Disputatio:Superman

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Anglice, Super Vir = 'The Man Above', non? Fortasse Anglicum nomen Superman recte est Latini verbi Heros ('demigod') similius. IacobusAmor 14:23, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Vir is right out, but you know perfectly well that Heros won't really cut it either. Supervir as one word is a possibility (and I believe Henricus Barbatus used that in one of his books). No, it's not somethign a Roman would have said, but it's a viable translation of the English name. On the other hand, maybe the superhero names should mostly be handled like book titles: leave them in the vernacular with a parenthetical translation. Dunno. --Iustinus 14:31, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re " Heros won't really cut it either."—Well, I don't know about that: he perfectly fits Webster's definition of demigod ("a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god"), and Cassell's says that a demigod is a heros. IacobusAmor 22:10, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the name untranslated as well. I think the classicizing form would be Hyperanthropus though (or maybe that'd be for Übermensch?). —Mucius Tever 21:00, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer 'Superhomo,' which I think has a few classical attestations if you know where to look. I think 'Supervir' brings undue emphasis to the character's masculinity and would only be useful in contexts where there also exists a Superwoman ('Supermulier'). While we're on the subject, should we not also try to Latinize other relevant names? For example, I would render 'Krypton' as third-declension 'Cripto' with genitive form 'Criptonis.'

Hic "ego" supra, qui ut huius fabulosae personae nomen mutari censere audet, est usor ipse sine nomine, 216.45.240.86. IacobusAmor 11:35, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our rule is not to invent, and to cite sources when moving to a new name. So, if you want to suggest a move to Superhomo, the first step is to cite one or two of those attestations for which "you know where to look"!

Since Krypton is clearly a version or derivative of a Greek word, a Latin form of it would normally retain the y. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regula[fontem recensere]

In view of the above, and because I didn't like "Superus" much, I moved to "Superman". I am not sure if we need a rule about fictional proper names as page titles, but the question does arise sometimes. I would suggest that (a) if a Latin translation already exists then obviously we use it, e.g. "Harrius Potter"; (b) if they are "natural" names, we treat them as we would treat real names, e.g. "Arthurus Dent"; (c) if they are off the wall, we use the original form in the page title, e.g. "Superman". About "Ford Prefect", don't ask. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:14, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Latine[fontem recensere]

Salve. Lexicon meum Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok (editio secunda anni 2009) habet nomen Latinum, "Supérhomo" (Superhóminis, m). Mutemus nomen commentationis ad nomen Latinum?

Donatello (disputatio) 15:36, 5 Februarii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Salve Donatello. Melius ne mutemus. Lege supra. "Super" non significat eiundem (anglice on top, over? etc)Jondel (disputatio) 04:55, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligo. Gratias ago.

In novis notionibus quibus linguam Latinam antiquam mediaevalemque non habebant, omnia dicisti possint Latine. Quamquam "super" Anglice significat over, censeo fungat ut in "Supérhomo", "Super Marius" (Super Mario), et "superspatium (hyperspace)". De Graeca antiqua ΥΠΕΡ, hypér, quoque ut "super" significat. Sed de nomen "Supérhomo" et prior "Homo Super" (eum removebat verbi novi, sed claro iterum reponere possumus), cur "homo" nomine est contra alia "vir"?

Donatello (disputatio) 12:59, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC).[reply]