Disputatio:Soa

The Latin word that should be used is "Holocaustus". Shoa is not Latin, as Latin does not have the "sh".

I agree. It would be different if this covered specifically the Hebraic term, which is prefered by many Jews (but not myself), and thus has some interesting background in itself. But judging by the interwiki, this is meant to be the main article on the Holocaust, and it clearly makes more sense to use the Graecanic word for that. It is true that Latin has no sh. If the Romans had transcribed this word in antiquity, they would have written it soa, with a long o. --Iustinus 06:18, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too (with 2 minor amendments).

It may possibly remain useful to have a brief article under this title on Vicipaedia (rather than a redirect), since the naming of the event does itself arouse controversy.
I think the main article should be Holocaustum. That's the noun form that I find in Souter, Later Latin dictionary. But maybe there are other authorities. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's more-or-less what I was trying to say.
Looking into it, I see that you're right. I could have sworn it was masculine.

--Iustinus

Haec certe, si quod scriptum est, bene consideratis, non est pagina de strage Iudaeorum comprehensiva, sed stipula mera, qua explicare conatus sum, quid illa shoae vox sibi velit. Nexus intervicianos qui addidit hanc paginam excolere voluisse videtur, sed adhuc nihil profecit. Tamen mea quidem sententia shoae vox cum propria tum aptior est ad hoc facinus inauditum designandum quam illa holocausti metaphora. Praeterea auctoritas mihi et vicipaediae Hebraicae et fundi Soatici a Stephano Ludimontio conditi respicienda esse videtur. His rebus adductus Iustini monitis respectis verbo Hebraico conservato paginam ab inscriptione Anglico more translitterata Shoa ad inscriptionem Latino more translitteratam Soa movere hortor.--Irenaeus 12:02, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caustus comes from the Greek "kaustos", which means "burnt"- a past particle form. Therefore, the noun in Latin should end in -us and be in the fourth declension- holocaustus, holocaustus. That's my opinion -Kedemus 07:08, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Jewish myself and do prefer "Holocaust" over "Shoah" when not speaking in Hebrew. We do not need to use the term in one language when speaking in all other languages. But I think it would be a good idea to list "Shoa" as another name for the Holocaust in this article -Kedemus 07:11, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to respell Shoa as Soa. IacobusAmor 13:45, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a past particle, Kedeme, assuming you mean participle? If it is a 1st/2nd declension adjective in Greek, then it's substantive form in Latin would certainly not be a 4th declension, not sure where you got that idea. We all know the etymology, don't worry, but it still doesn't support the idea of a 4th declension noun. Therefore we have a choice about Holocaustus, Holocaustum, Holocausta, the 2nd of those two making 1) the most logical sense, 2) having the most supported attestations, currently. Holocaustum looks like the guy.--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:42, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo. I did mean past participle. If 4th declension doesn't make sense, then we should use "holocaustum". -Kedemus 07:09, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd decl. Holocaustus is an adjective "having been burnt up completely". 4th decl. Holocaustu- would be a noun "the act of burning (something) up completely", if caus- = "to burn" could be accepted as a Latin verb root. I prefer the 2nd decl. form. Anthony Appleyard 18:56, 28 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, setting aside for the moment the question of "Holocaust" vs. "Shoah", if we are going with "Holocaust," as I believe we should, the word simply is holocaustum. It is true that Latin forms many abstract nouns as if by putting a perfect passive participle into the fourth declension. But this is not a Latin participle, I mean the word is pure Greek for starters. Furthermore, the word is attested as a noun in the Latin of the Romans. Even if we could blithely create a fourth-declension variant of this word, there really is no need. --Iustinus 21:09, 29 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Una die ii cum multis ad Auschwitz locum exterminationis in Poloniae meridionale. Est tristissimus locus. Anthony Appleyard 19:00, 28 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]