E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Ad "Honflorium" removi quia fontes pro hoc nomine Latino repperi. Sed licet "Honfluctus" proponere et rursus movere si fontes vel plures vel meliores reperiuntur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:40, 16 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

Ad "Honnefluctu" removi non modo quia fontes et plures et meliores repertae sunt sed hoc nomen adaequationem etymologiae praebet. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 21:41, 16 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
Optime, mi Leonelle. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the right declension. It sounds quite strange to latinize a place-name that is obviously of Anglo-Scandinavian origin. Honflorium is completely idiotic : it is a well known fact, that -fleur is a modern spelling for -fleu by confusion with the French word for "flower" , why should we latinize it this way ? For sure it appears as such in 2 documents of the classical age, but there are isolated. If we begin to add such forms, we should evoke the real forms Hunefleth in 1025 ; Hunefloth around 1062 ; Honneflo en 1198[1] ; Honflue in 1246 ; Honnefleu, still in the 18th. They appear in most documents about the town. -fluctus is much more justified, because it is more or less the same meaning that the Old English fleot that is the real etymology. Otherwise, why do we keep Barfleur so instead of latinizing it. It is not logical.Nortmannus (disputatio) 18:16, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
As I explained, we on Vicipaedia don't Latinize by etymological argument. We start from Latin sources. If you have a source for a Latinization for Barfleur (or any other name), cite it and we can use it. That's our logic :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ernest Nègre, Toponymie générale de la France. 2. Formations non-romanes ..., Volume 2, Librairie Droz, Genève 1991. p. 1012 / 18239