Aunque muchos han escrito en romance la conquista desta Nueva España, según la relación de los que la conquistaron, quísela yo escribir en lengua mexicana, no tanto por sacar algunas verdades de la relación de los mismos indios que se hallaron en la conquista, cuanto por poner el lenguaje de las cosas de la guerra y de las armas que en ella usan los naturales, para que de allí se puedan sacar vocablos y maneras de decir proprias para hablar en lengua mexicana. Cerca desta materia allégase también a esto que los que fuero conquistados supieron y dieron relación de muchas cosas que pasaron entre ellos durante la guerra, las cuales ignoraron los que los conquistaron, por las cuales razones me parece que no ha sido trabajo superfluo el haber escrito esta hestoria, la cual se escribió en tiempo que eran vivos los que se hallaron en la misma conquista, y ellos dieron esta relación, personas principales y de buen juicio, y que se tiene por cierto que dixeron toda verdad.
\n","citation_key":"citation_lopez_spanish_transcription","citation":{"en":["Spanish by López Austin & García Quintana 2000"],"es":["Español por López Austin & García Quintana 2000"]}},{"id":"0d911dea-dd88-4aae-9775-b6576866e081","choice":{"en":["Spanish by Lockhart 1993"],"es":["Español por Lockhart 1993"]},"type":"transcription","type_label":{"en":["spanish transcription"],"es":["transcripción en español"]},"column":"spanish","language":{"en":["Spanish"],"es":["Español"]},"language_code":"spa","subtitle":"(Lockhart 1993)","markdown":"## Al lector \n\nAunque muchos an escrito en romance la conquista desta nueua españa, segun la relacion de los q̄ la conquistaron: quise la yo escreuir en lengua mexicana, no tanto por sacar algunas verdades de la relacion de los mismos indios, que se hallaron en la conquista: quanto por poner el lenguaje de las cosas de la guerra, y de las armas que en ella vsan los naturales: para que de alli se puedan sacar vocablos y maneras de dezir proprias, para hablar en lengua mexicana cerca desta materia, allegase tambien a esto que los que fuero[^1] conquistados, supieron y dieron relacion de muchas cosas, que passaron entre ellos durante la guerra: las cuales ignorarō los que los conquistarō, por las quales razones, me parece que no a sido trabajo superfluo, el auer escrito esta estoria.[^2] la qual se escuiuio en tiempo que eran viuos, los que se hallaron en la misma conquista: y ellos dieron esta relacion personas principales, y de buen juizio y que se tiene por cierto, que dixeron toda verdad.\n\n[^1]: FUERO. For “fueron.” Syllable-final _n_ is frequently omitted in the writer’s practice, probably corresponding to his speech; instances of this kind will not be noted henceforth. I say “for” in such cases relating to the Spanish section of the manuscript simply to indicate a more readily intelligible form. In some instances the more standard form may have been the one intended by the writer, but in others it was not; for the most part it seems impossible to attain certainty on which interpretation applies in a particular passage. Partly for this reason, I put the more standard forms, which I spell as I imagine Sahagún might have, in quotes as finite constructions possibly intended either by the writer or a previous copyist instead of putting them in italics as purely abstract standard forms. I have followed the same practice in the Nahuatl texts.\n\n[^2]: ESTORIA. For “(h)istoria.” The merging of unstressed _e_ and _i_ , as here, is a common phenomenon in the writing of Spanish loans in Nahuatl texts, though _i_ for Spanish _e_ is seen more often than the opposite, as here. The preceding words beginning _e_ may have affected the form chosen.","html":"Aunque muchos an escrito en romance la conquista desta nueua españa, segun la relacion de los q̄ la conquistaron: quise la yo escreuir en lengua mexicana, no tanto por sacar algunas verdades de la relacion de los mismos indios, que se hallaron en la conquista: quanto por poner el lenguaje de las cosas de la guerra, y de las armas que en ella vsan los naturales: para que de alli se puedan sacar vocablos y maneras de dezir proprias, para hablar en lengua mexicana cerca desta materia, allegase tambien a esto que los que fuero1 conquistados, supieron y dieron relacion de muchas cosas, que passaron entre ellos durante la guerra: las cuales ignorarō los que los conquistarō, por las quales razones, me parece que no a sido trabajo superfluo, el auer escrito esta estoria.2 la qual se escuiuio en tiempo que eran viuos, los que se hallaron en la misma conquista: y ellos dieron esta relacion personas principales, y de buen juizio y que se tiene por cierto, que dixeron toda verdad.
\nFUERO. For “fueron.” Syllable-final n is frequently omitted in the writer’s practice, probably corresponding to his speech; instances of this kind will not be noted henceforth. I say “for” in such cases relating to the Spanish section of the manuscript simply to indicate a more readily intelligible form. In some instances the more standard form may have been the one intended by the writer, but in others it was not; for the most part it seems impossible to attain certainty on which interpretation applies in a particular passage. Partly for this reason, I put the more standard forms, which I spell as I imagine Sahagún might have, in quotes as finite constructions possibly intended either by the writer or a previous copyist instead of putting them in italics as purely abstract standard forms. I have followed the same practice in the Nahuatl texts.↩
ESTORIA. For “(h)istoria.” The merging of unstressed e and i , as here, is a common phenomenon in the writing of Spanish loans in Nahuatl texts, though i for Spanish e is seen more often than the opposite, as here. The preceding words beginning e may have affected the form chosen.↩
Although many have written of the Conquest of this New Spain in Spanish, according to the account of those who conquered it, I desired to write it in the Mexican language, not so much to derive certain truths from the account of the very Indians who took part in the Conquest, as to record the language of warfare and the weapons which the natives use in it, in order that the terms and proper modes of expression for speaking on this subject in the Mexican language can be derived therefrom. To this may be added that those who were conquered knew and gave an account of many things which transpired among them during the war of which those who conquered them were unaware. For these reasons, it seems to me, to have written this history, which was written at a time when those who took part in the very Conquest were alive, has not been a superfluous task. And those who gave this account [were] principal persons of good judgment, and it is believed they told all the truth.
\n","citation_key":"citation_anderson_spanish_eng_translation","citation":{"en":["Spanish-to-English by Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982"],"es":["Español-al-inglés por Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982"]}},{"id":"034d435b-7ba8-43a7-ad2d-a6484d63dd97","choice":{"en":["Spanish by Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982"],"es":["Español por Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982"]},"type":"transcription","type_label":{"en":["spanish transcription"],"es":["transcripción en español"]},"column":"spanish","language":{"en":["Spanish"],"es":["Español"]},"language_code":"spa","subtitle":"(Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982)","markdown":"## Al lector \n\nAunque muchos an escrito en romance la conquista desta nueua españa, segun la relacion de los q̃ la conquistaron: qujsela yo escreujr en lengua mexicana, no tanto por sacar algunas verdades de la relacion de los mjsmos jndios, que se hallaron en la conqujsta: quanto por poner el lenguaje de las cosas de la guerra, y de las armas que en ella vsan los naturales: para que de alli se puedan sacar vocablos y maneras de dezir proprias, para hablar en lengua mexicana cerca desta materia, allegase tambien a esto que los que fuero conquistados, supieron y dieron relacion de muchas cosas, que passaron entre ellos durante la guerra: las quales ignorarõ los que los conquistarõ, por las quales razones, me parece que no a sido trabajo superfluo, el auer escrito esta estoria. la qual se escriujo en tiempo que eran viuos, los que se hallaron en la mjsma conqujsta: y ellos dieron esta relacion personas principales, y de buen juizio y que se tiene por cierto, que dixeron toda verdad.","html":"Aunque muchos an escrito en romance la conquista desta nueua españa, segun la relacion de los q̃ la conquistaron: qujsela yo escreujr en lengua mexicana, no tanto por sacar algunas verdades de la relacion de los mjsmos jndios, que se hallaron en la conqujsta: quanto por poner el lenguaje de las cosas de la guerra, y de las armas que en ella vsan los naturales: para que de alli se puedan sacar vocablos y maneras de dezir proprias, para hablar en lengua mexicana cerca desta materia, allegase tambien a esto que los que fuero conquistados, supieron y dieron relacion de muchas cosas, que passaron entre ellos durante la guerra: las quales ignorarõ los que los conquistarõ, por las quales razones, me parece que no a sido trabajo superfluo, el auer escrito esta estoria. la qual se escriujo en tiempo que eran viuos, los que se hallaron en la mjsma conqujsta: y ellos dieron esta relacion personas principales, y de buen juizio y que se tiene por cierto, que dixeron toda verdad.
\n","citation_key":"citation_anderson_spanish_transcription","citation":{"en":["Spanish by Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982"],"es":["Español por Anderson & Dibble 1953–1982"]}},{"id":"3c84ccb4-d0bc-4508-84fc-1be11242f195","choice":{"en":["Spanish-to-English by Lockhart 1993"],"es":["Español-al-inglés por Lockhart 1993"]},"type":"translation","type_label":{"en":["spanish translation"],"es":["traducción al español"]},"column":"spanish","language":{"en":["English"],"es":["Inglés"]},"language_code":"eng","subtitle":"(Lockhart 1993)","markdown":"## To the Reader\n\nAlthough many have written in Spanish about the conquest of New Spain according to the accounts of those who conquered it, I wanted to write about it in the Mexican language, not so much in order to extract some truths from the very Indians who took part in the conquest as in order to set down the language of the things of war and of the weapons that the natives use in it, so that from there one can take appropriate words and expressions for speaking in the Mexican language on this topic. It can also be added that those who were[^1] conquered found out and gave account of many things that happened among them during the war, things that those who conquered them did not know. For these reasons it seems to me that it was not a superfluous effort to have written this history,[^2] which was written at a time when those who took part in the conquest itself were alive, and those who gave this account were important people of good judgment who are considered certain to have told the entire truth.\n\n[^1]: FUERO. For “fueron.” Syllable-final _n_ is frequently omitted in the writer’s practice, probably corresponding to his speech; instances of this kind will not be noted henceforth. I say “for” in such cases relating to the Spanish section of the manuscript simply to indicate a more readily intelligible form. In some instances the more standard form may have been the one intended by the writer, but in others it was not; for the most part it seems impossible to attain certainty on which interpretation applies in a particular passage. Partly for this reason, I put the more standard forms, which I spell as I imagine Sahagún might have, in quotes as finite constructions possibly intended either by the writer or a previous copyist instead of putting them in italics as purely abstract standard forms. I have followed the same practice in the Nahuatl texts.\n\n[^2]: ESTORIA. For “(h)istoria.” The merging of unstressed _e_ and _i_ , as here, is a common phenomenon in the writing of Spanish loans in Nahuatl texts, though _i_ for Spanish _e_ is seen more often than the opposite, as here. The preceding words beginning _e_ may have affected the form chosen.","html":"Although many have written in Spanish about the conquest of New Spain according to the accounts of those who conquered it, I wanted to write about it in the Mexican language, not so much in order to extract some truths from the very Indians who took part in the conquest as in order to set down the language of the things of war and of the weapons that the natives use in it, so that from there one can take appropriate words and expressions for speaking in the Mexican language on this topic. It can also be added that those who were1 conquered found out and gave account of many things that happened among them during the war, things that those who conquered them did not know. For these reasons it seems to me that it was not a superfluous effort to have written this history,2 which was written at a time when those who took part in the conquest itself were alive, and those who gave this account were important people of good judgment who are considered certain to have told the entire truth.
\nFUERO. For “fueron.” Syllable-final n is frequently omitted in the writer’s practice, probably corresponding to his speech; instances of this kind will not be noted henceforth. I say “for” in such cases relating to the Spanish section of the manuscript simply to indicate a more readily intelligible form. In some instances the more standard form may have been the one intended by the writer, but in others it was not; for the most part it seems impossible to attain certainty on which interpretation applies in a particular passage. Partly for this reason, I put the more standard forms, which I spell as I imagine Sahagún might have, in quotes as finite constructions possibly intended either by the writer or a previous copyist instead of putting them in italics as purely abstract standard forms. I have followed the same practice in the Nahuatl texts.↩
ESTORIA. For “(h)istoria.” The merging of unstressed e and i , as here, is a common phenomenon in the writing of Spanish loans in Nahuatl texts, though i for Spanish e is seen more often than the opposite, as here. The preceding words beginning e may have affected the form chosen.↩