Well, you're the go-to guy for formulas. ;) ¶ Btw, in case you missed the discussion, Neander alibi nobis dixit usitatum amnium nomen esse fluvium, non flumen.IacobusAmor14:10, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect, if Neander really said it, he will have had good reason, and I shall probably eat my words; but I can't eat C. T. Lewis et C. Short (1879). A Latin Dictionary. Oxoniae: Oxford University Press, who say: "fluvius: ... class[ical], but much less frequent than flumen; not in Caes[ar], who employs flumen several hundred times".
A quick and possibly imperfect search of Cicero suggests he uses "flumen" about 6 times more often than "fluvius". Pliny in book 3 (geography) uses "flumen" in apposition to river names far more often than the two alternatives. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I was remembering was that Neander said fluvius is "the general geographical term." He said it back on 27 March, in a passage (archived in Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 16) that might be worth copying here: <<According to Hermann Menge, Lateinische Synonymik § 245, fluvius is the general geographical term for 'river' as opposed to other geographical terms such as mare, lacus, rivus, mons, etc. In classical Latin, it lacks any connotation with flowing, and so *adverso fluvio would be an incorrect expression; neither is fluvius used figuratively. Flumen denotes 'a flowing (of) water'. So, flumen is 'stream, flood'; therefore, adverso flumine is all right. Flumen is also used figuratively: orationis flumen 'fluency of speech'. Amnis denotes 'river' and connotes some impressive feature connected with it, e.g. breadth, depth, navigability, or so.>> IacobusAmor15:16, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That doesn't then affect our usage in apposition to river names, I guess. We have preferred flumen and that seems to be what Caesar, Cicero and Pliny also prefer.
Ah, no, this will be interesting. In apposition (as we usually use the word "flumen" in titles) Cicero sits on the fence. 9 times fluvius, 9 times flumen, if I am counting correctly. For Caesar and Pliny there's no doubt: flumen wins hand over fist, by dozens or hundreds. So what do we do? I stick with "flumen" ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:34, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, flipping through Caesar's pages shows that he typically mentions rivers as flumina, but sometimes he gives just their proper name ("Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt," etc.). For that reason, this article might have been named Potomacus (fluvius).IacobusAmor16:15, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very nice, I think that does it. If indeed the (fluvius) is necessary. I think you're quite right that as a bracketed explanatory term "fluvius" should be our choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:05, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Native English-speakers in the area almost always speak of "the Potomac," and hardly ever of "the Potomac River." In appropriate local contexts, the determiner the distinguishes the river from the (Maryland) town, which would ordinarily be "Potomac." Latin, of course, can't thus distinguish between the town ("Potomac") and the river ("the Potomac") ¶ Whether fluvius is necessary may depend on Vicipaedia's policy on disambiguation pages. One might think that the most prominent (the most likely to be searched for?) concept will get the plain, unadorned, parenthesisless form, and other concepts will have to make do with what's left over. English, however, disambiguates among:
The Potomac River
The Potomac Highlands of West Virginia
Potomac, Maryland
Potomac Park, Maryland
Potomac Airfield
Potomac, Virginia
Potomac, Illinois
Potomac College
1345 Potomac
USS Potomac
Potomac, A Patapsco Class tug built for Vane Brothers Company
Potomac Horse Fever
Patawomeck (or Potomac), the tribe
Potomac (currency)
Wikipedia eliminates many parentheses by using the form "Potomac, Maryland," where (IIRC) Vicipaedia would prefer "Potomacus (Terra Mariae)." IacobusAmor17:51, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something from Isidore, who has a large section devoted to rivers in Liber XIII.21:
De fluminibus. Fluvius est perennis aquarum decursus, a fluendo perpetim dictus. Proprie autem flumen ipsa aqua, fluvius cursus aquae. Prius autem flumen quam fluvius, id est prior aqua quam decursus.
On rivers. A river (fluvius) is an unceasing flow of water, named from perpetually flowing (fluere). Strictly speaking, flumen is the water itself, while fluvius is the channel of the water. The word flumen is earlier than fluvius, that is, water comes before its flow”
So I think really when we talk about a particular river, we're talking about the geographic feature which Neander, agreeing with Isidore, say is a fluvius. --Robert.Baruch17:19, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As I see it, if a term is wanted in apposition to the name, the preferred classical word is flumen. If in text you are discussing this feature of the landscape, the preferred classical word is fluvius. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. I thought Isidore was saying the following: If I want to say "I'm fishing in the Potomac River", I would say "In flumine Potomaco piscor" because I'm fishing in the water, not in the geographic channel. But if I want to say, "I live along the Potomac River", I should say "Apud fluvium Potomacum incolo" because I don't live next to the water (which is constantly moving), but next to the geographic feature. --Robert.Baruch19:07, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I'm reading the difference too (except for the apud, which worries me in these contexts, as Cassell's says it's used chiefly of persons). IacobusAmor21:16, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ And so if we want to title this article, it should be either Potomacus (fluvius) or Fluvius Potomacus. As for what the locals call it... how is it called across the country? the world? Until that is settled, I'd go with Fluvius Potomacus. --Robert.Baruch19:07, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the name of this river, I'll leave it to those who live nearer to its banks! (As to English, I believe Iacobus is right that most English speakers -- even those who live nearer to me -- would call it "the Potomac", without any word in apposition. Similarly "the Thames". To say "the River Thames" would be quite unusual.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the general question (what word to use in apposition), I asked Neander if he wanted to comment: see his response at Disputatio Usoris:Neander.
Isidore and Menge, both estimable authorities in their very different ways, don't help (I think) because they aren't addressing this point. I haven't yet found any secondary source that does. Among the primary sources, I have to agree with Neander, personal preferences are involved.
I've just come across Conradus Gesnerus's dictionary of Latin proper names, which may be handy sometimes. Like Isidore, he always (or nearly always) uses fluvius. (Textus apud Google Books).
And see my comment at Disputatio:Amazonum flumen! It is more difficult to do a census of Hofmann, but "Fluv." is the word he chooses there [and nearly always, I think].
Currently my impression is that, when one of these words is wanted in apposition, flumen is the older choice (as indeed Isidore thought!), as evidenced by Caesar whose Latin is just a touch ante-classical; that a preference grew for fluvius, of which Cicero gives early signs and Hofmann some of the last signs; and that in scientific Latin, with Pliny as a long-ago precursor built on by Linnaeus, Humboldt and others, flumen has bounced back. Also that the scientists, again with Pliny as their long-ago precursor, prefer to append the descriptive word "flumen", while many others prefer to prefix it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A pillbug, or an Armadillidium vulgare? To you and me, the former, but to an encyclopaedia, the latter (though listing the former). Oh, if that's the case, then we should probably be preferring the scientific designation as being more... scientific. Not necessarily because it's more modern, because we apparently prefer classical words over modern or common words, right? As an example, lots of people call this fun bug to the right a pillbug, but that doesn't mean that the article must be titled Pillbug. No, the article is Armadillidium vulgare, with possible redirects from the common names. So too we should use a scientific name for features, with possible redirects from more common names. So in your example above, while people say "the Thames", the article shouldn't be Tamesis but Fluvius Tamesis. At least, that's my take on the data dredged up from the deeps of this discussion! ¶ One drawback with this argument is that something like Bos would have to be moved to Bos taurus. Vulpes and Ovis already do that kind of thing, though, so maybe it's not a drawback? --Robert.Baruch17:09, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like your argument. I'm not pushing for a decision on the "river" question -- there may well be more discoveries to make before we fix our choice, see e.g. Amazonum flumen and discussion -- but in general, on names of things definable by science, I'm with you. I already make links to Bos taurus, and if the old Bos gets moved there I shan't mind at all.
It's a sow bug! As Wikipedia sez (footnotes cut): <<Names include: "armadillo bug", "cheeselog" (Reading, Berkshire), "cheesy bug" (North-West Kent), "doodlebug" (also used for the larva of an antlion), "pill bug" (usually applied only to the genus Armadillidium), "potato bug", "roly-poly", "sow bug", "roll up bug", "chuggypig" or "chucky pig", "slater",[10] "gramersow" (Cornwall), "butcher boy" or "butchy boy" (Australia), and "wood bug" (British Columbia, Canada).>> IacobusAmor18:42, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I call it "mustapallosiira" ('black-ball-isopod') as long as I can keep it in my mind. I learned it a couple of minutes ago. :–)Neander19:27, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
