Disputatio:Linguae Escimaeo-Aleut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Morgan has Escimaicus for Eskimo as an adjective. Thus this should be Linguae Escimaicae-Aleut? Harrissimo 17:10, 7 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As you'll see on the page, I have suggested Linguae Escimaicae for the Eskimo subfamily (I seem to remember discussions on this word before ...). For the compound term, however, I was hoping that something shorter would be acceptable (on the lines of Indo-Europaeae as opposed to Indicae-Europaeae). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:05, 7 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I didn't think of it like that before. Maybe it should be Escimaeo-Aleut? Or is that a little OTT - I don't mind either way. Harrissimo 18:29, 7 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I could go with that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 7 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that this -sci- is going to tempt (nay, require) folks at the Vatican to pronounce Esci- as [eʃi]. The use of a K would prevent this horror. IacobusAmor 19:27, 7 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters, we could shift to Egger's esquimensis (but that only works as a noun). Anyway, the catholics can have their 'k' when they get their own wikipaedia ;) Harrissimo 18:17, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]
They don't want a K, and it's our C that they're going to mangle! IacobusAmor 18:20, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say is that maybe we don't need to adjust for the modern branch in this classical encyclopedia. Harrissimo 18:27, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Iacobe, I think possibly you and I have discussed this kind of issue before. My feeling is, we won't know how users pronounce their Latin. We are working in (virtual) writing, and whether they then obey classical Latin pronunciation rules is their problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have differing views of a writer's relationship to readers: in my view, a writer's job is to force readers to hear (and hence pronounce) texts exactly the way the writer wants them to; many rhythmic turns can be guided by punctuation (and woe unto them that alter mine!)—but otherwise, the only arrows in our quiver are the bare letters of the alphabet. IacobusAmor 22:28, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you in spirit -- yes, I want people to hear the stuff I write -- but, I notice, your formulation means that every writer before the last generation, and certainly every writer of classical and medieval Latin, has failed to do his/her job. We do not hear and pronounce exactly they way they wanted us to. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 12 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]