Disputatio:Antonius Čechov

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copied from Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Anton Chekhov[fontem recensere]

Antonius Čechov? Scilicet contra Antonius Cehov secundum regulam, v. Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis#Translitteratio.--Ceylon 10:45, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

De orthographia nominis[fontem recensere]

I am going to move the page from Antonius Chekhov. We don't know which system of romanisation is the best for Latin, but we know for sure which one is the worst: the English one.

For modern names, usually all romanisation variants are equally unsourced in Latin. That's why the romanisation chosen by the original author of given article usually stays, even if unsourced and wrong, because no sources help us to choose one of obviously better romanisations (here Cechov, Czechov, Tsechov, Tzechov, ...). Luckily, here we have a source for Antonius Tsechov. So, unless someone jumps in with another idea, I am going to move the article. --Gabriel Svoboda 10:47, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right that it needs to move, but I think we have been following a regular transliteration for Russian. Should we prefer that system? Maybe Alexander Gerashchenko will comment? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:51, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with the change, not least because it fits an established pattern: Latin wants to render the sound of [č] as ts (as in Tsechia). Now when is Chilia going to become Tsilia? and when is Chocolata going to become Tsocolata?! IacobusAmor 11:16, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, /č/ > ts is one of the good solutions, also Greek avoids using /č/, /š/, /ž/ this way (Αντόν Τσέχωφ). But maybe romanisation should be used only if we have no traditional Latin spelling. Chilia just reflects the original Spanish spelling, so it might be kept. In socolata, the sound rendered seems to be /š/ (from French chocolat /šokola/). --Gabriel Svoboda 12:17, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
The situation on Vicipaedia is rather a complete disaster than using a regular system:
Personally I'd prefer the en:scientific transliteration with diacritics kept, j's and k's kept (so as not to have the current double standard with many more than thirty letters available for Latin-alphabet names, but only 26 or even less for non-Latin-alphabet names), maybe with x changed to ch. Our current norm prefers ISO 9 without j and diacritics. But in the Vicipaedia practice, no norm is observed.
Back to the topic, if we wanted to observe the norm just here, it would be Cehov (from ISO 9 Čehov). --Gabriel Svoboda 11:55, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
In this case I'd support either "Greek-like" approach (i.e. Tsechov) or, if a certain official standard is to be followed, the translitteration offered by URSS Academy of Sciences or ISO/R 9:1968 : Čechov. (About diacritics: if it is kept in,e.g., German and French surnames, why should it be avoided in this case?) But as for the names, possessed by Russian-speakers but originating from languages with Latin script, I stand for using their original spelling: e.g. Schmidt, not Šmidt (a German surname), Szostakowicz (a Polish surname). -- Alexander Gerascenco 05:55, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the Academy of Sciences' transliteration looks even better. Also, Schmidt probably is preferable over Šmidt. --Gabriel Svoboda 19:38, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
About diacritics, our current practice differs for the heading (not for the text). Our practice is that, where the name is originally in Latin script, we write it in the heading with all correct diacritics; where it is a transliteration, we don't. But in the text, we use correct diacritics in both cases.
Personally I don't feel strongly about this: I could support a change. Note, though, that in all cases where we use diacritics in the heading, we have to remember to make a redirect from the non-diacritic form, and we have to include the non-diacritic form in the DEFAULTSORT. Otherwise searches and filing orders don't always work correctly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:00, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Gabriel that the current mess is far from ideal. To address it, we might wish to recall an implication of the acceptance of a standard like ISO: in the absence of historically attested forms, the standard itself has the authority of an attestation. Following on that, here's a way out: Latvian doesn't hesitate to add its obligatory nominal ending -s to these names; if Latin would do the same, applying its own standard suffixes, these names would become utterly regular, to be declined in an utterly regular way:
Alexander Solzhenitsyn : Alexander Solzenitsīnus
Boris Ieltsin : Boris Ieltsīnus
Otto Schmidt : Otto Smitius
Petrus Tchaikovski : Petrus Tsaicofscius
Constantinus Ciolkowski : Constantinus Tsiolcofscius
Theophanes Procopowicz : Theophanes Procopofitsius
Alexander Puskin : Alexander Puscīnus
Theodorus Dostoevskij : Theodorus Dostoiefscius
Alexander Griboiedov : Alexander Griboiedofius
Nicetas Chruščëv : Nicetas Chrustsofius
Demetrius Sostakovic : Demetrius Sostacofitsius
Indeed, don't attested Central & Eastern European surnames converted in this fashion survive (as used by the name-bearers themselves) from the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries? One of the most famous is Linnaeus, from linna[gård] 'linden [farm]'. ¶ Whether to keep K (as a token of exoticism) or to use C in all cases (guaranteeing that conscientious speakers of Church Latin will mangle the pronunciation of many names) is a separate question. IacobusAmor 12:27, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Why "-fius", "-fscius", not "-vius", "-vscius"? -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:19, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Because "v" is (classically) pronounced [w]. The closest that classical Latin can get to [v] is probably [f], spelled "f"; I'd guess the written patterns vius & ovscius would be pronounced [wius] & [ouscius] respectively. IacobusAmor 13:51, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the pronunciation of "в" (at least in "strong positions", i.e. before vowels) sounds closer to [w] than to [f]. Moreover, in Old Russian (as well as in present-day Ukrainian) the sound denoted by the letter is bilabial, not labiodental. -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:15, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
In that case, vius and ouscius might be the best way of writing those suffixes! IacobusAmor 14:29, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this suggestion very strongly.
  1. The suffixed -us looks childish, and it's something that we have been working to remove elsewhere.
  2. The devising of a new transliteration contravenes the rule against original research.
  3. A serious reference source will avoid novel spellings and transliterations if it possibly can, because they conflict with the aim of being useful for quick reference. If users have to learn a new transliteration before reading, they'll go elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
"The strength of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true."—en:P. B. Medawar. But of course we were talking hypothetically, in the spirit of the original observation! IacobusAmor 14:53, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
And the strength of my opposition may have no relation to the justice of my cause! I'm glad you were talking hypothetically. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Latvians are great guys concerning the assimilation of foreign names, and it would be very interesting for us to follow them (I don't propose this seriously, though, as discussed above). But we would have to use it for all names, not just for Eastern European ones (just like we haven't adopted a separate treatment for Indian names), e.g. Panus Kimunus, Iosephus Baidenus etc. --Gabriel Svoboda 19:38, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)