Pachacuti? NO - should be Pachacutec.

[Kwami]

They might not know at first (and that's why the known name is better), but once you see someone named Temujn leading Mongolia it's really easy to figure out with even one little post on CFC or twitter or one little search on Google or wiki, or from reading the civilopedia, or from just interacting with the leader in the game.

Or we could just use the names that everyone is familiar with. Even scholars tend to do that.

 

[Evie]

Reading is an important skill:

They might not know at first (and that's why the known name is better)

 

[Linklite]

They might not know at first (and that's why the known name is better), but once you see someone named Temujn leading Mongolia it's really easy to figure out with even one little post on CFC or twitter or one little search on Google or wiki, or from reading the civilopedia, or from just interacting with the leader in the game.

Sorry, but most gamers aren't going to see "Temujin" and look him up on Google or wiki and only the most involved will do any of the other options. I mean, I don't use Twitter, I don't like civilopedia and I'm only on CFC because I happened to directed here from a dead GameFaqs board. I'm interested in history (I won't pretend I'm very knowledgable, but I'd say above average), but the number of people I've looked up because Civ VI made me curious is zero. If I don't recognise anything about them and their mechanics don't appeal to me...I just ignore them on the select screen or will play them once just for the sake of it. I believe the majority of players are the same.

At the end of the day, Ciiv VI is a game made to make money, and the best way to do that is to get people excited about features. The best way to get people excited about Civs or leaders is to use names they recognise, not to insist that they turn into Sherlock Holmes just so they know that they're playing as Genghis Khan, and not some other Mongolian like Kublai Khan.

The best people who want the true names can probably get with this is a toggle between English and historically accurate names. I'm not convinced that the Devs will consider that a worthwhile use of their time, unfortunately, but you never know.

 

[anonxanemone]

Another shortcoming for referring to them by their "accurate name" is that orthography does not translate well between languages since the phonologies often incompatible. In other words, the Latin alphabet cannot capture the sounds of Quechua so insisting Pachacuti be spelt Pachacutec is just pedantics.

 

[Zaarin]

Another shortcoming for referring to them by their "accurate name" is that orthography does not translate well between languages since the phonologies often incompatible. In other words, the Latin alphabet cannot capture the sounds of Quechua so insisting Pachacuti be spelt Pachacutec is just pedantics.

Roman script can write Quechua just fine and is in fact what Quechua is written in; however, in Quechua it should be Pachakutiq.

 

[anonxanemone]

Pachakutiq

Pachakutiq, Pachacuti, Pachacutec... To-may-to, to-mah-to...

 

[Linklite]

Roman script can write Quechua just fine and is in fact what Quechua is written in; however, in Quechua it should be Pachakutiq.

I guess that's where having a single convention comes in though. You know that if they did one perfectly right in the original language, then if they make a mistake with another, use an unorthodox spelling or just do it slightly differently to how someone else would do it, there'd be fifty threads on here complaining before they could close the transliteration tool down.

 

[HiRezAudio]

Another shortcoming for referring to them by their "accurate name" is that orthography does not translate well between languages since the phonologies often incompatible. In other words, the Latin alphabet cannot capture the sounds of Quechua so insisting Pachacuti be spelt Pachacutec is just pedantics.

Will you all please stop completely missing the point?
Pachacuti is a period of time.
Pachacutec is the name of an Inca leader.
It has eff all to do with pedantics.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yeah, people aren't THAT dumb. There are benefits to using the familiar name but you're grossly exaggerating them.

Did you sleep through 2020? If last year proved anything, it's the opposite: people aren't that dumb, they're far dumber, beyond what you can even imagine.

That said, you might be able to slip a "real name" by if it's similar to the wrong one. The one in the OP especially would probably not confuse too many people since the Inca are relatively less discussed compared to the Mongols or Aztecs; the "wrong" name is less familiar as consequence.

 

[Linklite]

Will you all please stop completely missing the point?
Pachacuti is a period of time.
Pachacutec is the name of an Inca leader.
It has eff all to do with pedantics.

I think it's you that's missed point that's been made since, which is completely relevant.

 

[HiRezAudio]

I think it's you that's missed point that's been made since, which is completely relevant.

No I did not miss the point.
I was not talking about a spelling variation on a name - I was talking about a descriptive word for a period of time being used as the name of a person.
What is so difficult for you to understand about this? It is mixing up an adjective for a proper noun. Period.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I was not talking about a spelling variation on a name - I was talking about a descriptive word for a period of time being used as the name of a person.

when is Pachacuti?

 

[Vandlys]

Will you all please stop completely missing the point?
Pachacuti is a period of time.
Pachacutec is the name of an Inca leader.

Again, you're correct when talking about Quecha, but in English your statement is a half truth. In English, he is referred to as "Pachacuti". In the same way that Willem Dafoe is actually called William Dafoe, Holland is correct Danish even though it's wrong Dutch*. In English people say "Pachacuti", so in common usage that is the correct sequence of letters and sounds to describe this particular Inca leader. The literal translation of the word might be wrong in Quecha to connote the leader, and in Quecha they might have a different name for him, but in English Pachacuti is accepted as correct.

No I did not miss the point.
I was not talking about a spelling variation on a name - I was talking about a descriptive word for a period of time being used as the name of a person.
What is so difficult for you to understand about this? It is mixing up an adjective for a proper noun. Period.

They could have called him "Quickly" and it would still have been correct. If the English called him that, and it's become common usage, then "Quickly" for all intents and purposes, is his name. In fact, I think if the common usage for this person had been "Quickly" you would not have started this thread because it's easier to accept. It's just that you learned that "Pachacuti" means "A" and Pachacutec means "B" and now you're conflicted because to you it doesn't make sense that people would call someone "A" because "B" is the proper noun and his actual name. But, again, if all people start using "B" as his name, then that is his name for those people and in that language. You can get worked up over it all you want, but alas, this is how language works.


*As in, in Dutch it's "Nederland" for the country, and "Holland" for the region containing the two provinces of "Noord-Holland" and "Zuid-Holland". In Danish this distinction is not made, and they use "Holland" for both. You can complain that they should make a distinction in Danish too, but they don't. I.e. "Holland" is correct Danish to mean the country of the Netherlands.

 

[Linklite]

No I did not miss the point.
I was not talking about a spelling variation on a name - I was talking about a descriptive word for a period of time being used as the name of a person.
What is so difficult for you to understand about this? It is mixing up an adjective for a proper noun. Period.

We're talking about why Firaxis did it, since this site is about Civ VI. We've speculated on their rationale, and I think we've hit it on the head - they've decided tonight use a single convention to avoid accusations of bias etc. That convention is the English form since it provides the highest recognisability. I think that's a reasonable rationale.

Now, what you're complaining about is that you don't like this instance of English convention. That's fair enough, but there's no point getting worked up over it here. I don't like the English name for my country, it makes it sound like I live in an animal and is completely unrelated to the name of my country in my language, and indeed has no relationship with my language at all.

We've explained why Firaxis did it this way. If you're still upset, the problem is with the English language, not Firaxis. Unfortunately, it's the nature of language to change things. In all 5 languages that I know enough about, none agree as to the name of the capital of England; London, Llundain, Londra, Londres, Londinium. It is what it is.

If you find the people in charge, get them to have a look at how they name things. Again, I don't live in a giant animal. No point getting upset over it, though.

 

[Bibor]

Details help with immersion and the same is true for names.
Firaxis shot itself in the foot by skimming on the cheapest and most obvious of immersion builders - quality text content.
Novadays youtubers for even 10 minute videos have better scriptwriters.

 

[Eurritz]

Pachacuti? NO, should be Pachacutie! :3