Disputatio Vicipaediae:Translatio nominum propriorum
E Vicipaedia
[recensere] Loci
I think we can use latin suffixes if they easily attach. Almost any berg or burg could take burgum, as Myces mentioned in the article proper. Trouble of course arises in what's the bar for easy attachability.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:51, 19 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
- Actually berg and burg should be two different endings: berg means "mountain", and appears to correspond to -berga, while burg is "(hill) town/fort", and -burgum (but it seems they've been confused for some time). I was actually doing a little survey of name elements from lists of Latinized place names in England to how endings were normally Latinized; the few I found so far:
-
- -field → -felda
- -caster → -castra
- -c(h)ester → -cestria
- -don → -dunum
- -stead → -steda
- -stow → -stova
- -hampton → -hantona
- -ham → -hamum
- -hampstead → -hamsteda
- -ey → -ega
- -more → -mora
- -gate → -gata
- -ing → -inga
- -mer(e) → -mera
- -mouth → -muthum
- -b(o)urne → -burna
- -well → -wella
- -tree, -try → -tria
- -dale → -dala
- -combe → -cumba
- -wood → -wuda
- -ley → -lea
- -leigh → -lega
- Of course places in England of any antiquity will probably already have Latinized forms, but more recent places like much of America won't. —Myces Tiberinus 11:03, 20 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
-
- Of course...an iceberg isn't an ice town, clearly. My fault. This is a pretty sweet list off which to base things. -on seems to go to onia or inium, cf Londinium and Vasingtonia. Places like Astoria, Annapolis I think we can leave be.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:42, 20 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hehe... well, the etymology factors into many of these, since the Latinizations are of earlier forms of the language, so I take the ending element, not just the last few letters per se. I'm not sure how exactly "London" segments, and my intuition is that the usual for -ton might be -tona. (I should mention the list I am beginning with is Disputatio:Index locorum in Regno Unito.) Of course Astoria, Annapolis, and other things that are clearly meant to be of Latin origin can probably remain the way they are (as would Londinium etc. which are too entrenched to change even if they did run afoul of whatever modern scheme we might use). —Myces Tiberinus 22:56, 20 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
-
[recensere] Latinisatio possibilis terminationes Slavicorum nominum urbium
-
- -ov, -ów → -ovia (e.g. Pskov - Pscovia, Kraków - Cracovia)
- -sk → -scum (e.g. Minsk - Minscum vel Minsca, Pinsk - Pinscum)
- -grad → -gradum (e.g. Belgrad - Bellogradum, Belgradum vel Belgrada, Wischegrad - Vissegradum)
- -gorod → -gardia aut -gradum (e.g. Novgorod - Novogardia sive Novogradum, Belgorod - Belogradum)
- -slav(l)→ -slavia (e.g. Pereyaslav(l) - Pereaslavia, Yaroslavl - Iaroslavia)
Vide etiam: Index locorum in Russia. -- Alexander Gerascenco 02:23, 21 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
-
- What would be really good in both these cases is writing good, encyclopedic, well-referenced material on the usual Latinization of placenames, describing history, practice, recommendations, etc. under Latinizatio nominum locorum or some such. —Myces Tiberinus 16:48, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
[recensere] A Hand-List of Latin Place Names with Their Modern Equivalents
The book A Hand-List of Latin Place Names with Their Modern Equivalents, by Edward W. Burke, S.J., contains a similar list on pp. 348-9. Of course this list is more concerned with the meanings of the suffixes than the vernacular equivalents—in fact, vernacular suffixes are rarely given at all. But perhaps it can still be of use to us, so here's a summary:
-
- -berga ← -berg "mountain"
- -brica ← "bridge" (also variant for -briga)
- -briga ← (Iberian variant for -berga)
- -briva ← "bridge, ford"
- -burgus, -burgum ← -burg, -burgh, -bourg, -borg, -bork, -bury, etc. "fortified town, city"
- -castria, -cestria, -cestra ← "Smith notes that in areas of England dominated by the early medieval Danes the suffix became Eng. -caster, while in areas under Anglo-Saxon rule it was transformed into -chester or -cester." Cool, eh? (and of course, it goes without saying that this is historically from castra)
- -dūnum, dūn- ← "hill, hill town, fortified town" (he has a whole section devoted just to this suffix on pp. 349-355)
- -dūrum, -dōrum, dūro-, dōro- ← "place on a stream"
- -ētum ← "grove" (of course: this is a productive suffix in Classical Latin)
- -furtum ← "bridge, ford" (Francofurtum)
- -magus ← "field, market, town" (leading to my favorite: Blattomagus, which is Celtic for "flower-field", but Latin for "cockroach-wizard")
- -mutha ← "river mouth"
- -polis ← "city"
- -stadium ← -stad, -stadt "city"
--Iustinus 16:25, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
[recensere] Arlington
Once that's been driving me nuts for some time is a decent Latinization of Arlington. I've found nothing on several forays. Sinister Petrus 21:57, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)
- Well...following the Latinization of Washington as Vasin/Vasingtonia...I think Arlin/Arlingtonia would be fine.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:35, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest Arlintonia myself. I don't know why I didn't (who knows? maybe to avoid getting a response of "licet" or worse "vide catenam etiam"). Thanks for confirming my hunch. Sinister Petrus 02:33, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
[recensere] Nomina Hominum
If someone's last name can be Latinized in a simple manner, it should be done. For surnames that are already in a plural form, the plural ending can be dropped and replaced with an "i". For example, Julia Roberts can be Latinized as "Julia Roberti" (Robertus is already the commonly accepted Latinization of Robert). Likewise, the surname Gonzalez can be Latinized as "Gonzali". Romance language surnames (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.) should also be Latinized, as these languages have originated from Latin and most of their words have Latin cognates. The surname Benitez can be Latinized as Benedicti, Romero as Romerius, Genovese as Genovicus, Pisano as Pisanus, etc. As for names using prefixes such as de or da, they can be dropped and replaced with a suffix inticating a belonging to. For example, Di Stefano can be translates as Stephanicus and DaSilva as Silvanus. If it is a Latinized last name in the singular form that ends in -us or another Latin ending, is thould take the feminine version when it is a female's surname. For example, the name Alexa DaSilva should be translated as Alexa Silvana. Likewise, Roberto DaSilva would become Robertus Silvanus.
- The -s in Roberts and the -ez in Gonzalez are not plural markers. —Myces Tiberinus 11:50, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's a sort of genitive, isn't it? That is, González = hijo de Gonzalo = filius Gonzali? So the effect might look the same: Roberti would be genitive singular instead of nominative plural. For Pérez, the Latin according to this proposal would be Petri, since it stands for something like filius Petri. (Btw, I didn't write the original paragraph here.) IacobusAmor 12:33, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It's not a sort of genitive it's just an old genitive. -es was the old genitive marker in english, hence -'s these days. You can see it still in german and scandinavian names, ie Leif Eiriksson. But i think I would agree with you that the genitive and plural looking the same in latin, we would be safe doing Gonzali or Roberti. The lowercase f abbreviation of filius in latin was a formality not a rule.--Ioshus (disp) 12:53, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
-
First of all, the plural of nomen is nomina—to say nothing of populi, which Iacobus already corrected without comment. Second of all ... well, allow me to repeat some comments I posted here:
- ... The fact is ... that not Latinizing family names, for better or for worse, has been the default since, oh, somewhere in the early 19th century, I'd say. This practice is followed by pretty much all of the seriouse modern Latin "authorities" and publications. Some examples from the Periodica Latina I have handy:
- "...praeclarum lyceum Mediolanense, Iosepho Parini dicatum, nonnulli discipuli inundaverunt." -p. 211 Horatii Antonii Bologna "Diarium Latinum: Lyceum Mideolanense inundatum est." Latinitas, An. 53, Lib. 2, 2005.
- "Statua equestris Pauli Revere" -p. 576, Gaii Licoppe "De itinere Americano (III)", Vox Latina, Tomo 40, Fasc. 158, 2004
- "Qui liber in tres est partes divisus : primam, quæ parentes tractat et liberos, a Christiano Læs compositam ; secundam, quæ in amores incumbit et mores venereos, ab Antonio Van Houdt tractatam ; tertiam autem a tribus libri auctoribus curatam, quæ de matrimonio agit." -p. 16, Volfgangi Jenniges Lovaniensis "De Novis Libris", Melissa 119, 2004
- "Studiis Lindae Buck atque Richardi Axel ingeniosissimis..." p. 13, "3.1 Nasus humanus quantum valeat" Nuntius Leoniinus, Vol. 1 2004
- "Bavari Owenum Hargreaves nequaquam volunt amittere." Ephemeris
- Lest you think all these sources are merely influenced by each other, I could dig up older references, from the 1800s, if you like. But this will have to do for now. --Iustinus 21:41, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
[recensere] Pocatello -> Pocatellum (Romanic names)
- Why not change Romanic Pocatello into Pocatellum? --Alex1011 18:31, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
-
- Because the purpose of the rules is to avoid inventing names (which in Wikipedia terms amount to original research). Besides, it seems 'en:Pocatello' is a Shoshoni name, not a European one. Basically, the point is that Wikipedia, even in Latin, is a reference. We don't want people to come here and think "oh, Capita Animalium is Latin for Thierhaupten, I can use this on my T-shirts" when it's just something one of our users just came up with. (Pocatello may well ought to be Pocatello, -onis, or even Pocatellopolis.) If, though, a proposed name is something we can produce references for, then by all means, let us present it. —Myces Tiberinus 00:12, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- See also Vicipaedia:Coining. --Rolandus 11:11, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
-
[recensere] Italian names Medici in particular (here is the right location for our discussion)
I ask me if is not better to let the italian name (cognome), because italians names are already relics of an old genitive (e.g Marchetti from "figlio di Marchetto" in Latin filius Marchetti), therefore it makes no sense to translate them in Latin. See Gerhard Rohlfs, Grammatica storica della Lingua italiana e dei suo dialetti, vol. "morfologia", nota n° 1 pag. 8: about the origin of the italian names "l'autore si pronuncia qui per un genitivo nato e consolidato nel linguaggio degli avvocati", the author believes that it is a type of genitive created in the language of lawyers". Should we move the pages Silvio e.g Berlusco to Berlusconi? Ciao--Massimo Macconi 11:01, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
P.S I reproduce the page on wiki taberna
[recensere] Translitteratio
We're going with ISO? I suppose it's best to have SOMETHING. But for the love of God, please do not render Arabic ẗ as t: that's just absurd! --Iustinus 17:43, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Also, might I suggest that ISO-transliterated names be put in italics? In general, when I give a forreign name with no Latin attestation, I prefer to do this, so that it's clear I'm merely citing it as a foreign word. --Iustinus 17:51, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- We don't have to go with ISO. But it was the only neutral way I could think of for when attested forms don't exist. If someone can think of a better way... --Myces Tiberinus 18:01, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- On a partially related note: we should probably start writing pages on historically attested systematic transliterations, e.g. the ancient system for Greek (obviously--and this one is very important, because a lot of people seem to prefer newfangled systems, even in inappropriate places), the (slightly less rigid) ancient system for Hebrew (and how this could theoretically be applied to Arabaic, though that might be a bad idea), the various attested systems for Japanese, and so on. --Iustinus 18:07, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Rules for Converting Polynesian Terms to Latin
I here propose rules for Latinizing Polynesian terms. My purpose is to establish Latin forms that will be as regular as possible, so that indigenous spellings of terms can be reconstructed from the Latin as readily as possible. I base these rules on analogies with attested forms (not all of which I cite below); however, for all but a few Polynesian placenames & personal names, no attestions exist—and most that do exist have been contrived by scholars unfamiliar with Polynesian linguistics, and are therefore not necessarily the aptest forms for Polynesian languages. ¶ It's conceivable that, for some Polynesian terms, nineteenth-century Latin forms exist in writings by Roman Catholic missionaries—but it's unlikely: I've seen some such manuscripts, and most (for reasons we don't need to get into here) are in French. One manuscript I examined carefully had a few Latin terms (e.g., Status Animarum for a census of parishioners), but these weren't for indigenous concepts. To make matters more curious, nineteenth-century prelates' Latin titles referred to places in the Old World, not locally relevant ones; for example, a Roman Catholic bishop active in Samoa was formally known as the Bishop of Tipasa, an abandoned diocese in Africa, which the prelate had never visited.
I. Declinability. Most Polynesian nouns are indeclinable in Polynesian, but we can reject the idea that Latin should treat them as indeclinables. Attestations of the declining of Polynesian-Latin nouns exist, and adjectival forms attested for centuries in scientific taxonomy show derivations from quasi-Latin stems, implying that the nouns decline. In all but the simplest syntax (grammar like "A est B"), retaining the indeclinability of Polynesian nouns would confuse most readers. ¶ The changes in spelling required by these rules alter Polynesian terms much less than Polynesian languages do when they convert non-Polynesian terms to Polynesian. For example, in Samoan, the nineteenth-century missionaries Drummond, Heath, Hardie, MacDonald, and Sunderland became Talamoni, Ite, Ale, Makona, and Sitanile, respectively: the original names are not reliably reconstructible from their Polynesian forms.
II. Phonetics. Most letters are retained as in their original orthographies.
- A. Vowels are five, pronounced similarly to their Latin analogues.
- 1. Polynesian a = Latin a ; likewise, e = e, i = i, o = o, u = u.
- 2. As in Latin, Polynesian languages distinguish between long & short vowels, but long vowels are not to be marked; they're almost never marked in Polynesian customary orthographies.
- B. Consonantal graphemes equivalent to Latin ones are b, d, f, h, l, m, n, p, r, s, t.
- C. Problematic letters.
- b: used in Fijian for /mb/; hence Latin mb.
- c: used in Fijian for /þ/; hence Latin th.
- d: used in Fijian for /nd/; hence Latin nd.
- g: when representing the phonemic /g/ = Latin g.
- g: when representing the phonemic /ŋ/ = Latin ng. Example: Samoan Toga = Latin Tonga.
- k: always pronounced /k/; hence Latin c.
- ng: when representing the phonemic /ŋ/ = Latin ng. Example: Tongan Tonga = Latin Tonga.
- q: when representing (in Fijian only) /ŋg/ = Latin gg (as per W. Sidney Allen in Vox Latina). Example: Fijian yaqona = Latin iaggona 'kava'.
- v: sometimes /v/ and often bilabial, /β/, but best retained in Latin as v.
- w: sometimes /v/ and often bilabial, /β/, attested as Latin w in the species epithet pelewensis (referring to Palau), but probably best in Latin as v.
- y: used in one or two languages to represent a sound like the Latin consonantal i ; hence Latin i.
- ʔ: glottal stop, often representing Proto-Polynesian /k/, and sometimes the minimal point of difference between modern Polynesian pairs of terms, but seldom written by native speakers, and always to be ignored in Latin. Example: Hawaiian Hawai'i, Latin Havaii.
- D. Unused consonants of the modern Roman alphabet: j, x. Some old Tongan texts use j for the pronunciation of /ti/ as /tsi/, but this cluster in Latin readily becomes si.
- E. Note:—To Polynesianists, converting /k/ to /c/ results in spellings that look really, really odd ; but K, though a genuine Roman letter, doesn't seem to have been ordinarily productive for more than two millennia now, and I'm not sure we have a warrant to revive it, so I've left it dead.
III. Gender & termination. All Polynesian nouns—yes, without exception: all, all, all—end in a vowel. This fact makes their conversion to Latin relatively simple & regular, though eliminating or altering their final vowels often results in truncating Polynesian roots.
- A. Gender.
- 1. Placenames. The default gender is feminine in the first declension and neuter in all other declensions. Semantics—if the term is marked as to sex in the original culture—may overrule the default.
- 2. Personal names. The gender matches the sex of the referent.
- B. Termination.
- 1. Ending in A. These are invariably in the first declension. Semantic reference marks a few as masculine; for example, the Samoan mountain Vaea is mythologically the body of a man, Vaea, and so Vaea is masculine. Example: Tikopian Faea = Latin Faea, -ae, f. Also, a widely encountered nonproper noun: Hawaiian hula = Latin hula, -ae, f. ¶ Exception: The proper name A is possible (but I haven't found an example); if it exists, it has to be indeclinable.
- 2. Ending in E. These retain their original spelling in the nominative and then decline in the third declension, with terminations added to whatever stem results from the deletion of the e. Since the first word of an article is typically the titular term in the nominative (not the ablative, also ending in e), this seeming irregularity will help naive readers grasp the indigenous spelling. Example: Tane, Tanis, a Polynesian god. ¶ Exception: The proper name E is possible (but I haven't found an example); if it exists, it has to be indeclinable.
- 3. Ending in I. These are plural nouns of the second declension, much like Latin castra, -orum 'camp' and not unlike the first-declension placenames Athenae, -arum 'Athens' and Tres Tabernae, Trium Tabernarum 'Three Taverns'. Examples: Havaii, -orum 'The Hawaiian Islands', Viti, -orum 'the Fijian Islands, the Feejees'. Also: Tahitian Ari'oi = Latin Arioi, -orum, a performing-arts society instituted by the god Oro. ¶ The plural attestations that I've seen are to placenames, not personal names, and so it might be better to handle personal names ending in i differently, perhaps like those ending in e. Example: Hawaiian Kaha'i = Latin ?Cahai, Cahais. An alternative might be to retain the full original term as a stem and add -um for placenames, -us for male persons, and -a for female persons—but that process may be too complicated to keep straight. This class of nouns remains problematic. ¶ Exception: the proper name I exists; it has to be indeclinable.
- 4. Ending in O. On the basis of the attestation of "Cairo" = Latin Cairum and "Chicago" = Latin Sicagum, such nouns are invariably in the second declension. Example: Samoan Falealupo = Latin Falealupum, -i, a village; Hawaiian Lono = Latin Lonus, -i, a god. ¶ Exception: The proper name O is possible (but I haven't found an example); if it exists, it has to be indeclinable.
- 5. Ending in U. These are invariably in the fourth declension. Example: Hawaiian Kumoku = Latin Cumocu, -us, n., a place on Lanai. ¶ Exception: The proper name U is possible (if it exists, it has to be indeclinable. (And note the non-Polynesian name U Thant.)
IV. The beginnings of articles. Where necessary, as has become customary in Vicipaedia, the first phrase of an article indicates declension, gender, and indigenous spelling:
-
-
- Falealupum (-i, n. ; Samoane: Falealupo). . . .
- Lonus (-i, m. ; Havaiane: Lono). . . .
-
Because of absolute regularities in the proposed principles of conversion, however, this bother is unnecessary for nouns indigenously ending in -a and -u :
-
-
- OK: Apia, maxima urbs et caput Samoae. . . .
- Not necessary: Apia (-ae, f. ; Samoane: Apia) maxima urbs et caput Samoae. . . .
-
V. Redirects. Where the Latin nominative has changed the indigenous spelling, a separate page with a redirect may be wanted as an aid to readers; for example, the term Nadi may want a redirect to the article Nandi.
VI. Extending to other languages. Most of these principles can be extended to the non-Polynesian languages of the rest of the insular Pacific, especially Melanesia & Micronesia, but consonantal terminations occur there, and more examples & possibilities need to be considered before the rules can be made more general. IacobusAmor 22:32, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Responses
Wow, this is quite a piece of work, and overall quite usable. I would make the following comments:
- What should be the name of this system? It would be useful to say, e.g. "Egger gives X in contrary to the Jacobean Y" or wharver we're going to call this.
- II.C. Glottal stop might in some cases be represented by an optional <h>: compare Israhel, and perhaps even native words like mihi, nihil. (Of course in the latter class the <h> tends to turn into [k] in medieval pronunciation, which of course is à propos to the Polynesian glottal stop ;) )
- II.E. in fact k isn't ENTIRELY unused in Neo-Latin terms, but it definitely looks ugly to me. The problem is that the Italic pronunciation for Latin is still EXTREMELY common, which will result in a lot of unwanted c > ch changes. I'm not sure what we should do about this though. The usual solutions to this problem are:
- The Germanic solution: before a front vowel [k] is written with <k>. This has the obvious problem that k was virtually never used in Classical Latin at all, and it is quite jarring to see. Another problem with this system is what to do with [g] (Germans pronounce it [g] no matter what).
- The Western Romance solution: before a front vowel [k] is written <qu> and [g] <gu>. Problem: this causes havoc for speakers who use ANY of the major pronunciations still in use, turning velars into labiovelars.
- The Italic solution: before a front vowel [k] is written <ch>. The main problem with this is that, I assume, Polynesian /k/ is not aspirated. But if there is any leeway there, this might be the best way to go. Of course, another problem with this system is that [g] becomes <gh>, which is even less Latin than <k>!
- By the way, it might be hypocritical to get too worried about this, when we already have Italians going around pronouncing the most important Latinized Polynesian word there is as VEE-chee ;)
- III.A. don't forget that while the names of countries and regions can be any gender, Latin regularly considers mountains and rivers masculine. There may be other geographical gender rules that could be of concern as well.
- III.B.2. nominative -e for non neuters is more than a little odd.
- III.B.4 actually, I think Cairus is more common, not that that's relevant. Another good example is Tochium (variously spelled): in the Jesuit system, Japanese nouns in -o or -ou regularly become second declention (of course, so did -u and sometimes -i).
- III.B.5 the problem is that neuter fourth declention nouns are extremely rare even in native words. Furthermore, in Classical Latin all proper nouns fall under the first three declentions (if you can find an exception, let me know. I am not including the Archaic Latinization of Greek names into the fourth declention: that pretty much disappeared early on).
- I would like to make allowances for previously attested Latizations to overrule (at least optionally) the systematic one. You know I'm all about attestations.
--Iustinus 23:10, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I worry that this is the same color as "original research" (i.e. inventing/creating things for the encyclopedia rather than collecting them from external sources). The primary purpose of this very page (VP:TNP) is to recommend to people that most of the time it's better not to invent Latin names if there aren't any. As for the argument that indeclinables are grammatically opaque, this is solvable by using ordinary nouns (e.g. cum systemate wiki) or pronouns when the word's grammatical role is not immediately obvious.
- The only reference I see to using gg for /ŋɡ/ in Allen is the Grecizing suggestion of the pre-classical poet Accius (who also advocated things like spelling long vowels with double letters) — I'm not sure this is commendable.
- I agree about nominative non-neuter -e. Especially since the Latins didn't have any trouble with nominative -es, having it in three entirely separate declensions (Anchises, -ae; feles, -is; dies, -ei...).
- C is fine, I'm sure. If the Italians and their ilk don't care that the Romans themselves pronounced /k/ where they have a softer sound, why would the /k/ of other peoples be any more worth preserving? ;p (This is a similar but somewhat more flippant restatement of the principle I'm using in the general guidelines I am putting together [for non-wiki use, that is].) And of course if they really want to nothing keeps them from pronouncing the /k/, as the English have recently learned to do with the Celtae. —Myces Tiberinus 01:43, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks, Myces; I'll try to get to your comments later. (Yes, I've read the bit about "original research." Having published my own dead-tree encyclopedia—hey, it weighs more than six pounds, and in the U.K. can cost as much as a hundred seventy-five—I've had the experience of thinking practically about what an encyclopedia is and can be.) For now:
- Thanks, Iustine, for your attentive responses. How should we proceed? I intended the original to be a "working document": should I amend it as we go? Eventually, the idea would be to move a more final version over to the regular page, but it needs more tweaking before that happens. Yes, I'm all about attestations too—except remember that Egger & Company didn't have a clue as to how their versions would look to Polynesian-speakers, so when they themselves are the only attested evidence, one rightly worries. Responses:
- I don't give two hoots what you call this "system." (And it's not finished yet.) Does it need a name?
- II.C. Since indigenous writers almost always leave a sign for the glottal stop out (indeed, only in the last few decades have linguists reliably established where all instances of it should go), there's ample attestation for ignoring it. Also, we'd get into trouble by marking it as "h" in languages that already have an "h." Hawaiian ho'ohu'ihu'i, for example, would become hohohuhihuhi, and that looks really odd; a form like hoohuihui should be much more easily comprehensible to Polynesians.
- II.E. Hmm. I hadn't thought about those unwanted c > ch changes. I'd say anything the orthography can do to head them off would be welcome! One shudders at the possibility of "VEE-chee" from our vici in reflection of Hawaiian wiki ! If only we (or rather, you all, before my time) had gone for Vikipaedia, I'd say make them all k, every last one of them. Adding an h sometimes (but not all times) would complicate the system, and I'd hate to advocate it. ¶ Now that I think of it, I inadvertently today created the article Makemake with a k. That's the unchanged Rapanui spelling. Does it really look so bad? If we stick with c, it should become Macemace, a form that looks strange to people familiar with the concept. ¶ Incidentally, if you compare this article with its analogue at en:, you'll see that the Latin one is better. It has the advantage of not saying en:'s last sentence, for which there's no substantial ethnographic weight; indeed, the evidence (for which Métraux cites many sources) is heavily against it.
- III.A. I know about those masculine mountains, but until anno 79, the two most famous mountains were feminine: Aetna & Olympia. And so are the biggest mountains, the Alpes. The Polynesian word for 'mountain'—mauna and maunga and mauga— itself looks feminine. Here's a fair sampling of Samoan mountains, peaks, hills, and such. Does anybody see a gender-related pattern? Incidentally, this is a good sample to challenge any system of translinguification. See how you'd Latinize each of them and what problems their shapes pose (the g here is /ŋ/ = Latin ng):
- Afolau, Afutina, ‘Alao (mythologically masculine), ‘Alava, Anaota, Fa‘ani, Fao, Fiso, Fito, Fuiavea, Lalomauga, Lanomoa, Lanutata, Lanuto‘o, Lataiuta, Latauta, Lauti, Leafafa‘alava, Lepu‘e, Mafane, Malata, Mata‘aga, Mānu, Matafao, Matavanu, Maugaafi, Maugaiolo, Maugaloa, Maugamua, Maugasā, Maugasilisili, Misimala, Mulimauga, Olemaga, ‘Olomaine, ‘Olomoana, ‘Olosa‘a, ‘Olotele, Palapala, Penafu, Pioa, Piua, Piumafua, Pu‘e, Puga, Siga‘ele, Silisili, Siope, Si‘usi‘uga, Tafatafao, Tafua, Talito‘elau, Taumata, Te‘elagi, Tofua, To‘iavea, Tumu, Va‘aifetū, Vaea (mythologically masculine), Vailele.
- (Surely you mean Olympus ?) —Myces Tiberinus 11:16, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, of course. I was thinking of Olympia, -ae, f., defined in my dictionary as 'Olympia; a sacred region in Elis Pisatis, with an olive-wood, where the Olympian games were held; here, too, were the famous temple and statue of Jupiter Olympius'. Maybe that comes under the rubric of "it's countryside, hence feminine." But gender is linguistically unmarked in Polynesia (pronouns, for example, don't make he-she-it distinctions), and imposing ancient Roman ideas about it on Modern Worldwide Latin (tm) could be an exercise in unnecessary tinkering, not to mention cultural arrogance. ¶ As for your earlier comments, I like the reminder about nominatives in -es and shall post an updated set of rules using it. Discussion of "original research" belongs in its own thread; if one already exists in Vicipaedia, maybe we should go there. IacobusAmor 14:26, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- (Surely you mean Olympus ?) —Myces Tiberinus 11:16, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Afolau, Afutina, ‘Alao (mythologically masculine), ‘Alava, Anaota, Fa‘ani, Fao, Fiso, Fito, Fuiavea, Lalomauga, Lanomoa, Lanutata, Lanuto‘o, Lataiuta, Latauta, Lauti, Leafafa‘alava, Lepu‘e, Mafane, Malata, Mata‘aga, Mānu, Matafao, Matavanu, Maugaafi, Maugaiolo, Maugaloa, Maugamua, Maugasā, Maugasilisili, Misimala, Mulimauga, Olemaga, ‘Olomaine, ‘Olomoana, ‘Olosa‘a, ‘Olotele, Palapala, Penafu, Pioa, Piua, Piumafua, Pu‘e, Puga, Siga‘ele, Silisili, Siope, Si‘usi‘uga, Tafatafao, Tafua, Talito‘elau, Taumata, Te‘elagi, Tofua, To‘iavea, Tumu, Va‘aifetū, Vaea (mythologically masculine), Vailele.
- III.B.2. I know, I know: nonneuters ending in e look odd, but they may look acceptable from the Pacific. Check out Makemake again. If you try to wedge him into the o-declension, you obliterate the reduplication if you trim the final vowel with Makemakus, -i : accordingly, you'd want to keep it, and the result would have to be Makemakeus, -i. Reduplications are semantically essential and should be kept in any system of translinguification. Polynesian and other Austronesian languages abound in reduplicated words, to an extent that native Latin (and Greek, for that matter) speakers might find surprising. And partial & full reduplication can convey meaning, as in Samoan nofo 'sit (sing.)', nonofo 'sit (pl.)', nofonofo 'sit a while, lounge around'. Latin has the partial kind in the perfect stem of verbs, but it's rare: in Polynesian languages, both kinds of reduplication occur—in verbs, nouns, adverbs, and adjectives, and often!
- III.B.4. Yes, putting o-ending nouns into the "o-declension" (the second) is something of a no-brainer. It would be a pity, though, if this process were to obliterate reduplications (see the comment on III.B.2.).
- III.B.5. This whole gender-of-placenames thing is a problem—perhaps in any non-Indo-European language. In Latin, mountains & rivers tend to be masculine, and cities & countries tend to be feminine (with plants & trees). But maybe that's just an Italic or Mediterranean bias, which needs to bend a little when it meets the rest of the world. Latin doesn't belong only to Europeans anymore. The goal of translinguification, I think, is simplicity & transparency. The ability to reconstruct original forms from Latin declined forms would be a bonus. The alternative is universally to make Polynesian nouns indeclinable, but that's inadvisable in view of declined forms already attested and out there. IacobusAmor 02:44, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
-
[recensere] Rules for Converting Polynesian Terms to Latin, update 1
Here's an update, with rationales removed so the rules stand bare. The purpose remains simplicity, transparency, and potential reconstruction of the original. For example, by these rules, Latin Tanes would correctly reconstruct as Polynesian Tane, and Tanus would reconstruct as Tano ; similarly, Latin Nonus would correctly reconstruct as Polynesian Nono, and Nonius would reconstruct as Noni. (Of course confusion between the first & second declensions is inevitable in the dative & ablative plural.) An unsolved problem: Polynesian words ending in -i‘i, whose Latin genitive singular could regularly end in -iii, a fearsome string; maybe that's where Iustinus's h could come into play (-ihii), or a sign for the glottal could—uniquely—be retained (-i‘ii).
- I. Phonetics. Most letters are retained as in their original orthographies.
- A. Vowels are five, pronounced approximately as in Latin.
- 1. Polynesian a = Latin a, Polynesian e = Latin e, Polynesian i = Latin i, Polynesian o = Latin o, and Polynesian u = Latin u.
- 2. Polynesian long vowels are not marked, except in a record of an original form (as in the article Nafanua).
- B. Consonants equivalent or quasi-equivalent to Latin ones are b, d, f, h, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v. Likewise the seemingly consonantal u (as in Samoan ui‘i 'runt').
- C. Problematic consonants.
- b: used in Fijian for /mb/; hence = Latin mb.
- c: used in Fijian for /þ/; hence = Latin th.
- d: used in Fijian for /nd/; hence = Latin nd.
- g: when representing the phonemic /g/ = Latin g.
- g: when representing the phonemic /ŋ/ = Latin ng.
- k: always pronounced /k/; hence = Latin c.
- ng: when representing the phonemic /ŋ/ = Latin ng.
- q: when representing (in Fijian only) /ŋg/ = Latin gg.
- w: except where attested (as in species epithets) = Latin v.
- y: when used like the Latin consonantal i = Latin i.
- ʔ: glottal stop (often orthographically ‘) = nil (ignored in Latin).
- D. Generally unused consonants of the modern Roman alphabet: j, x, z.
- A. Vowels are five, pronounced approximately as in Latin.
- II. Declinability. Polynesian nouns, though indeclinable in Polynesian, are declined in Latin. Exception: one-letter terms (A, E, I, O, U) are indeclinable.
- III. Gender & declension. The gender & declension of Polynesia nouns in Latin depends in part on their final vowel.
- A. Gender.
- 1. Places & objects. The default gender is feminine in the first declension and neuter elsewhere unless otherwise indicated. Semantics may overrule the default.
- 2. Persons. The gender matches the sex of the referent.
- B. Termination.
- 1. Ending in A. Unchanged in the nominative. Declension 1.
- 2. Ending in E. Add -s in the nominative singular. Declension 3, declined like mixed i-stems (e.g., Latin nubes).
- 3. Ending in I.
- a. Places & objects. Add -um in the nominative singular; the word is unchanged in the nominative when plural. Declension 2.
- b. Persons. Add -us in the nominative singular. Declension 2.
- 4. Ending in O.
- a. Places & objects. Cut the o and add -um in the nominative singular. Declension 2.
- b. Persons. Cut the o and add -us. Declension 2.
- 5. Ending in U. Unchanged in the nominative singular. Declension 4.
- A. Gender.
- IV. The beginnings of articles. Because of regularities in conversion, indications of declension & gender are often unnecessary, but they may be given. Indications of macrons & glottal stops in the original should be given. There's a distinction between Havaii (the archipelago & state) and Havaiium (the island). Examples:
-
-
- Apia, maxima urbs et caput Samoae. . . .
- Nafanua (Samoane: Nāfanua), dea . . . .
- Tanes (Tahitiane: Tāne ; Havaiane: Kāne), deus. . . .
- Havaiium (Havaiane: Hawai‘i), insula (est). . . .
- Havaii (Havaiane: Hawai‘i), insulae (sunt). . . .
- ticium, statua. . . . ~ ticium (-i, n. ; Tahitiane: tiki), statua. . . .
- Falealupum, vicus. . . ~ Falealupum (-i, n. ; Samoane: Falealupo), vicus. . . .
- Lonus, deus. . . . ~ Lonus (-i, m. ; Havaiane: Lono), deus. . . .
- Tau, vicus in Manuis insulis. . . . ~ Tau (Samoane: Ta‘ū), vicus in Manuis insulis. . . .
-
-
[recensere] Fanum Sancti X
Among modern Latinists, the usual method of rendering cities whose names mean "St. X" (where St. i sthe local word for "saint" and X is some anthroponym) seems to be X-polis. Yes, this is stupid, and yes it is much uglier than Fanum Sancti X, but it is pretty ubiquitous. Egger is firmly commited to that method as well (though when I find that reverse index I should check if he lists any in the Fanum form). It seems to me that we are going to, at the very least, surprise a lot of people if we don't follow that naming scheme.
Sometimes I could swear that if the town of Ἀθῆναι did not already have a well known Latin name, Latin speakers would insist on calling it Minervopolis. --Iustinus 09:48, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Google gives 100 "Fanum Sancti" (exact word order). --Alex1011 13:35, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't we accepting Sanctiacobi ? And Angelopolis must be an exception, because there isn't any "St. Angel." IacobusAmor 13:44, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Googling is a good idea, but 100 hits isn't really all that much. NOte how many hits there are for Jacobopolis. There are even more for Paulopolis, but I suspect something else is going on there. --Iustinus 18:42, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- OH, and are we accepting Sanctiacobi? Sounds pretty awful to me. --Iustinus 18:46, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- We have a substantial article with that title! IacobusAmor 19:51, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but we have lots of substantial articles with bad titles ;) --Iustinus 19:53, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- We have a substantial article with that title! IacobusAmor 19:51, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- You can add another six google hits for "Fanum Sanctae". --Alex1011 22:50, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't we accepting Sanctiacobi ? And Angelopolis must be an exception, because there isn't any "St. Angel." IacobusAmor 13:44, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Naming policy question at Disputatio:Octavius Mirbeau
Those of you who are interested in questions of naming policy, please come contribute to the discussion at Disputatio:Octavius Mirbeau. Most of it is in French, but if you don't know French there shoudl be enough Latin and English for you to figure it out. The basic issue is this: many authors have adjectival forms based on hypothetical Latinizations of their names, e.g. Shaw > Shavian, Giraudoux > Giralducian. Should these count as attestations of a Latin name in themselves, or not? --Iustinus 18:33, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Recent naming policy issues
[recensere] Latinate names
Many European names, especially in Finland, Scandinavia, and sometimes the other Germanic areas are already Latinate in form. Should we treat these as declinable?
- My opinion: For names that end in -us, definitely. I know I saw at least one locus where Svante Arrhenius declined his name. For other names, it is less clear cut. I'm told, for instance, that there are still some Germans with the surname Pistor. My feeling for non -us names is that we should decline them if they are obviously Latin, but not if it's uncertain. Note that these comments apply especially to names after 1800 or so. Before that, obviously if a name looks Latin, it probably is. --Iustinus 05:48, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Are names inheritable
If we know the Latin name of one family member, can we assume it for others?
- My opinion: definitely in the case of noble families, e.g. Medices, Stuartus. Less certainly otherwise: note the usual example of Ioannes Dominicus Cassinus vs. Iacobus Cassini. It might perhaps be appropriate in some cases if the two lived close to the same time, and not around the 18-19th century when the naming practice was really changing. In general it does seem dangerous, and will definitely require a footnote if we allow it. --Iustinus 05:48, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Patronymics
Should patronymics be translated, or treated as surnames?
- My opinon: when patronymics are true patronymics, they should definitely be translated, e.g. Leivus Erici filius. When they are simply inherited surnames, they should be treated as such: not translated without an attestation, e.g. bin Ladin, Johnson etc. --Iustinus 05:48, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed on this. In the case of Sanchez - which is why I'm here in the first place - following the logic of the proposed rule, this would appear to be as Iustinus says "inherited". If his father's name was Sancius (or whatever the Spanish is, Santo?) then sure, 'Sancii filius. Nisi, let's go with Sanchez.--Ioshus (disp) 20:40, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- The Spanish is Sancho. -ez is a residual pre-indoeuropean suffix (probably Basque, but nobody really knows) of the genitive, which was assimilated under the Visigothic kingdom as son: e.g. Sanchez=son of Sancho. In the middle ages, the patronimic changed every generation, and surnames did not get fixed until the XV c. Hence, in the cas of our discussion the surname should remain Sánchez, whereas in the Reges Aragoniae, for example, patronimics should be kept. Is that all right then? --Xaverius 00:51, 17 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note for future reference: the page in which "Sanchez" was under discussion was Disputatio:Gonzalus Sánchez de Lozada.
- As for the suffix -ez, I have usually heard it attributed to a generalization either of the Latin 3rd declention -is genitive ending, or of the Gothic o>a-stem and i-stem genitive endings, likewise -is. --Iustinus 01:58, 17 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- The Spanish is Sancho. -ez is a residual pre-indoeuropean suffix (probably Basque, but nobody really knows) of the genitive, which was assimilated under the Visigothic kingdom as son: e.g. Sanchez=son of Sancho. In the middle ages, the patronimic changed every generation, and surnames did not get fixed until the XV c. Hence, in the cas of our discussion the surname should remain Sánchez, whereas in the Reges Aragoniae, for example, patronimics should be kept. Is that all right then? --Xaverius 00:51, 17 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Adjectives
Do vernacular adjectival forms that presuppose a hypothetical Latin form count as an attestation?
- Oy. Can of worms. See disputatio:Octavius Mirbeau for details. I do note though that there definitely seem to be degrees of reliance on Latin: some of these adjectives cannot possibly be derived without Latin in mind, whereas others are less obvious. --Iustinus
Similarly: if we have a solid attestation of a true Latin adjective, should we be allowed to guess the nominal form?
- This is tricky. My opinion would be that while it is on firmer ground than vernacular adjectives it should be done only as a last resort, with a footnote. --Iustinus 17:06, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Strictness
How strictly do we need to enforce this policy?
- The current debate at disputatio:Octavius Mirbeau is making me wonder how much energy we really want to put into this, especially in borderline cases. Perhaps in some cases we could just put up a template saying something like Controversum est de huius commentationis titulo. Vide disputationem (which would be useful in other cases too), or maybe Titulus huius commentationes cum praeceptis VP:TNP non conformat. Si attestationem affere potes, quaesumus ut eam addes (which is more specific, and open ended), and leave it at that. On the other hand, not doing anything at all in such cases, just invites new users to do the same. --Iustinus 05:48, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Another point, which I quote from Andrew Dalby, in the aforementioned debate: "I think Vicipaedia in real borderline cases should tilt approximately 1 degree in favour of the opinions of local experts (who write it, after all)." --Iustinus 17:55, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

