Disputatio:Gulielmus IV Regni Uniti Rex - Vicipaedia

# Disputatio:Gulielmus IV Regni Uniti Rex

### E Vicipaedia

In imagine "Guilielmus" nomiatur, quod mihi melius videtur pro "Gulielmo." Cur? "William" Anglice vocatur; et "gu-" est modum unum quo "w" appropinquamur Latine. upsilon haec non est (ut mihi videtur) vocalum; est pars consonantis "gu-" (cf. "equus" etc.) — sed ubi dein est vocalum primum nominis? Credo iotam necessariam esse. Paginam itaque mox movebo, nemine interim contradicente. Doops 20:05 iun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  Inspice quaeso s.v. "Gulielmus" ut plura discas. Haec re vera est quaestio involuta, nam solemus eam nominis figuram praeponere qua ipse homo et contemporarii eius usi sunt, sed quod attinet ad reges, multi varia scribere solent. Praeterea, cum alii Williams aliis temporibus florebant, aliae figurae in pretio erant! --Iustinus 01:17 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Heu. Index hic magnopere me delectat; sed dubito an ei toto credam. Vix duo tresve saecula sunt figurae firmae; nonne erant antea permutabiles? Sed varietas vere me delectat. Intellegisne autem quid dixi de vocalis consonantibusque? Sonantibus Anglicis, mihi videtur Gulielmus = "goo-li-el-mus"; Guilielmus = "gwil-i-el-mus." Doops 03:38 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[Edit: Intellego nunc de quo disputetis. Remanent vera haec:] The classical Latin g did not sound entirely like the modern g; instead, it sounded somewhat like the Greek gamma--in IPA, the velar fricative ɣ or velar approximant ɰ. To English speakers, the sound is a cross between g, w, y(i). In a sense, some of your I is already there. Whether it was explicitly written was left up to individual authors.

The sound w is a double (labial + velar) approximant, so it is very similar to ɰ. Therefore, it does make sense that William came from G.

The u that follows a g is not necessarily part of the consonant. Consider gubernator.

Finally, keep in mind that vowel-ness is somewhat of a continuum: Plosive --> Affricate --> Fricative --> Approximant --> Vowel

  Sorry, I gotta break into English too — this is getting too involved for my Latin! Point taken about the consonant/vowel continuum. (But surely that's mostly an understanding of modern linguists — wouldn't the ancients have drawn a neater line in the sand?) Anyway, of course I understand that Latin can have a "gu" syllable as in gubernator; what I was trying to suggest was that this doesn't seem to me like a very good approximation of the English "w" (or German "w" for that matter). Just as "qu" stands for kw, it seems logical that "gu" could stand for gw, which sounds a lot more like a "w" — but in that case we'd want another vowell to make a real syllable (cf. equus).

  Is the Greek gamma you're referring to anything like the modern Greek gamma that we hear from Gyro sellers? 'coz to my ears, that sounds a little like a "g," a little like a "y," and a little like the "ch" in Loch or Bach — but not much at all like the "W" of William or Wilhelm. Doops 07:21 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    The Modern Greek γ is a voiced velar fricative, the sound often transliterated "gh", especially in words of Arabic origin. It sounds like a cross between the English g, and the German or Hebrew ch. Now, the word γύρος is another matter entirely, because before a "front vowel" (i.e. anything pronounced as [i] or [e], and υ = [i] in Modern Greek) it comes out as a cross between that "gh" sound, and a "y" sound, more-or-less as you say.
    But I have never heard anyone suggest this sound for Classical Latin. For LATE Latin, voiced stops are supposed to have been lenited between vowels, so g may have turned into a gh between vowels. But this does not really in and of itself explain [w] being transliterated as gu. But gu is certainly a common strategy for writing that sound. Modern Greek does it too! E.g. Γουισκόνσιν for Wisconsin.
    Now, yes, it goes without saying that in Latin versions of William the gu is meant to represent the [w]. Of course it is. So from that standpoint Gui- IS a more logical spelling. But Logic isn't the only criterion! Gulielmus was an extremely common spelling. If you google some of the more common spellings you get the following figures:
      Guilielmus: ≈29,300 hits.
      Gulielmus: ≈17,500 hits.
      Guillelmus: ≈14,200 hits.
      Guilelmus: ≈8,810 hits
      Guilhelmus: ≈3,840 hits
    As you can see, Gulielmus makes a pretty damn respectable showing! If you think about it, this form is presumably behind the Modern Italian form of the name, Guglielmo. (Similarly, I once did a typing job for a Greek American Lawyer, who wanted me to type up a legal document he had written and wanted to send to Greece. He consistantly misspelled "Wisconsin" as Γουσκόνσιν! So this phenomenon is not limited to Latin transcriptions of "William.")
    Now, you expressed some concern that I am assuming too much consistancy. Well, my experience does seem to be that there is quite a bit of it. Authors named William generally had a preferred Latin form that they used in all their writings. Later writers quoting them usually (but not always) respected that. It seems to me that this is a convention worth respecting.
    Now, as I said above, the situation is quite a bit more complicated when it comes to monarchs, because so many people write about them it's impossible to expect any consistency. Furthermore, because they lived in different eras, and different spellings were in vogue at different times (especially when it comes to transcribing [w], note, e.g., the discussion of how to spell "Washington" here), different Williams will have spelled their names differently. Yet, since we are numbering them, we will presumably want to pick a consistant form.
    Barring some sort of official-ish sorce from the UK, I guess the best method would be consensus, as is usually the case on a Wiki. Myself I am for keeping the form of the name as it is, for two reasons:
    1. The original author picked this name. It is a valid form of the name, so there is no reason to change it. Wikis normally don't force language changes like this arbitrarily.
    2. Gulielmus happens to be my favorite spelling of this name ;)
    --Iustinus 16:52 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

      I agree, the Latin form we use doesn't have to sound 'most like' the English form anyway: we use 'Iacobus' and not 'Iacomus' for King James, after all. —Myces Tiberinus 17:26 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all your thoughtful commentary. I definitely feel better educated now! But I do think we should look for an "official-ish" source from the UK; Latin was certainly once used for a great many official and semi-official purposes — surely we can find some evidence of what the king's own secretaries used. And now, once again, I return triumphantly to the image on the page: how is the king's statue inscribed? :) Doops 21:07 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  On the other hand, here is some evidence supporting "Gulielmus": [1]. May I ask, by the way, why it's your favorite? Doops 22:39 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. In re g, debui dixisse non "classicus," sed "postclassicus"/"vulgaris." Talis est locutio familiarissima medaevalibus.

Receptum de "http://la.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/l/Disputatio%7EGulielmus_IV_Regni_Uniti_Rex_b260.html"

##### Views

- Res
- Disputatio
- Emendatio recentissima

##### Quaerere