E Vicipaedia
(Redirectum de Disputatio:Colcata)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Caliquit[fontem recensere]

If The city's documented history ... begins with the arrival of the British East India Company in 1690, when the Company was consolidating its trade business in Bengal (thus en:wiki) then the Caliquit of Thomas More cannot be Calcutta (because, after all, Utopia is a document). I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if Caliquit is en:Calicut? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:06, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is first found in English in 1505. See the OED, s.v. calico. IacobusAmor 19:21, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've now found the reference in More's Utopia. It is about Calicut, not Calcutta. I'll remove it from this article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, here it is Calcutta: [1] and in the Latin-French edition it is also translated as Calcutta. Maybe there are divergent views. --Alex1011 13:53, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there seems to be more evidence for en:Kozhikode. --Alex1011 14:00, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe worldtimezones (your link above) got it from us, or from some other unreliable source!! If you read what Thomas More says about Caliquit, you will be certain that he means Calicut/Kozhikode, not Calcutta. That's the only way it makes sense.
When you say "the Latin-French edition" do you mean of More's Utopia? If so, they've certainly made a mistake. There's no evidence that Calcutta existed in 1516, when Utopia was written; the first reference to the place in any language is in 1590 (according to H. Yule, A. C. Burnell; Gulielmus Crooke, ed., Hobson-Jobson. 2a ed. (Londinii: Murray, 1903) ~ ~). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this [2] French document you find both Calicut and Calcutta. Marie Delcourt, I looked it up just now in my paper edition, translates clearly "Ceylon" and "Calcutta". --Alex1011 18:53, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, however many silly people have translated it that way, they can't be right! In More's time, no one in the world had heard of Calcutta: it didn't exist. (Unless we are to class him as a Scriptor de rebus futuris!)
This happens sometimes: people make mistakes. But they look to an encyclopedia not to repeat mistakes, but to correct them. A mistake by Marie Delcourt doesn't amount to an alternative name for Calcutta: she isn't a reliable Latin author. What we have to do is to mention the error in the footnote at Caliquit. I'll do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scriptor de rebus futuris he is in a way :-) But in the French web-document above it is, I think, tacitly corrected in the introduction, so I do not object to de-Caliquitize Colcata. --Alex1011 19:54, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alex -- if it weren't for your careful reading of Utopia, I guess, we would never have known of this at all! As you will see, I have noted the problem in footnotes on both pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:05, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Memorial[fontem recensere]

Is a picture of it really the aptest image of this city? IacobusAmor 13:14, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with the collage used on the English article. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:27, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De nomine[fontem recensere]

De nomine quid oportet statuere? "Calcuttensis" etc. saepissime in fontibus Latinis (necnon botanicis) reperitur, sed nomen "Calcutta" solemniter anno 2001 abiuratum est. "Colcata/Colcatensis" cum orthographia hodierna satis congruit, sed nusquam reperio (nisi in exemplaribus Vicipaediae). "Calcattensis" quater apud Google reperio, sed haec versio cum orthographia hodierna non congruit; -tt- enim est error.

Dicite, igitur, O amici: an "Colcata" sine fontibus retinenda est, aut in "Calcuttam" mutanda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 1 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fons ut videtur est nomen ipsum, Bengalice কলকাতা Kolkātā, litteris Romanis scriptum: Colcata. IacobusAmor 23:44, 1 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Colcata" certainly represents the pronunciation, but the normal transliteration of the Bengali name is Kalakātā, and we don't authorise ourselves to change K to C just because we want to. I still can't find any reasonable source for Latin "colcata", "colcatensis", "calcata" or "calcatensis" (except for some place in Italy with that name); but many, many sources for "Calcuttensis", both ecclesiastical and botanical. Since both bishops and botanists seem to be happy with this semi-Anglicised spelling, I think we should go with it as well. It's no longer the official English name, but it's still widely known. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:33, 26 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a move to Calcutta. The de-anglicization of Indian place-names is a fraught question, but I'm not sure we need to worry about it here. Kolkata should of course still be mentioned. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:33, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thanks for commenting. I believe the Times of India (for example) sticks with the old spellings, so it remains a matter of choice. If no one objects, we could now move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:41, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]