Disputatio:Acco

De nomine

According to this, the succession of names in Latin seems to have been Ace, Ptolemais, Colonia Claudii Caesaris, Accho, Acon, ?Acre. The Vulgate actually seems to use Achcho, with two ch's. Hofmann to uses Acon, Acre, and Ptolemais, in a confusing web of entries; his longest entry, though, is at Ptolemais. Lewis and Short list Ace, Ptolemais and Ptolemaida. Ptolemais seems to be the most constant classical usage; quid dicitis de motione istuc? Lesgles (disputatio) 14:50, 1 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

I knew I didn't just make it up ... I have added some citations for Acco, Accon, and the adjective Acconensis. I think your first source (hadn't seen that book before) is bang on, except that it maybe should have spelt the Crusader name "Acco(n)" rather than "Acon". I haven't seen elsewhere that form with one c.

I'd say that as long as the article is brief and the focus medieval to modern, as it is now, there's not much reason to move it: it was maybe more significant in the 12th/13th century than before, Acco and Accon were usual forms then, and Acco corresponds closely with the modern Hebrew and Arabic names. On the other hand, "Ptolemais" was not forgotten (it's seen as an alternative in at least one of the sources I cited, and, as you say, in Hofmann) so you might argue for a move, yes! Do you feel like extending the article a bit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 1 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hofmann uses Acon, but I think for medieval and Renaissance writers these differences (one or two cc's, or ch, or n at the end, etc.) weren't seen as that significant. I wasn't planning to do much to the article now, so I think you're right about keeping it where it is. I noticed it because of Index urbium Israëliticarum, which opened up a bag of naming and transliteration worms. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:53, 2 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you do more work around this, and think it's best to move it, I wouldn't object! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 2 Februarii 2014 (UTC)