Disputatio:Civitates Foederatae Americae

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomina civitatium[fontem recensere]

Idaho = AIDAHUM, non Idahum. Vide graece recentiore Aintakho. Iowa = AIOVA, non Iova. Vide graece recentiore Aïóba. Utah = IUTA, non Uta. Vide graece recentiore Gioúta. Kentucky = KENTAKIA, non Kentukia. Vide graece recentiore Kentáky. Connecticut = CONNECTICATA, non Connecticuta. Vide graece recentiore Konnéktikat. Wyoming = VAIOMINIA seu VAIOMINGIA, sed non Vyominia. Vide graece recentiore Ouaïóming. Ohio = OHAIUM, non Ohium. Vide graece recentiore Okháio. Massachussets = MASSATZUSSETA, non Massachusseta. Michigan = MITZIGANIA, non Michigania. The combination "TZ" is the most adecuated for representing the modern sound of "Ch". The last ancient Greco-latin writers used "TZ" for this. Example: The alexandrian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes spoke about "Tzinista" for refering to "China" on his work "Topographia Christiana", 547 A.D. The name "Tzinista" is relationed with the Sanskrit "Chinasthana", which means "Region of the Chineses" (Sanskrit "Thana" means "Region"; Confront Hindustan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, etc...). "Tzinisthan" is also the name which appears on the Nestorian inscription of Singanfu (today Xi'an), dated from 781 A.D. and discovered on 1625. Confront too the nickname of the Byzantine Emperor John I "Tzimisces" Kourkoúas (969 - 976). His nickname "Tzimiskes" seems to derive from the Armenian "Tshemshkik", meaning "red boot". Compare modern Latin "Tzekia" for Chek Republic. "Tzecus, -a, -um, adj. If we write "Chilia", China" and "Chekia", ancient Greeks and Romans would read "Hile", "Hina" and "Hekia" because the combination "Ch" represent the Greek letter "X" (khi). This letter sounded like the english letter "H", but strongly aspired. Compare the Russian names "Mikhail", "Chekhov", etc... The name of the City of Chicago also can be written in latin as TZICAGUM. Usor: Laurentius Euricus Arceus Contrerasius

Yes, without a doubt, modern Greek uses these names, and perhaps these spellings better reflect current, standard American pronunciation when translitterated into Latin this way. However, if you've read the discussion below, you'd see that we are not making our names up, but rather using pre-existing resources. Sinister Petrus 04:46, 14 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin names that I corriged are aboriginal names which was transcripted according the English orthography. However, if we like giving new and fresh life to the Latin language, we must respect the original Aboriginal phonetics and transcript it in Latin according to Latin phonetics for representing the real sounds of the names. Ancient Romans always tried to represent the foreing names the most exactly that it was posible. Usor: Laurentius Euricus Arceus Contrerasius

"New and fresh life"? The equation of the English vowels with Latin ones is hundreds of years old, entrenched even in the ordinary English terminology, and proposing monstrosities like "Ohaium" is an awful divorce from tradition. (Indeed, had the traditional English pronunciation of Latin not fallen out of fashion, the idea would be entirely superfluous.) The Greeks write Οχάϊο because they use a different alphabet, and while the Roman letter i has long been given the value of Greek "αϊ", iota has not. Wikipedia is not the place for pushing traditional Latin names aside in favor of such drastic language reforms. —Myces Tiberinus 01:30, 22 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real phonetics of these Aboriginal names have a tradition that is older than its 300 or 200 years olded English transcriptions. The true tradition that we must conserve is not the English orthography of these Aboriginal names, but the real phonetics of them. When the English names have really English etymological origin (like Isaac "Newton", Tony "Blair", George "Bush"), we can latinizer them following the English orthography (Isaacus "Newtonius", Antonius "Blairius", Georgius "Bushius"). If we must learn that the latin name of the French city of "Orléans" is neither "Orleanum" nor "Aureliana", but it is "CENABUM", Why I cannot learn that the Latin name of the "Chesapeake Bay" is "TZESAPICUS SINUS", and not "Chesapeakus Sinus"? ALL OF THIS IS ONLY MY HUMBLE OPINION, NOT A IMPOSITION.Usor: Laurentius Euricus Arceus Contrerasius die 3 mensis octobris anno 2006.

1. We don't need to Latinize the names of people who in their lifetimes Latinized them: all we need to do is look for the names they preferred. The title page of an edition of 1833 reads: Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica / auctore Isaaco Newtono ; perpetuis commentariis illustrata, communi studio Thomae Le Seur et Francisci Jacquier. If that represents Newton's preference, his name in Latin would have been Isaacus Newtonus. The title page of the edition of 1686 has unhelpful abbreviations: Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica. Autore Is. Newton ... Imprimatur S. Pepys, Reg. soc. præses. Julii 5. 1686. Finding Newton's own preference, if he had one, shouldn't be hard for those with access to good libraries. But (as I've pointed out before) Latin-speaking writers of the past may have indulged multiple forms: John Milton's own publications show his surname to have been Milton, -is and Miltonus, -i and Miltonius, -ii.
2. It wouldn't be surprising to find that Latin names for the Cheseapeake Bay appeared in writings and on maps from the sixteenth century or earlier. Such attestations would be the best place to start. IacobusAmor 00:07, 5 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original Charter of Maryland, a grant of the territory to Lord Baltimore by Carolus I. Rex Magnae Britanniae &c., was written in Latin -- the only such charter for the British colonies. In it the bounds of Maryland are delimited, and the name of the Chesapeake Bay appears there as Sinus de Ches(s)opeake. As a general rule, the Latinists of the 16th and 17th centuries were much less inclined to Latinize thoroughly foreign names than those of the 21st century, but it's also to be noted that their spelling was a bit inconsistent, and their approach often ad hoc. Which, however, did not result in greater disagreement than you'll find on LA:! CriticusFortuitus 06:18, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire = NOVA HAMIA, non Nova Hantescira.[fontem recensere]

Hampshire, Anglo Saxon. Formerly known as "Southamptonshire", meaning is "shire of Southampton": "Southern town of Hamo" (Hamopolis Meridionalis). "HAMO" refers to a 5th century Saxon invader and settler. See the web page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_list_of_counties_of_the_United_Kingdom Usor: Laurentius Euricus Tziliensis (seu Chilensis) Iacobopolitanus.February 28th, 2006.

Cansia --> Kansia[fontem recensere]

Cur "Cansia" cum "c" est? In Latina, nomen aestatis eis "Kansia -ensis" est. In sigillis Universitatis Kansiensis, dicit "Sigil Universitatis Kansiensis". Placeo, mutas aliquid eam! Non possum. 06:49, 16 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cur Vasingtonia? Nonne Guasingtonia melius scribitur, ut Guiliemus pro "William"?

usor:Iustinus: Aetatibus certis, praesertim postclassica, mos erat [w] ut <gu> translcribere. Dein, praesertim aetate media <w>! Etiam saeculo XIXo, scripsit Franciscus Glass Vitam Washingtonii littera w (vide s.v. Georgius Washingtonius. Sed his diebus [w] saepissime littera <v> scribitur. Vide, exempli gratia, Caroli Egger Vaticanensis Lexicon Nominum Locorum s.v. "Washinton (Foederata Civitas)" atque "Washington" quibus nominibus ambobus dat figuram "Vasintonia, ae, f." (Cum autem notet figuram quae olim in usu fiebat a Curia Romana "Washingtonensis"). In summo- haec est hodierna conventio.

We need to decide on a uniform, across-the-board Latinization scheme for the state names (and for people's names, country names, etc.) -Branddobbe 11:23 nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have added the Latinized forms of the state names and their capitals as presented in Traubman's Conversational Latin ISBN 0-86516-438-X — with the exception of "Vashintonia", as Vasingtonia already existed (but I think Vasintonia better...). I also removed the half-baked list of city names, with the exception of those that already had articles. —Myces Tiberinus 06:33 dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
I understand that Latin doesn't use Ks or Ws very much, but are we sure that we can't use them in foreign names? Cansia looks strange to me, being from Kansas.KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 20:59, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is, to not invent new variants for existing Latin words but to search in sources or the work of experts, such as Iohannes Traupman or Graesse. There are several cases, where the Latin name has a "K", see the list of Graesse, for example. I personally do not know, what the correct Latin name of Kansas is. --Roland (disp.) 23:00, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 17:35, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status Uniti Americae[fontem recensere]

I wouldn't remove the calque Uniti Status Americae as it actually has some, heh, status. That and Civitates Foederatae Americae [Septentrionalis] are the only names for the country I've seen in actual Latin sources (though admittedly not many). Where does this hybrid "Civitates Americae Unitae" come from, btw? —Myces Tiberinus 02:56 mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_risposte-usa_lt.html ; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appendicis-Dioecesibus-Foederatorum-Septentrionalis-Congregationis/dp/B000RO4BUO ... (et al.)- Jfilipemo 22:03, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quidni "Status Uniti Americae"?[fontem recensere]


Mihi agnomen Iber est, et ut potestis imaginare Hispanus sum, concretiter, Vasco.

Vobiscum volebam loqui de denominatione hujus nationis. Antiqui Latini verbum "status" ad fabulandum de statu emotionale, animi... et de statu rerum ("quomodo res sunt") usi erant; sed, nunc nos etiam utimur ea parabola ad loquendo de "pago" ("país", Hispanice; "pais", Catalanice et Gallaecice; "pays", Francice; "paese", Italice...), id est, de "natione" aut de "conjuncto nationum quae unam gubernationem communem habent", si in uno "statu" plus quam una natio est. Propterea, puto Latinos radicaliores suum purismum absurdum mutandum esse, quia omnes dicimus "civitas" fabulando de "urbe" ("ciudad", Hispanice; "citat", Catalanice; "cidade", Portugallice; "cité", Francice; "city", Anglice...) non de "natione".

Si Latinitatem linguam uso corriente esse volumus, eae amputare possibilitates renovationis non deberemus et, si in omnibus linguis ROMANICIS atque altris linguis in quibus radicem LATINAM est aliquis verbis dicitur "Status Uniti Americae" (e. g. Anglice, "United States of America"), cur LATINE est nobis arcaismum "Civitates Americae Unitae" dicendum? Lingua latina mutata est et non possumus loqui ut Cicero faciebat saeculo I ante Christum quia mundus differens est. Haec Encyclopaedia non solum de lingua classica versat (articuli super linguam sunt), sed etiam de omnibus campis sapientiae et geographia actualis idem quam delimitatio nationum Caesaris temporum non est: Status Uniti Americae non exsistebant. :)

Ut Cato diceret: "Ceterum, censeo arcaismum illogicum delendum esse". Praeterea, in maxima quantitate Internetis paginarum quae Latine scriptae sunt "Status Uniti Americae" dicitur et, frequenter, "SS. UU.", id est, abreviatio quoque exsistit.

Curate ut valeatis, amici!

Rectissime dixisti! Ego autem "Status" rectius dicendi puto. Plurimae novilatinae linguae hoc verbum "state, stato, estado, état" unde ceperunt? De latino "Status". "Civitates Foederatae Americae" non recte dicitur! -Jfilipemo 21:18, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina statuum[fontem recensere]

Cur non Dacota Australis?

Meridionalis est, re vera, magis frequens. --Iustinus 18:20 iun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Uniti Status vs. Civitates Foederatae[fontem recensere]

IacobusReyes wrote of Uniti Status: This is the convention emplyed by Traupman which seems to be proliferating more. Salve, Iacobe. I just checked my Traupman, and (to my admitted surprise) you are right. But Egger uses Foederatae Civitates. Furthermore, if you do a google on Civitates Foederatae and Uniti Status, you will find that the more classicizing idiom is more frequent by a rather large margine: indeed Uniti Status and Status Uniti hardly turn up at all. --Iustinus 04:57 aug 11, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if Latinists could come to an agreement on how to translate 'United States of America.'
I remember looking at old Catholic publications and the United States was rendered as 'Statuus Foederatli Amerciae Septentrionalis'.
Latinists cannot and will not aggree on anything :\ Well, at least not witih any degree of absoluteness... but it's often possible to at least find a consensus. As you know, the Conventiculum tends to have its favorite ways to render thigns, but usually we'll accept any variant unless there's a good reason not to (cf. basipila ;) )
I tend to think we should do something similar: where possible, pick out the "best" title for an article, but in the opening sentence, list all the alternative phrasings.
And again, by statuus I assume you mean status. The only part of the paradigm with two u's is the gen. pl. --Iustinus 05:48 aug 11, 2005 (UTC)
I should add that I generally disaprove of using status to mean "state" in the sense of a province or nation. See my previous comments posted here and here. --Iustinus 05:51 aug 11, 2005 (UTC)

My only experience with the Latin name of the USA is from the pledge of allegiance, which we said in Latin in junior high school Latin class:

Fidem meam obligo vexillo Civitatium Americae Foederatarum et rei publicae pro qua stat, uni nationi, Deo ducente,non dividendae, cum libertate iustitiaque omnibus.

"Uniti Status Americae" frankly makes my skin crawl, since status doesn't mean "state" in the sense used here, and the unire and its participle unitus are very rare. Also, free word order or no, adjectives are much more likely to follow their nouns, so even "Status Uniti Americae" would be an improvement (and would at least mimic the order of Romance languages--Estados Unidos, États-Unis, Stati Uniti--rather than that of English). --Angr/loquere 07:44 oct 4, 2005 (UTC)

Civitates Foederate malo.--Sinister Petrus 21:58 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ego quoque. --Tbook 22:30 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ego quoque. Habemusne consensum ad hanc rem movendam in Civitates Foederatae? --Angr/loquere 12:55 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, my favorite is Unitae Respublicae Americae, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Human-potato hybrid (disputatio) 23:59, 10 Februarii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serissimus sum, sed malo Civitates Foederatae quoque. Id moveamus.--Ioscius 17:25, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a closer consideration, statum would most accuartely mean a state of being and not a nation state, whereas Civitatium Americae Foederatarum is a more appropriate choice.

Nonne legisti Thomas Hobbes, qui primus hoc verbum in novis linguis intulit? "Status naturalis" et "Status civilis" discrevit".- Jfilipemo 21:24, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Videatur http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Città_del_Vaticano. Ibi referentia invenitur ad paginam http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_21111987_quo-civium-iura_lt.html qua "in Statu Civitatis Vaticanae" scriptum. -Jfilipemo 21:49, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romanae Catholicae Ecclesiae epistulam hanc est legendum: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_risposte-usa_lt.html: "Foederatorum Americae Statuum" sic nominatur. - Jfilipemo 21:56, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In bibliothecis Italiae http://www.ibisweb.it/ inveni "status uniti americae" (25 tituli), "status foederati americae" (139 tituli) et "civitates foederatae americae" (0 titulus)...-Jfilipemo 11:51, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now, just try the same search in the Library of Congress (of USA)... --Jfilipemo 11:54, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hic non coluimus latinitatem recentiorem (linguam classicam ignorantem et linguam italianam sequentem). Potest autem incipere novam Vicipaediam ad hoc agendum. (Status Uniti Americae=Status/constitution of a unified america; status foederatae Americae = Status of a foederated america != United States of America; et quis sic dixerat se monstravit lingua latina ignorantem)-- 15:30, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non "Status Foederatae Americae", sed "Status Foederati Americae".--
Bene observatum. Status Foederatae Americae = Foederated statuses of America /Foederated conditions of america = Treaty conditions of america?-- 04:06, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taciti et Eutropii, sed quoque Ciceronis et Plinii Secundi latinitatem antiquiorem non coluerunt? Scripserunt "civitates Italiae" aut "civitates Siciliae": tunc non significabat "states of Italy" aut "states of Sicily". Nonne significabat "urbes"? Vicipaedia ignoret totos libros lingua latina scriptos per saeculos et re-inveniat quod iam inventum est, si vis! Non solum in Italia, sed etiam in Germania, Anglia, Francia et al. universitates lingua latina docuerunt usque ad saeclum XIX. Sic Vicipaedia novum morem incipit in hac re. --Jfilipemo 21:56, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cassell's Latin Dictionary: "state (1) = condition, status, condicio, locus, fortuna. (2) = polity, respublica (= commonwealth), civitas (= body of citizens), regnum (= kingdom): of state, adj., publicus, civilis." IacobusAmor 02:23, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Item: "civitas (1) abstr., citizenship, the condition or rights of a citizen . . . Cic., Liv. (2) concr.: a, a union of citizens, a state, commonwealth . . . Cic. b, the inhabitants of a city, townsfolk : Caes., Cic.: c, (rarely) a city, town . . . Quint. Tac." IacobusAmor 02:32, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xylopolis?[fontem recensere]

Is "Xylopolis" as Latin for "Boise, Idaho" actually published/endorsed anywhere, or was it made up for this list? Greek xylon really refers to wood as a material, rather than the woods (as in forest), which is hyle. But according to en:Boise, "A group of French-Canadian fur trappers in the nineteenth century came to the Bonneville Point overlook and saw the area that would later encompass Boise and are said to have exclaimed "Les bois, les bois, voyez les bois!" (the trees, the trees, look at the trees). The areas to the east, south and west of the city are generally barren desert land. Boise is commonly referred to as 'The City of Trees.'" This suggests to me perhaps Dendropolis would be a better name, but of course only if "Xylopolis" is not already the established name in non-Wikipedia sources. --Angr/loquere 21:01 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)

Vide librum a Traupviro "Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency" ISBN 0-86516-438-X --Sinister Petrus 21:35 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)
OK, sed accipimusne solam auctoritatem Traupmani in re neologismorum geographicorum? Quid habet Traupman sub "New Haven, Connecticut"? Habeo diploma Universitatis Yalensis in quo "Novus Portus" stat. Si aliquid alii apud Traupmanum stet, sitne solus neologismus eius accipiendus? --Angr/loquere 23:14 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)
Haud quaquam! --Iustinus 23:22 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)
Vide etiam: [[1]]. Ecclesia catholica Xylopolem dicit. Non sic malo, sed hinc est. --Sinister Petrus
Satis bonum mihi est. Sed "Boise City" in Oclahoma est; caput Idahonis solum "Boise" est! --Angr/loquere 08:31 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)
Idem nomen, eundemque errorem proponit Egger:
Boise City
Xylopŏlis, is, f.
Sic appellatur urbs caput Idahi, unius, e Foederatis Civitatibus Americae Sept. Hoc nomen, quod ex usu Curiae Romanae invaluit (cfr. dioecesis Xylopolitana), es interpretatio verbi Gallici bois ( = lignum, silva; cfr. pays boisé, id est regio silvestris) et vocabuli Anglici city (= urbs, «polis»).
Xylopolitani, orum; Xylopolitanus, a, um.
Me non cum Egger illo semper consentire his paginis dictito, neque Traupman mihi videtur semper recte locos nominare credo. Quod attinet ad Curiam Romanam, neque Egger quidem semper nominibus ibi proposita usurpat! His autem dictis, hi fontes omnes mihi graves et dirae auctoritatis videntur. Etiam si nos novum nomen ficturi essemus, necesse esset, me iudice, commemorare in commentatione nostra nomina alterna. Sed et Egger et Traupman et Curia Romana una voce "Xylopolin" conclamantibus fortasse illo nomine (apperta confusione inter Boise et Boise City non obstante) uti debemus. --Iustinus 17:25 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)
Consentio tecum. Propterea quod dixi only if "Xylopolis" is not already the established name in non-Wikipedia sources. --Angr/loquere 18:03 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vashintonia etiam[fontem recensere]

Quis caput nationis est? Urbs Vashintonia est, sed quomodo dicere "District of Columbia"? Regionem Columbiae coniectavi, sed aliquo melior utari?

Which is to say, is there a name for the DC part of Washington DC? Traupman doesn't say and I can't find anything easily online. Regio Columbiae seems like it should work, but that isn't the same as something attested to. --Sinister Petrus 21:50 oct 5, 2005 (UTC)

Egger calls them both Vasintonia and makes a point of saying they are not the same, but doesn't specify any verbal means of distinguishing them. It is unfortunate that civitas is the traditional translation of "State" in the context of the US, because it seems to me that D.C. is nothing if not a civitas! Oh well. Regio doesn't seem to me the mot juste for "district," but on the other hand I am not entirely sure what is. It's not really a provincia... maybe it's a tractus, but that seems iffy. Dioecesis has been taken over by the church. It's a shame that districtum never means "district" ;) --Iustinus 17:41 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)
Cassell's glosses "district" as ager, regio, terra, and of those three only regio seems remotely possible for D.C. As for civitas necessarily meaning "state" of the U.S., my Yale diploma calls Connecticut a res publica, but I suppose it's just too problematic (and too poorly precedented) to call the states res publicae just so we can call D.C. a civitas. --Angr/loquere 18:13 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)
Regio seems more fit for something like a region. Nova Anglica might be a regio. I'd tend to agree that if anywhere in the country is a civitas, DC is it. There will have to be some sort of explanation that while DC is a civitas it is NOT a civitas foederalis. Something like that. If there is no dispute, I'll go ahead and separate Washington DC from Washington State.--Sinister Petrus 19:35 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)
Actually ager or even campus just might work. I seem to recall some Roman place names that use those words similarly to what we mean by district of Columbia... but I don't have time to look into that right now. The fact that res publica is sometimes used to mean state (and yes, it certainly is), does not negate the fact that civitas is for better or worse an extremely common translation. Common enough that I prefer not to fly in the face of what others have said by changing "state" to res publica and "district" to civitas. Nor would I like to use civitas to mean both. Sinister Petre, perhaps you could, as a temporary stopgap measure, call DC Vasintonia (urbs)? --Iustinus 19:57 oct 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vide Disputatio:Vasingtonia, C.C. Davus618 01:59, 16 Februarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Anglia[fontem recensere]

Cur Nova Anglica appellatur, non Nova Anglia? --Angr/loquere 10:36 oct 7, 2005 (UTC)

Movenda est. --Iustinus 15:57 oct 7, 2005 (UTC)
Em, heu, culpae factae sunt. Mihi errare licuit.----Sinister Petrus 16:04 oct 7, 2005 (UTC)

contribuenda[fontem recensere]

Olim et ultimum opportet hanc contribuendam facere cum Civitatibus Foederatis Americae. Est nomen rectum, clariter potest persciri.--Ioscius 04:40, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usor[fontem recensere]

OK, an anonymous user has changed many, many state names without source or reason. Were he stating a damned good reason to make the change and using a registered name, I don't think I'd be so yanked off. It seems arbitrary, passing mere pedantry and verging on vandalism (to me). Admittedly, Iova may be pronounced closer to Aiova in English, but I've got no need for the pronunciations to match exactly. After all Texas is pronounced TAY-has in Spanish.

For the record, the states are listed under the following names in John Traupman's Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency as such (with two exceptions):

Would someone PLEASE correct the misspelling of Samoa Americana (as Somoa Americana)? (If that's Traupman's considered spelling, Traupman deserves no respect.) The name is not, and never has been, Somoa, not least because in the Samoan language, somoa is an indelicate term, meaning (shall we say) 'gummy', referring to somo, any of several thick, gummy fluids excreted from the eyes, the vagina, etc. I've commented on this before, but nobody with the authority to change the format has responded. IacobusAmor 21:37, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traupman lists New Hampshire as Nova Hantescira instead of Nova Hamia, and I seem to recall some discussion about that name. The other exception is Massachusetts. Traupman goes in for Massciusseta instead of Massachusseta.

For hundreds of years, Massachusetts has been Res Publica Massachusettensium, which might well yield the short form Massachusetta, or Massachusettia, or even Massachusettsia, but Massciusseta is IMHO an impossible derivation from Massachusettenses, the name of some seventeenth-century inhabitants of the area. IacobusAmor 21:43, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T. actually has Massaciússeta, (i.e. not with -ssc-). It is of course the same word as Massachúsetta respelled to an orthography conservative to [Italian] pronunciation rather than to the etymology, though why a need for respelling was felt in this particular case is anybody's guess (he keeps ch in other place names, and even sh in Vashintonia). —Myces Tiberinus 22:30, 16 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no disagreement, I will revert the anonymous user's changes on Tuesday, the 4th (three days from this writing). I will put his suggested state names on the discussion page so they can be discussed. Sinister Petrus 22:49, 1 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in Disputatio_Usoris:Sinister_Petrus#American_state_names you need not to care about my annotations when reverting the anonymous user's changes. However, maybe you could make a note like <ref name=traupman>John Traupman: <i>Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency</i></ref> on several places. This "name=traupman" is for using the same note multiple times. --Roland2 08:40, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Res facta est.Sinister Petrus 20:03, 5 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have missed this commentary, don't know how I got here so late...but good work Petrus, as usual!--Ioscius 21:00, 5 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias. Sinister Petrus 02:35, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachuseta, not Massachusseta[fontem recensere]

In official use, Massachusetts is the Respublica Massachusettensium, the 'Commonwealth of the Massachusett People'. That form leads to Massachuseta or Massachusetta, not Massachussetta. Does the intrusive S have any linguistic authority? IacobusAmor 12:16, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the idea is that it doesn't get given a z sound when pronounced modo Italico.
For those of us who affect a reconstructed classical pronunciation of Latin, voicing "s" as /z/ instead of /s/ might be a lesser crime than (1) ruining the rhythm of the "chu" syllable and (2) ruining the quality of its vowel. An extra S requires both changes. Since both esses of "ss" must be pronounced, the short syllable "chu" effectively becomes long. Imagine the first four syllables of "Mas-sa-chu-set-ta" as an eighth-note and two sixteenth-notes; but with "Massachussetta," the first four syllables could be said to be equivalent to an eighth-note, a sixteenth, and another eighth. In short, the extra S turns Más-sa-chu-sét-ta into Más-sa-chús-sét-ta. Paradoxically, at the same time, the extra ess makes the vowel of "chu" shift from the "long" /u/, the vowel of standard English "moon," to the vowel of standard English "put." Further, as I said above, if the standard adjective is Massachusettensis, the related noun doesn't want an intrusive ess. IacobusAmor 21:53, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reconstructed classical pronunciation doesn't at all forbid long vowels in closed syllables. The ancients assert several, such as īgnis, rēgnum, ōrdo, cōnsul, tāctus, quīntus, trāxi, nāscor, ēsse, ....some of them mandated by rule, and some irregular.
"The ss of classical Latin is of course also to be pronounced voiceless, and double (cf. p. 11). In most classical texts this is found only after short vowels, since, as mentioned above, a double-s was simplified after long vowels or diphthongs" (Allen, Vox Latina, p. 36). The (first) /u/ is long in Massachusettensium and English Massachusetts, and it probably doesn't want to shorten, as it would if -chus- became -chuss-; and the /s/ of -chuset- is short and doesn't want to be doubled, as it would be if -chuset- became -chusset-. IacobusAmor 03:20, 14 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rhythm, I'm not sure I understand. Going by a later pronunciation (such as the traditional English) the secondary stress is on the alternate syllable, thus Mas-sà-chu(s)-sét-ta, the length of the interposing syllable being irrelevant; a liberal pronunciation would the suggestion of Allen is that the classical secondary stress would follow the same rules as the main stress, in which case it would be Màs-să-chu(s)-sét-ta (or Mas-sā̀-chu(s)-sét-ta, if the -a- is long or the -ch- is heavy), but again, the weight of the syllable is irrelevant.
Of course I don't intend to defend this form. I don't know where it came from. Most of the web (and Google book) hits are scannos for Massachussetts, which seems to be a common spelling; even Massachussettensis is attested. [2]Myces Tiberinus 22:12, 16 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa, not Somoa[fontem recensere]

Could some altruistic Vicipotentate go in and change the misspelling of Samoa (in Somoa Americana in the Divisiones Civiles). In Samoan, the first A is long, so it could even stand to have a macron over it (though that wouldn't be the official governmental spelling and therefore isn't necessarily recommended). In any event, the first vowel is rightly A, not O. IacobusAmor 12:16, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive plural = Civitatium, not Civitatum[fontem recensere]

Thus in the (American) Pledge of Allegiance as reported above (under "Uniti Status vs. Civitates Foederatae"), and thus in Latin of the Golden Age and later, according to Lewis & Short:

I. gen. plur. civitatium, Cic. Rep. 1, 34, 51; id. Leg. 2, 4, 9; Caes. B. G. 4, 3; 5, 22; Sall. C. 40, 2; Liv. 1, 17, 4; 2, 6, 5; 33, 20, 11 Drak.; 42, 30, 6; 42, 44, 1; 45, 34, 1; Vell. 2, 42, 2; Quint. 2, 16, 4 N. cr.; Suet. Tit. 8 Oud.; Cornut. ap. Charis. p. 100 P.; cf. Varr. L. L. 8, § 66; Prisc. p. 771 P.; Neue, Formenl. 1, 268), f. [civis].

I'm seeing Civitatum all over Vicipaedia. Has a decision in its favor been made here? IacobusAmor

Civitatum is the ‘regular’ form. When Lewis & Short give a form explicitly with references, they are generally showing how common (or uncommon) an unusual form is. Varro states that both spellings are acceptable, if I understand correctly:
Nam sine reprehensione vulgo alii dicunt in singulari hac ovi et avi, alii hac ove et ave; in multitudinis hae puppis restis et hae puppes restes; item quod in patrico casu hoc genus dispariliter dicuntur civitatum parentum et civitatium parentium, in accusandi hos montes fontes et hos montis fontis.
You can compare civitatum (19 800 hits) to civitatium (2 090 hits) in Google Books. — 11:21, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the web via Google, the ratio is also about eight to one in favor of civitatum, but then there's the tonguefish, Symphurus civitatium. IacobusAmor 17:42, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word order: C.F.A.? C.A.F.? F.A.C.?[fontem recensere]

Here's the rule on word-order, from Bradley's Arnold, p.19 (macrons omitted):

When a noun is combined both with an adjective and a genitive, the usual order is this—
Vera animi magnitudo. True greatness of mind.

This example suggests that the expected name is Foederatae Americae Civitates. But of course names of countries are special cases. So far in browsing Vicipaedia, I'd say the order C.F.A. predominates. Should Vicipaedia use a standard form? if so, which one is it? IacobusAmor 12:16, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use a standard form, yes. Invent a standard form, no. Search outside of Wikipedia for what it is, considering also the credibility of which source uses which form. —

Jefferson City -> Ieffersonopolis?[fontem recensere]

The current article lists Jefferson City as "Ieffersonia". Shouldn't this be "Ieffersonopolis" to indicate the fact that "City" is part of the name? 04:58, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nisi fallor, caput Missuriae, in Traupviri libro, est "Ieffersonia", non "Ieffersonopolis." Quamquam ipse nomen "Ieffersonia" mallo, non opus nobis est eum sequi. Sinister Petrus 02:13, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFA-CUA[fontem recensere]

Estne revero nomen pro United states of America in latinitate Civitates Unitae Americae? And I also think that you shouldn't change citynames like Jeffersoncity or New York, because sometimes you won't understand them afterwards. Sometimes you just should try to change the name so that a Roman would be able to pronounce it.

scripsit die 5 Octobris 2006 --UV 15:52, 7 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re vera nomen rectum non est CUA. Unitus non significat rem similem "united" anglice. Quia putas pronuntiationem graviorem quam sententiam esse?--Ioscius (disp) 20:29, 7 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federatae = Confederacy[fontem recensere]

In all these arguments about names, there is one really good reason we must reject Foederatae Civitates Americae. It would imply that the South won. Just as I wouldn't call the Confederacy the Union and vice versa, we shouldn't in Latin call Foederatae or Confoederatae what are Unitae. --Jasonc65 10:57, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For "confederacy" we have confoederatae, for "united" or "federated" foederatae. --Alex1011 11:04, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is unio, unire a pretty uncommon verb, it doesn't mean "united" the way you want it to mean. Foederatus is a much more common word, and it means exactly what "united" means in this context. Remember, we get our information from much better Latinists than ourselves. We try not to make this stuff up. =] --Ioscius (disp) 12:41, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Disputatio:Bellum Civile Americanum#USA vs CSA. --UV 21:08, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected, needs dab fix[fontem recensere]

Phoenix as the capital of Arizona needs to be disambiguated to Phoenix (Arizona). It currently links to the bird not the city. -- 03:06, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check shows many other cities suffer from the same problem, for example Delaware's capital city is NOT the white cliffs in England. -- 03:08, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes. --Rafaelgarcia 03:35, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rafael.--Ioscius (disp) 04:12, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscopolis?[fontem recensere]

Non mexor es lliamar Sanctus Franciscus qui non Franciscopolis? It Los Angeles seria Villa Domina Nostra Regina Angelum Fluvium Porciunculum? Meu Latino clasico non es molto buono. Isto es como lliamar Corpus Christi, Christopolis!

Lingua Pricipalis[fontem recensere]

Lingua Principalis Civitae est Anglice, non Espanice (Anglice: "Spanish"). Espanice est altera lingua, non principalis. -- 22:01, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicitur lingua Hispanica et lingua Anglica, neque sic lingua Anglice et Espanice, quia Anglice adverbium est et Espanice non est verbum latinum. Et dicitur Civitatis nec civitae. Rationem autem habes quod lingua Anglica est principalis CFA et Hispanica secundaria. --Rafaelgarcia 23:02, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unde venerit forma quae est Hardifordia?[fontem recensere]

Egger noster in suo libello nominum Hardifordiam esse urbem principalem Connecticutae scripsit. Vaticani vero, qui nunc sunt, forma "Hartfordia" utuuntur (cf. Circoscrizioni Ecclesiastiche, 1998) iste tandem Traupvir fortasse figuram "Hardifordia" proposuit. Attamen videatis Orbem Latinum (http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/Graesse/orblath.html) in quo testamentum formae "Hartfordium" apud maiores invenitur. Hae aliae formae reperiri in chartis georgraphicis Brittaniae non possunt. Nonne usurpandum est illud nomen quod antiquiorem consuetudinem servet? Volo scire quid censeatis.

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Iacobus, I can't find Americanae Civitates Foederatae at the link you provided...What page is it on? Also why is ACF any better Latinity than Francis Glass's 1842 CFA (or for that matter the equally good FCA)? Perhaps, in the interest of cutting down the overly long list of names, this name and source can be moved entirely to the footnotes?--Rafaelgarcia 14:09, 9 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attestation is on the linked page (196): "Academia Smithsoniana, ab auctoritate Americanarum civitatum Foederatarum." (Is the lowercased c a typo in the original?) To judge by the analogous article in :en:, our article, when it's complete, is going to be at least 160,000 bytes long (longer even than Cultura!)—a size that welcomes detail. Please note my "fortasse"! If the genitive Americae is kept, the best word-order, according to the guidelines in Bradley's Arnold, would be Foederatae Americae Civitates (with the adjective on the left, the genitive in the middle, and the noun at the end). IacobusAmor 14:15, 9 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen incolarum adiectivum: Americanus aut Statunitensis?[fontem recensere]

Have. Nomen incolarum adiectivum "Americanus" est. Sed Americanus non modo "Civitatēs Foederatae Americae" demonstrat, sed etiam "Brasiliae"... et cetera. Linguae Italianae "Statunitense" et "americano" diversa sunt; similĭter aliae Linguae Romanicae, idcirco etiam latinae "Americanus" et "Statunitensis" diversa oporteat... (Canada → Canadensis, Brasilia → Brasiliensis).

Omnino consentio hanc vocem habere oportere, sed forma eius difficilis est, nam et "Statounitensis" et "Civitates Foederatae" simul adhibere haud placet. Ephemeris quidem et verbo "Statounitensis" et nomine "Civitates Foederatae Americae" utitur, numquam tamen ambo in symbola una. --Gabriel Svoboda 16:52, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attestatione?[fontem recensere]

Hanc attestationem non inveni: Americanae Civitates Foederatae "Nomen sic anno 1892 attestatum: [3]." Alex1011 09:14, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vide paginam 196: "Academia Smithsoniana, ab auctoritate Americanarum civitatum Foederatarum condita." IacobusAmor 11:47, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cur "Foederatae"?[fontem recensere]

Nonne verbum "unitus" (declinatum: unitae) quoque significat "United", et est melior quam illud verbum in hoc nomine? Nomen nationis est "United States of America", non "Federated States of America". Translatio, in opinione mea, mutatur debet. Rationem non vidi pro statu ut est nunc.

Minime united non significat unitus Latine eodem sensu: unitus significat 'factus in unum' ut postea sola una civitas sit, sed quod ad CFA attitet, civitates singulae postea manent, coniunctae foederi sunt sed non unitae, et hoc appellatur foderatae Latine, Anglice autem 'united by treaty' --Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 19:43, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vide praeterea attestationem in libro Georgii Washingtonii, Americae Septentrionalis Civitatum Foederatarum Praesidis Primi, Vita (Novi Eboraci: 1835). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:25, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence too long[fontem recensere]

Sorry I am going to put this in English, because I am only starting to learn Latin. I use Wikipedia a lot to help me out with phraseology. However, this first sentence in this article is terrible and should probably be truncated. I understand that some people would prefer to use Unitae and some people would prefer to use Foederatae but please don't trash the page over it.

Civitates Foederatae Americae[1] vel Americanae Civitates Foederatae[2] (Anglice: United States of America), breviter Civitates Foederatae[3] et Civitates Unitae,[4] raro Respublica Foederata,[5] aliter Latinitate recentiore in Civitate Vaticana Foederati Status Americae Septentrionalis,[6] et in Finnia Civitates Americae Unitae,[7] vulgariter tantum Civitates et adeo America, sunt foederalis respublica constitutionalis cui quinquaginta civitates et unus districtus foederalis insunt. 17:22, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I edit a page I admit -- in the first sentence -- two alternative Latin names at the most, and one "native" name. If further alternative names are notable, there is room for all of them in footnotes, or in a separate section "De nomine". But which lover of the U. S. of A. will edit this first sentence along those lines? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Romance language specialist, it honestly does not make any sense to write Foederatae, while literally every other language on the planet uses their word "united" or their own version of that word in the proper name. Even something like "Civitates Unitae Americae is a nation composed of federated states", I am totally fine with that. The argument is about the proper name of the country, which this page totally breaks convention with. Whether it is a federation or not is totally irrelevant. But ultimately I don't care, I just think this page is an unfortunate byproduct of the community bickering. 17:41, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a field where precedent, especially classical precedent, has value, working backward from current non-Latin languages (even the daughter languages) is usually the last resort. You'll find Civitates Foederatae America attested as far back as Georgii Washingtonii, Americae Septentrionalis Civitatum Foederatarum Praesidis Primi, Vita (1835), and that seems to be the prevailing Latin form inside the country in question today. For united, Cassell's, the Latin dictionary designed to ease native English-speakers into classical Latin, gives coniunctus, consociatus, and socius. For the verb 'to unite', it gives (con)iungere, copulare, congregare, (con)sociare, miscere, coire, and consentire (all with different connotations, of course). You'll note the absence of unitus and unire, not least because, as Lewis & Short observe, it's "post-Augustan and very rare"—i.e., not the sort of word that students of Latin are encouraged to deploy. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:58, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and tried to clean up the first sentence, but others should go ahead and fiddle with it, if they want. A few things about the current first spelling: (1) it seems to be the most common form on Google Books, which is a fast and easy way to search for relatively good Latin; (2) unitus is only used by later classical authors, and even then it was rare, whereas foederatus was used by Cicero; (3) CFA is already used copiously on Vicipaedia, which doesn't mean we can't change it, but we should think hard before we do. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:45, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence much better. I see no reason to bicker about "Civitates Foederatae Americae" :) it worked for Traupman and it works for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has aroused my patriotic spirit, so I'm off to watch the game against Belgium. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 19:46, 1 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina urbium[fontem recensere]

Care Human-potato hybrid, changing the bluelinked & well-attested Urbs Lacus Salsi to the redlinked & unattested Salsilacopolis didn't help, so I've reverted it and similar changes. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 8 Februarii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the most recent changes because the names of states and their capitals are taken from Traupman; one or two of the new suggestions might look better—but without attestations, they shouldn't replace attested forms. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:07, 11 Februarii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals[fontem recensere]

Care today, you changed one number (but not others) from arabic numerals to roman numerals and wrote: "Roman numerals, and more authntic [sic] then [sic] Arabic ones." That might be true for a ROMAN wiki, but this is a LATIN wiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 8 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]