Disputatio:Comitatus Alleghenia

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name[fontem recensere]

I would argue that the name of this county ought to be Comitatus Alleghenia. A precedent for the term Alleghenia can be found in the Magazine of Western History. XIII. Nova Eboraca. 1891. p. 383  And the order "noun-modifier" sounds more natural for Latin. —Alexander hoc scripsit 17:21, 5 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Since there is a published source, you can move to Alleghenia (and please cite the source in a footnote).
As to the word order, there was a discussion on the Taberna, and then there was an offer by Robert.Baruch to standardise all the US county pages. I don't think he's done it yet, but he's probably just about to do it. Perhaps he'll look in and remind us what the decision was about the word order :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:41, 5 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
My account is too new to move the page, so if you wouldn't mind doing that, I'll go ahead and cite the source, hac facta. —Alexander hoc scripsit 01:50, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
The discussion Andrew was referring to can be found here. I agree that the order "N + modifier" is more natural in Latin and to be preferred in titles. I also attempted at a linguistic summary of pertinent constructions. Neander 06:06, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
If "N + modifier" is more natural in Latin for the English pattern heard in Allegheny County, would "modifier + N" be more natural in Latin for the English pattern heard in County Cork ? IacobusAmor 11:25, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
"N + modifier" is always the neutral order in Latin. Comitatus Corcagiensis is ok, as far as I can see. Neander 12:36, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
The neutral order in Latin isn't necessarily being sought: County Cork is most definitely not the neutral order in the language of origin. Therefore, to those who believe (as yours truly and many others do) that translations, whenever they can, should convey not mere "literal" meanings, but a sense of the cultural meanings often inherent in style, Comitatus Corcagiensis will convey the idea of 'Cork County', not 'County Cork'. This is not to say that Comitatus Corcagiensis isn't OK: it's just to wonder whether Corcagiensis Comitatus might convey more cultural information. (Of course, an overwhelming majority of attestations of "N + modifier" could render the point nugatory in this instance.) Similarly, for example, abhinc annos octoginta septem perfectly conveys the literal sense of 'eighty-seven years ago', but it fails to convey the cultural implications of the locution 'four-score and seven years ago'. IacobusAmor 13:41, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand and appreciate your point. I'm afraid, however, that the interpretational situation may be very challenging here. First, we have to determine the kind of cultural meaning involved in the English usage of "County Cork" in contrast with "Cork County". Second, whatever cultural meaning is carried by the implicitly contrastive "County Cork", it's a priori not self-evident that a cultural point to the same effect could be made just by flipping the Latin word order. When facing such problems of interpretation, I'd prefer the neutral order in Comitatus Corcagiensis, until we know more of the cultural side of the issue. In sum, "Corcagiensis Comitatus" is always a syntactic option, but I don't know whether it carries the same cultural implications as the English flip-flop. Neander 14:20, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:] On the question you raise about County Cork (and one might add County Durham), Iacobe amice, I would reply in the words of Matthew Arnold, "It is to consider too curiously to consider so". To the people who live in County Cork (as also in County Durham), that word order has long since become utterly unremarkable. To me, by contrast, the word order "Allegheny County" seems very odd, and culturally loaded, and redolent of homespun rural America. But if in writing Latin we try to convey the loadedness of "Allegheny County" to me, and the loadedness of "County Cork" to you, we will fail to convey their normality to the people for whom they are normal. And we are writing for those people as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the enjoyable discussion, to which Neander provided the link, ended with our unanimous agreement to go for the unmarked/neutral order, "Comitatus X"; fortified by that, I will now move this page as Alexander requests. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 6 Iulii 2011 (UTC)