all of the sounds that the "classical" orthographies represented with digraphs -

APA style transcription key:

• tl = ƛ
• tz = ¢ (or sometimes c)
• cu/qua = kw (or sometimes q)
• ch = č
• x = š
• c/qu = k
• hu/uh = w
• h = h
• ʔ = '

Americanist orthography is really very efficient in this way - except that it requires a bunch fo special symbols not found on ordinary keyboards. Hence many linguists taking a practical approach retained tl, ts, ch and x avoiding unnecessary additional signs apart from those already on a standard keyboard.

Such a modified Americanist orthography was in fact adopted as the official standard by the participants in the first Aztec Congress which was held in Milpa Alta in 1940 and attended by many native speakers. They stated that they prefered this orthography exactly because it didnt use the Spanish-style digraphs que/qui ce/za etc. In this way the choice of a "modern" and "scientific" orthography was a political move towards decolonization. Today a variant of this orthography (without the special symbols, but with k and w) is used by most Nahuatl speakers in the Zongolica region where the linguist Andrés Hasler has promoted it for several decades. 

SEP and SIL's orthographies

Example of the SEP/SIL orthography from a textbook.
It uses the letter j to represent the h sound.

In the 1940s an American missionary organization called Instituto Linguistico de Verano (Summer Institute of Linguistics or SIL) began collaborating with the Mexican Ministry of Education (SEP) to develop educational materials in indigenous languages. Because the government wanted indigenous peoples to learn Spanish and primarily wanted to use indigenous language education as a way to teach Spanish, they considered that the orthographies should only use letters already found in Spanish. They developed many different orthographies for different Nahuan varieties - some of which used the "classical" Spanish digraphs, and others which used k and w (although most use hu or simply u for [w]).  The only common denominator seems to be that they use the letter j for the saltillo when it is pronounced as an [h]. This presumably is because the letter <h> is "mute" in Spanish which migh confuse the children during the gradual transition from Nahuatl to Spanish. Today SIL still consider the ease of acquisition for students who are already literate in Spanish as the main criteria for efficiency. Most SEP/SIl orthographies do not mark vowel length, because most Nahuatl speakers are not actually aware of this feature of their language, and vowel length is not very important in distinguishing words from eachother. Some of them however do and when they do they tend to use either double vowels (aa/ee/ii/oo)  or underlining (a, e, i, o) to mark long vowels.

SEP and SIL style orthographies are extremely influential in Mexico and those Nahuatl speakers who have been lucky enough to have classes in their languages in school are likely to have learned them. Also most Nahuatl language authors tend to use these orthographies (because most of them are trained as bilingual teachers through SEP). Many SEP and SIL orthographies also do not write the double [ll] sound which is very common in Nahuatl but instead writes it as a single l. This is of course because Mexican Spanish pronounces the double l as the [j] sound (which is written with y in Nahuatl).

The drawback of using <j> to write the sound [h] is that it often causes non-Nahuatl speakers to erroneously pronounce it as the harsh Spanish j-sound and not as a soft h-sound. Writing the double l as a single-l is problematic from a grammatical viewpoint because the double-l is what happens when the absolutive suffix -tli occurs after a root ending in -l. So by writing only a single l, the grammatical structure of the language is obscured making it harder to teach the grammar. 

"Intuitive orthographies"

Example of intuitive orthpography form a kindergarten in Hueyapan. It says
"xi nech ate ki an xinech pojpua nochipan kion kual le ni koponis"
which usually would be written as
"xinechateki an xinechpojpoa nochipan kion kualle nikoponis"
which means
"Water me and weed me, that way I will always bloom"

Most Nahuatl speakers have not received any education in Nahuatl and many have never even been aware that their language can be written down. Usually Mexican schools teach only Spanish. This means that they have to invent new conventions almost from scratch (or based on Spanish) when they start writing their language since they havent been taught any of the existing orthographic conventions. These new Nahuatl-writers tend to adopt ways of writing that are intuitive to them based on their knowledge of Spanish and sometimes English orthography. Such intuitive orthographies can be seen on the internet where Nahuatl speakers sometimes converse in writing withouth ever having been taught how to write their language. These orthographies are often  sinmilar to the SEP orthographies (using j for h) - but two new features that are not used in any of the established orthographies are often found in intuitive Nahuatl writing. One is that they often use <sh> instead of the traditional <x> to write the sh-sound. This is probably because most Mexicans are associate this sound with English, and know that it is written sh in the English orthography. The second is that they often write grammatical prefixes as separate words, instead of fusing them together as Nahuatl grammarians do. This is probably because they often think in Spanish when they write in Nahuatl translating from Spanish into Nahuatl and therefore isolating elements of meaning the way it is done in Spanish.

Comparison of Modern Orthographies:

	IPA	APA	Hasler /Modern	SEP1	SEP2	Intuitive
”Nahuatl”	nawat͡ɬ	nawaƛ	nahuatl	nauatl	nahuatl	nauatl
”we do it”	tikt͡ʃi:waʔ	tikči:wa’	tikchiwah	tikchiuaj	ticchiihuaj	tic chiua
Jump!	ʃit͡sekwini	ši¢ekwini	xitsekuini	xitsekuini	xitsecuini	shi tsecuini

Note that the SEP1 and SEP2 and the "intuitive" orthography are just possible examples, but many different combinations of the different choices exist.

So Which One Should You Use?

There is no objective answer. Each orthography comes from different ideas about what is important, and is used by certain communities working within specific genealogies and traditions.

That fact of the matter is that regardless of which orthography you use someone will inevitably tell you that you are using the wrong one. I think the best approach is to learn to read all of them and to use one consistently. But really as I noted consistency is overrated. Shakespeare and Chaucer and Cervantes were able to found their national literatures without using standardized orthographies. Molina and Sahagun were able to found Nahuatl literature without one. The important part is that we keep writing and reading in Nahuatl.

English	Now I have told how one writes in the Nahuatl language
IPA	aʃka:n onikiɁtoɁ ke:nin se:  t͡ɬakwilo:s i:ka nawat͡ɬaɁtolli
APA	aška:n oniki’to’ ke:nin se: ƛa’kwilo:s i:ka nawaƛa’tolli
Franciscan	axcan oniquito quenin ce tlacuiloz ica nahuatlahtolli
Jesuit-Carochi-Launey	axcān oniquìtô quēnin cē tlàcuilōz īca nahuatlàtolli
ACK	axcān oniquihtoh quēnin cē tlahcuilōz īca nahuatlahtolli
SEP SEP2	axcan oniquijtoj quenin se tlajcuilos ica nahuatlajtoli axkan onikijtoj kenin se tlajkuilos ika nahuatlahtoli
Modern/Hasler	axkan onikihtoh kenin se tlahkuilos ika nawatlahtolli
Intuitive	ashkan onik itoh kenin se tlacuilos ica nahua tlajtoli

(Note: This post was edited on July 31st 2016 to make some minor corrections to the section on the ACK orthography based on comments from Frances Karttunen on the Nahuatl-l listserver)

Nahuatl Dictionaries Online: The Good, the Bad and the Really Terrible.

There is no shortage of dictionaries of Nahuatl. Throughout the colonial period and especially since the 1940s dozens of small dictionaries and wordlists of Nahuatl have been published. But most of them are not available online. 

In this blog post I am going to review some of the Nahuatl dictionaries that can be found online. Some of them are really excellent, good enough to be used by scholars and academics, others are so terrible that they shouldn't be used by anyone at all. 

First let me point out that there is wide agreement among academics that when it comes to Nahuatl dictionaries, the gold standard is Alonso Molinas 1571 "Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana (1571)". This work is unfortunately not available online, but can be bought in facisimile from different Mexican book traders. This is a must have for any Nahuatl scholar. [Edit: In the comment section Ayac has noted that it IS available online in facisimile so here I add the link https://archive.org/details/vocabularioenlen00moli  The internet truly is beautiful.]

Newer, well esteemed, print dictionaries include Frances Karttunen's Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl (cover pictured on the right), which is particularly useful for scholars because it includes vowel length and glottal stops. It is based on Molina's vocabulario n and Carochi's grammar and includes information from a couple of dictionaries of modern varieties (especially it uses evidence from tetelcingo Nahuatl to establish vowel length when Carochi does not record it). Many scholars use Remi Simeon's 1885 dictionary which has been published in many subsequent editions. I personally don't use it both because even though it is very big and has more entries than most other dictionaries, it is a derivative work and its sources are unclear and difficult to trace. This means that it is hard to check for errors, and to trace possible dialectal or regional variation in vocabulary. And it does contain a lot of errors as derivative works inevitably do (both the errors of the sources and their own new errors). But mostly I don't use it because it is brick-sized, expensive and there are better dictionaries online. Here are some of them: 

The Good:

Wired Humanities Dictionary: http://whp.uoregon.edu/dictionaries/nahuatl/

This dictionary put online by the Wired Humanities project of the University of Oregon, directed I believe by Nahuatl ethnohistorian Stephanie Wood, really does everything you want of a Nahuatl dictionary. It translates both ways to both Spanish and English, it includes vowel length and glottal stops (as well as a not very useful phonetic transcription of each entry), it gives examples of usage from actual texts and it is easy to search. It has a really good number of entries although on more than one occasion, I have drawn a blank on some odd word. The sources are clearly marked, it separately gives the definitions verbatim from each of them. The sources include Molina, Karttunen, and sometimes it includes entries from the IDIEZ monolingual dictionary of Modern Huasteca Nahuatl which has not yet been published. Sometimes it gives too many entries, especially on short words, because it returns all the words that contain a certain string of letters. Then you have to scroll down to the one you want. 

Alexis Wimmer's Dictionnaire de la langue Nahuatl classique: http://sites.estvideo.net/malinal/nahuatl.page.html
Alexis Wimmer's dictionary is basically an electronic version of Simeon's dictionary all of the material in which it includes. Except it is better. What makes it better is that it includes examples of usage of all the entries, taken from the Florentine Codex. Sometimes there are many examples and sometimes few, but they are always an immense help in understanding how a word is used and its deeper contextual meanings. The main drawbacks of this dictionary is that it is not searchable, you have to enter by first letter, then find the interval of letters where the word is located and then search visually (or with the browser's search function) for the entry you are looking for. This means that it is basically just as slow to find a word as if it were a paper dictionary. The second drawback is that it is in French, sometimes with Spanish translations in the examples. This means that sometimes I have to get out a french dictionary or do a webtranslation for the french word if I don't know it. Nonetheless this has become my general go-to dictionary because it has so many entries combined with the great examples. 

The Not So Good:  

SIL dictionaries: http://www-01.sil.org/mexico/pub/dicgram.htm#FamiNahuatl
Through their Mexican branch the Instituto Linguistico de Verano who had a kind of monopoly on making indigenous language educational materials from the 1930s to 1980s, the missionary organization the Summer Institute of Linguistics made a lot of Nahuatl dictionaries of specific varieties. Many of them are available for download at their website linked below. The good thing about these is that they are each based on fieldwork with a single variety and reflect local usage form the communities studied. These makes them pretty much the only current source of lexical knowledge about several Nahuan varieties. They are often written by two authors with the same surnames - that is because many of them are missionary couples who lived in the community for decades working simultaneously on the dictionary and Bible translations into the language. Some of them had little linguistic training, others are excellent linguists. The early ILV dictionaries were published in a series called Mariano Silva y Aceves, these are the worst ones as they are all very short give only a single word meaning for each entry and no examples - basically just wordlists. Some of them though like the Brewers' dictionary of Tetelcingo Nahuatl, and Wolgemuth's dictionary of Mecayapan Nahuat  is still useful because there are no other ones for this highly divergent variety. The more recent ones are made much more professionally with examples and grammatical information. Some of them, like the Brockways' otherwise excellent dictionary of Nahuatl from the Sierra de Puebla are marred by odd lexicographic choices such as listing transitive verbs with the object prefix attached (meaning that they are all listed under qui-, tla- or mo-). These are not really online dictionaries though, but just paper dictionaries put online.

CONDIP: http://www.condip.dk/condip.php
It breaks my heart having to list the COpenhagen Nahuatl DIctionary Project CONDIP, in the not so good section. Both because it comes out of my Alma Mater the University of Copenhagen and is the work of my mentor Una Canger and also because it really should be in the good section, it has just been superseded very quickly by technology. It is essentially an online dictionary 1.0, when today we live in a 4G world. Canger very early on saw the promise of digital technology for lexicography and the linguistic need for dictionaries that could use several orthographies and link words directly to a text corpus. This is what CONDIP was designed to be by Canger and the programmer who coded it Michael Thomsen. It uses three orthographies, a phonemic orthography with symbols based on the Americanist Phonetic Alphabet, a standardized classical orthography and the actual paleography of the texts - this is really useful for linguistic analysis. And it also gives morphological information in the phonemic representation which also represents the morphological analysis. For example in text view the word for Coyote may be written "coiotl" as it is written in the Florentine Codex,  but in analytical view it is "koyō+λ"(the + is a morpheme boundary).

But due to the era in which it was designed, the early 1990s, the technology platform was DOS based (requiring basic coding skills to use) and there was no user Graphic User Interface. We didnt think of this as a problem back then in the 1990s of course, but today it just doesnt work very well with how we use technology. Secondly the text data base had to be handcoded and hence turned out to be quite small compared to how big one expects a database to be today. It is based on Books 2 and 11 of the Florentine codex, the codex Aubin, parts of Molina (perhaps all if more coding has been accomplished since I was last informed) the Bankcroft dialogues and a couple of colonail documents. It really can be a very good tool to find the text examples, but the Wired Humanities dictionary mentioned above just is much better in terms of the user interface, and the demands put on the user. I was still very happy when I saw that the dictionary had been put online and works as an actual online dictionary. But except for a couple of time when I tried it out of nostalgia I really haven't used it - instead I use the two ones listed in good. Canger published a really good article about the dictionary in the 2002 volume "Making Dictionaries" edited by William Frawley, Kenneth Hill and Pamela Munro. This one is worth a read just to read the way Canger describes all the challenges and pitfalls of creating a dictionary of a language like Nahuatl - the only analytical description of such problems that I know of. 

Xochitlahtolli Zongolica Nahuatl Dictionary:  http://www.vcn.bc.ca/prisons/dicc-zon.pdf

Another really decent dictionary available online is the one made by the Veracruzan collective of Nahuatlahtos Xochitlahtolli. This group of native speaking scholars have produced this valuable dictionary of the varieties of the Zongolica region in collaboration with linguist Andres Hasler. It is not huge, but have a really decent amount of entries, and is particularly interesting because it describes a regional variety (with some attention to variation between communities in the region) and is written mainly by native speakers. It does not include vowel length even though this is an important feature of many varieties of the region - but this is probably because this is less important for native speakers who produce the right vowel length intuitively. It is a searchable pdf file, but basically a print dictionary put online. It is also interesting because it uses an orthography that is not based on the classical system but which uses k and w, instead of the classical qui/que, hui/hua etc.



The Really Terrible:

AULEX: http://aulex.org/es-nah/?idioma=en
Generally it is a bad idea to plug bad webresources since it is usually better to just let them go by in silence. But I am including this dictionary here because I have already met several people online who have used it, and I feel responsible for issuing a general warning about it. Aulex is a kind of "crowd sourced" dictionary which means that it is basically made by ordinary folks who compile the dictionary and upload it to the website. The Nahuatl-Spanish/Spanish Nahuatl version of this dictionary is made by Manuel Rodriguez Villegas. In the prologue he gives a description of the process of making it, and an outline of Nahuan varieties, and a list of the sources he has used. The outline of the dialects is an entirely erroneous and confused list of different Nahuatl varieties. He distinguishes "Nahuatl Moderno" (Modern Nahuatl) as if it were a separate variety (it is a cover term for all the currently existing varieties); and randomly mentions a couple of specific local varieties from regions or specific communities, as if they were on the same level; he uses idiosyncratic neologistic names for the varieties based on various ethnohistorical sources that he does not list. He also invents the absurd language "Nahuatl Paiute-Apache" which is non-existent and seems to be a combination of Paiute a Numic language that is distantly related to Nahuatl and Apache which belongs to the Athabascan language family and has nothing in common with Nahuatl at all.  He also claims Nahuatl to be spoken in several places where it is not. 

The worst part however is the sources, which is an eclectic mix of other good dictionaries, bad Spanish language paper dictionaries of specific dialects and terrible pseudolinguistic works such as the works by Juan Luna Cardenas who made up new Nahuatl words for all kinds of things and put them in books. For example he famously coined the word "ixachilan" which he alleged to refer to the American continent, but which in reality has never been used by actual native Nahuatl speakers. In the dictionary this word however is randomly changed to ixachitlan, which is not what Luna Cardenas actually wrote. Tonnes of entries have these kinds of errors, giving for example sometimes word forms that are phonologically impossible in any known variety of Nahuatl. It also contains hundreds of what seem to be newly coined neologisms for modern concepts, such as US states, (Alaskak "Alaska", kaliforniatl "person from California"), or technologies (pipiyolkali "helicopter"). Most of these are unintelligible to native speakers (pipiyolkalli forexample would seem to be composed of the roots for "bee" and "house", giving the logical meaning "beehouse" or "hive", not "helicopter"). This means that trying to pass of anything written with the dictionary as actual Nahuatl would be confusing and possibly offensive to native speakers who have no chance of knowing these words or their meanings.  

The dictionary never gives examples of usage, and it is impossible to trace the source of a given entry. This is particularly problematic when the sources come from individual local varieties that have different phonological systems so that a word in one dialect is impossible and nonsensical in another - such as when the dictionary gives words with the vowel /u/ when in the vast majority of Nahuatl varieties do not have this vowel. Needless to say it doesnt record glottal stops or vowel length. 

No one should use this dictionary for any serious purpose, as it is an insult both to scholarship and to the people who speak the language natively.