Disputatio:Iacoba Kennedy Onasis

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page needs to be moved: obviously Giacoma is not a Latin name, and needs to be replaced with Iacoba. But it is less obvious to me what shoudl be done with Onassis, because there is a colision of wikipedia Naming policies here:

  1. People with surnames written in the Roman alphabet, but no established Latin name, should keep their surnames unchanged, in the vernacular form.
  2. But Greeks normally get their names transliterated, using the same system used in antiquity.

Well, it's clear to me that Aristotle Onassis falls under category 2 (Αριστοτέλης Ωνάσης > Aristoteles Onases, though I'm not certain how his surname declines: it could be first declension, or more likely it is a genitive—as many modern Greek surnames are—and thus indeclinable), but it's less clear to me that Jacky O isn't in category 1. Honestly, were it up to me I would go with rule 2 for both Aristotle and Jackie, but this seems like something I should run past the community. So what do you think? --Iustinus 16:06, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Oy, this is even thornier than I thought. Based on el:Αριστοτέλης Ωνάσης and (better yet) this page, it looks like women of the Onassis clan use Ωνάση, including one Τζάκι Κένεντι-Ωνάση. Of course in Modern Greek typically women have a different form of the surname than men, but so far I had never encountered one like this: normally the women have the genitive form of the men's surname (unless it's already genitive, as I mentioned above), but in this case the women just have the actual feminine form of the name. So as if Iacoba Kennedy Onases weren't surprising enough, we might end up with Iacoba Kennedy Onase! --Iustinus 16:20, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Of course 'Iacquelina' has been known to exist ([1], [2], [3]). The surname, though, may be interesting—I think it may be an issue for a new kind of rule, namely whether names are to be inheritable across a family by default or not. I'm sure we have run across at least one case or two where two members of the same family Latinized their name differently. Αριστοτέλης Ωνάσης may be Aristoteles Onases, but do we know of Jackie using the Ωνάση name? As for the declension of Ωνάσης, the page you linked uses "του Αριστοτέλη Ωνάση". —Myces Tiberinus 22:53, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well found, but I haven't encountered Iaquelina in actual use: Jackies who go to the Conventiculum typically use Iacoba or Iacobula. And silly me, of course Ωνάση is just that weird Modern-Greek genitive, not the feminine of the name.
As for your larger question, yes that is a thorny issue. I've kind of figured that reusing the same Latinization for family members with no attested Latin name was an acceptable stopgap until contrary evidence came up (as in the case of Ioannes Dominicus Cassinus and Iacobus Cassini, which was no doubt what you had in mind), though it is debatable how many generations we should allow this to cary. For instance, it seems like a modern day decendant of a renaissance figure would still have their surname left unlatinized (barring evidence that they too Latinize their name, of course).
But that seems relatively clear cut compared to this issue. It seems safe to assume that Jackie had no qualms with Greeks refering to her as Τζάκι Ωνάση, including, presumably her husband and inlaws, but does that make it officially her name? On the other hand, it's one thing for a father and son to Latinize their surname differently, but it seems really weird for a married couple to do so. Plus, most of the world will know her as a) American, b) Onassis, (not Onasi). But... argh, this makes my head hurt. --Iustinus 00:40, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I shoudl mention that Egger gives Iacoba for Jacqueline in his Lexicon Nominum Virorum et Mulierum. --Iustinus 00:41, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

What's this "Kennedy" business? It used to be fairly standard for a married woman to use a forename, the initial of her maiden surname, and her current husband's surname, hence, in the usual Roman-letter spelling: Jacqueline B. Onassis. Our "Jackie O" may have done differently, wanting to honor the Kennedy name, but the first thing to verify is that she actually did, and that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is the name that she, not just popular culture, went by. IacobusAmor 01:03, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't start. I don't know about the current naming policy, but in my translator's guide I specifically made allowences for the occasional exception, where everyone calls someone one thing, but they themselves used a different form (the classical example being Wolfgangus Amadeus Mozart, who really didn't go by Amadeus much in his own time). And in any case, if en: lists both of her surnames, then honestly that's good enough for me. Besides, it's a little pointless to debate who her "current" husband is when all three persons in question are dead. --Iustinus 01:11, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: in traditional American (Emily-Postish) usage, the relevant name is the name of a widow's final husband, which the widow bears for the rest of her life—giving us, in this case, the form Jacqueline B. Onassis. IacobusAmor 13:13, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Iacobina[fontem recensere]

I have created Iacobina, because the name has been changed to this. Maybe it should be Iacoba (see the first line on this page)? Feel free to move the pages. --Rolandus 17:45, 2 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Have we decided now that Iacobina is the equivalent of 'Jacqueline'? Pantocrator 11:57, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
No we didn't. Furthermore you asked the question after moving the article...? As Iustinus points out above, Iacoba is usually the proper form? Whence Iacobina? Ecce Diminutivum Latinum, which certainly suggests Iacobula... Why did you move it exactly? --Ioscius 12:02, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
The name in the text was Iacobina, and there's also this page. Pantocrator 12:08, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Well we certainly can't go moving every page that has something quirky in it, can we? Maybe we should have changed the lemma to fit the title (and the citations, and the dicussion page) rather than the title to fit the lemma? --Ioscius 12:11, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Besides Iacobina was made specifically because of this conversation... --Ioscius 12:13, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the exiguous page Iacobina has been there for ages: evidently it was an idea of Rolandus's to improve on "Giacoma". And "Giacoma" is certainly a very un-Latin form. So Pantocrator was completing Rolandus's work. That's reasonable, surely. So, moving on, was "Iacobina" a good idea or not? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Reasonable, sure, but just as hasty and impatient. I think, moving on, the obvious needs stated that no, Iacobina is not a good idea. --Ioscius 20:44, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the consensus is that Iacobina is not Latin, I can't override that. But it's certainly the form I would have come up with - Fr. '-ine' is certainly cognate to Latin -ina, and Italian, for example, has the equivalent Giacomina (though interpreted there as a diminutive). Pantocrator 23:17, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Lots of pages on this wiki differ in their title and lemma; in such cases, it is proper to change one or the other and not leave it in such a state. Pantocrator 23:17, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Note IacobusAmor's frequently-employed summarium "Ut titulus sit lemma". And the one who clears up these inconsistencies may sometimes arouse others to say, "you went the wrong way", as I and others may sometimes have said to Iacobus! But it was still desirable, so as to bring the inconsistency or disagreement into discussion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Well, someone has taken it upon himself to change it to Iacoba. In addition to what I said above, I think Iacobina sounds much better (just pronounce them!). Is there any reason people object to Iacobina?
Further I just edited Bonaparte (familia), where there are several female names in '-ine'. If we Latinise 'Caroline', 'Josephine', and probably 'Pauline' (to distinguish it from 'Paula') with -ina, why not 'Jacqueline'? Pantocrator 01:24, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I confess this is a little trying, P-crator... I will say this clearly, hoping it might strike some sort of sense: We object to Iacobina because it isn't the Latin form, but the Romance backform. I think one of the prettiest words I ever heard in any language is cielo but we use caelum because cielo is Spanish and caelum is Latin. Make any sense? And that someone who took it upon himself is me, and you know it. --Ioscius 07:14, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to how you can say that Iacobina is not a Latin form. The name 'Jacqueline' certainly was made in a modern language, so any Latin form will be some kind of back-formation. I don't understand your comparison to caelum/cielo because translating 'cielo' to caelum is exactly the same as translating 'Jacqueline' to Iacobina i.e. reversing Latin-to-Romance sound changes.
The fact that '-ina' does exist as a feminine suffix in Latin names and that it corresponds to French '-ine' can't be disputed. The Italian form only provides further support. Why should this one case be excepted?
Finally, I did a Google search to prove that 'Iacobina' did exist. 'Iacobina' has many attestations in many languages including Latin. True, I found none in pure Latin texts after the 16th century, but that is likely more because Latin fell out of use as an administrative language than anything else; it does occur as a Latin form in German and Italian texts much later. 'Iacobina' itself is or was a possible form in Italian, and the spelling 'Jacobina' has occurred in English. Finally a search on the regular Google gives an abnormal proportion of the results from Romanian or Greek; I would guess it to be the normal form in those languages. [If Google allowed Latin as a language option I could make these searches more precise.]
All these support a Latin form Iacobina. We need, to avoid disputes, to have a standard way of Latinising first names where there is no authoritative contemporary attestation; why should we not, in the case of female forms of James/Jacob, put forms with -in- as Iacobina and forms without as Iacoba? Yes, it's true that that would lead to almost always using the former nowadays, but what purpose can it serve not to do so? Pantocrator 11:06, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Sure it exists in Mediaeval Latin, as do all sorts of other Italian inventions. You've seen spelling reflect the palatization of consonant groups ci, ce, gi, ge; the reduction of ae=>e. Do you mean that this is a Latin phenomenon, or an Italian effect on Latin usage? Let's take a look at one of your google finds:
Cum esset denunciata Iacobina, filia quondam Vasini del Tramerio de Semogo, uxor Christophori del Valar tanquam malefica a Iacobo quondam Petri Brunenghi, Malgherta quondam Ioannis de Pradella, Martolina uxor quondam Nicolai Scalotte et a Dominica Chieriga quondam Vasini del Trameiro, et a Dominica iuniore eius filia, ut in processibus desuper notatis, omnibus maleficis confessis et convinctis, fuit per magnificum concilium ordinatum quod procedatur ad capturam dicte Iacobine.
I reject this construction ordinatum quod as much as I reject genitive dicte as much as I reject Iacobina. I don't reject them in life, in history, in private writings or anything of the sort. Just on this Vicipaedia when we have agreed that we follow, as much as it can be achieved, a Classical standard.
Mucius pointed out about that Iaquelina exists, too, surely you would prefer that to Iacobina?
Please look again at Diminutivum Latinum... do you find -ina for feminine nouns? No... you find -ula, as was suggested above. Again, the question must be asked, is -ina, then, a Latin phenomenon, or a Romance phenomenon?
Rather -inus is an adjectival suffix, not a diminutive. That's why we see usages like EST GENS IACOBINA FIDEM SVNT HAEC EVGENII or Etiam Jacobus Rex imperauit ut domi Caluina, in ecclesia Iacobina traductio legeretur.
You mentioned elsewhere it was ridiculous to imagine that the middle ages didn't happen. That's true, it is ridiculous. But it's not ridiculous to prefer a Classical usage when there's no good reason for the Romance influence. --Ioscius 12:49, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I should add that I also have no objection to articles on Iacobina if she were called that in her lifetime, as has also been discussed as a rule before as well.
It is I think very unwise to suggest, P-crator, as you have above, that -in- should be our standard for formations.--Ioscius 13:20, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
There are two relevant issues now. The first is the status of the suffix -ina. I say it is not a diminutive in Latin; it may have originated as a diminutive in Romance, but it is not one in Latin. It is only a suffix used to form certain feminine names (and also regina - as classical as you can get!).
Baldi (p. 303) says the Latin suffix -īnus, -īna, seen in vīcīnus, lībertīnus, rēgīna, and opificīna, reflects the PIE suffix *-no-, which was added to "certain nouns which end in *-ih2-." IacobusAmor 02:14, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
So it was used for both substantives and adjectives. The question, then, is whether the Romance -ino/-ina/-ine is this same suffix; it seems very likely. Pantocrator 02:29, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
If you reject -ina for names as an importation from Romance, then you should reject names that contain it. But I imagine everyone accepts Carolina, Iosephina, Christina, Paulina (which all certainly do), so why not Iacobina?
The second is that of proper names in general. Regardless of what you think about classical purity, proper nouns do not (can not) obey the same rules as general vocabulary or especially grammar. We do not translate proper names into their classical equivalents; rather, unless there is an attested Latin form for that person or place, we merely use the name as is, mapped into a Latin form if it fits an existing pattern. There's no question that Iacobina is closer to 'Jacqueline' than is Iacoba (which would be the appropriate rendering of forms like 'Giacoma' and 'Jakoba').
As for my suggestion of a 'standard', do you agree that there ought to be one? If so, it's reasonable to discuss what it should be. I do agree that of course we should follow attested usage if there is any, but in this case there isn't. Pantocrator 13:36, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Those examples touch on a question that came to mind when the word presented itself: whether a Iacobina might be a female Jacobin of some sort (a follower of James, or an egalitarian terrorist). IacobusAmor 13:07, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
If one can find a specific attestation for Jacqueline being translated into latin as Iacobina, then one should use it. Otherwise, I think we should just stick with Jacqueline as an undeclinable. That is how we should deal with all names that have no clear attested Latin translation.-- 01:17, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
There is this one that I found in my Google searches. I found a few other cases of 'Jacqueline'==Iacoba, but they are all ad hoc contemporary and hence of no value.
We do not normally treat first names as indeclinable foreignisms if any Latin form exists that can be used. In this case, the French 'Jacqueline' corresponds to Latin 'Iacobina', which indeed my not have been the direct source - but that's true for almost all personal names. However, my searches revealed that French 'Jacqueline' is not recorded before about 1500, so indeed the suffix may have been taken form Latin or Italian.
In my opinion, the decisive factor should be that many vernacular languages, especially Italian, have or had parallel forms with and without the suffix -ine/-ina, and Latin should as well. Pantocrator 01:43, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

"-ina" as a feminine suffix[fontem recensere]

Actually "-ina" did exist in classical Latin as a feminine suffix. It was used to make feminine forms of names that ended in "-a" in the masculine. Cp. Agrippa - Agrippina and Messala - Messalina. --Fabullus 07:23, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have thought of that one. Surely then -ina was not foreign to classical Latin. Pantocrator 14:32, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the English name Jacobina exists in its own right (presumably not as a translation of anything else), as a little searching on the internet will show. IacobusAmor 13:49, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned it. Why would you think it's not derived from anything else? It may have been formed in English, but I doubt it was in most instances (Jamesina was the truly native form). Pantocrator 14:32, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
It "exists in its own right" in the sense that if you ask a Jacobina what her name means to her, she's unlikely to say that it "stands for Jacqueline." IacobusAmor 14:39, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Well, no. But (avoiding irrelevant details) can the names be said to be equivalent or not? I thought you were arguing that all forms must be translated by the same Latin form; are you now proposing to exempt 'Jacobina' from that? English 'Jacobina', French 'Jacqueline', and Italian 'Giacomina' (etc.) were all derived by attaching a common feminine suffix to the descendant of Iacobus or Iacoba (the L in the French form is presumably for euphony); so that distinguishing 'Jacobina' and 'Jacqueline' in that manner would be absurd. Pantocrator 14:55, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I think Pantocrator has a good point here. However, if the result would be that every name can be latinized according to an individual author's preference, I prefer to abolish this silly latinization of first names altogether (as Neander suggested some time ago, if I remember well). --Fabullus 16:26, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
And he was not the only one who thought that way. This discussion does look a bit like counting-angels-on-pinheads to me (nothing personal, gentlemen!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I think that if we do Latinise names (which seems to be a part of good Latin style) there should be a standard way of doing it. Did we not standardise on Gulielmus for 'William' (though I would rather have the phonetically accurate Guilelmus)? Pantocrator 03:20, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I still don't agree. Jaqueline is the feminine form of Jacque, there isn't another option in French. In Latin there is Iacobus, the feminine of which is Iacoba. We would assume then like Iacobus (ipse!) said above if the appearance of Iacobina in Latin wasn't adjectival at first. Like Christina above, Christa is a bit awkward, equating the name of the girl to the name of Christ. Also there weren't a whole lot of other dudes walking around calling themselves Christus, but a way around that Christophorus. Christinus would presumable mean christlike or of/relating to Christ.
If the -ine it comes ultimately from a pie adjectival infix through a Latin adjectival suffix, that doesn't make -inus our norm for rendering the feminine form of a normally rendered name. Few would argue James or Jacques to be Latinized as Iacobus, why should a modern Jacqueline (the feminine form of Jacques) have a Iacobina while the corresponding feminine form of the Latinized name is Iacoba? Iacobina occurs, sure, we all agree, but why should it be our standard, especially when as pointed out above, Iacoba or Iacobula is the renaissance/modern form preferred when people moved away from medieval tradition back to a classical ideal.
I confess though that I'm tired of arguing about this. If we give ourselves over to a medieval ideal or worse yet leaving names foreign and undeclined, I just don't know... --Ioscius 16:41, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel any urgency here either. Though earlier (when, unlike some novices, I was still deferring to the usage of my scriptorial elders), I saw Iacobina and allowed it to stand, I'd be happy with Iacoba (for which excellent points have been made), or Jacqueline (unchanged from English), or even Iacelina (as an attempt at Latinizing Jacqueline), if people were to agree on that. All the better if the woman herself, perhaps in some obscure letter or diary, had expressed a preference, but the odds of that can't be high. IacobusAmor 16:59, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
For the record.—On 22 Augusti 2006, usor created the article under the title & lemma Giacoma Kennedy Onassis. On 2 Ianuarii 2007, usor changed the first name in the lemma from Giacoma to Iacobina but did not change the title of the article. On Aprilis 2007, I noticed this discrepancy and asked "Cur iam est rei nomen 'Giacoma' (non 'Iacobina')?" On 19 Maii 2007, Helveticus montanus (who then had a different name, if I recall rightly) changed the title of the article to Iacoba Kennedy Onassis, creating another discrepancy. On 22 Februarii 2010, Pantocrator changed the title of the article to match the lemma. Which is where we were at the revival of interest in this topic. IacobusAmor 17:23, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
In modern French, Jacqueline may be the only form. But mediaeval French had 'Jacques' (masc.) and 'Jacque' (fem.) (from Iacobus and Iacoba resp., the normal pattern in Old French), which became homophones (due to the fall of final S in most words) by the 15c. which may be why the new form 'Jacqueline' eventually replaced 'Jacque'. By the way the man's name is still spelled 'Jacques'. So French is not an exception to having different forms.
I admit you may be right about Christus and Christina. But it certainly does not apply to the other three I mentioned: Paulus, Carolus, Iosephus are male Latin names. They have feminine forms Paula, Carola, Iosepha but also the longer Paulina, Carolina, Iosephina. I don't think you'd dispute there Latinising vernacular forms with -ine/-ina as the latter, so why again is 'Jacqueline' an exception? Pantocrator 03:20, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Because -line is not -ine. If anything, the form to fight for would be Iacobulina, but that's apparently silly enough that no-one has proposed it. Anyway, as mentioned at the top of this page, Iacquelina does exist; besides the links given, cf. [4][5] etc. Apparently the only reason the page wasn't moved to Iacquelina four years ago is because, as Iustinus noted, Latinists actually named Jacqueline are reported to use 'Iacoba' or 'Iacobula' instead... but as recent suggestion shows, these names are hardly unproblematic. Would there be any objection to just going with 'Iacquelina'? (Besides its other qualities, it perfectly matches your example series— Pauline : Paulina :: Caroline : Carolina :: Josephine : Iosephina :: Jacqueline : X, where X = Iacquelina.) —Mucius Tever 06:05, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Iacquelina has occurred, to be sure, but it's not a Latin form. The connecting letter L in 'Jacqueline' is presumably only for euphony in French.
My series is actually meant to reflect the Latin names, hoc est
Paulus : Paulina :: Carolus : Carolina :: Iosephus : Iosephina :: Iacobus : ???
Pantocrator 06:16, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
The qu in Iacquelina would presumably be there to force church-Latin pronouncers into the desired phonemes; but since we don't do that with other words (loquaces, not loquacques, and feroces, not ferocques, and duces, not ducques), why shouldn't Iacelina be right? Or is that to be saved to Latinize the names Jaclyn and Joyceline and such? IacobusAmor 14:11, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
You have to be kidding. No one goes and changes the spelling of classical Latin words. And Iacelina is a pure barbarism: Iacquelina would at least be justified as sticking as close as possible to the French form. Meanwhile Iacobina not only exists, but even if it did not, would be justified by all the vernacular forms I have mentioned. Pantocrator 14:21, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Not Iacelina — the 'qu' may be there for the /k/ sound, but the |c| in front of it surely isn't; if you had to respell it, it'd look something like Iaccelina. But I don't think this is necessary. Your examples ('loquacques' etc.) are all going in the wrong direction; we're not looking at spelling originally Latin words to match French spelling of the reconstructed classical pronunciation, but spelling originally French words to match Franco-Latin spelling according to Franco-Latin pronunciation. And as far as I'm aware this is the way things were done universally before the rise of Erasmian Latin; this is not so much an error as it is a cultural shift. At any rate isn't the 'qu' pronounced as spelled in other languages? Certainly it can be pronounced "jakwelin" in English; there's no reason people who use a Latin pronunciation that has a /kʷ/ there couldn't pronounce it that way when they see it. —Mucius Tever 23:33, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking your /kʷ/ must be /k/ in French. ¶ Iaccelina would change the rhythm by doubling a consonant that wouldn't have been doubled in the original. IacobusAmor 00:15, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, it would be /k/ in French. (But generally choices in orthography of modern languages that use the Latin script are with reference to their historical values (outside of missionary-with-broken-typewriter stories), which is why many Latinographic languages, even when diverse pronunciations are involved, can borrow names without having to retranscribe them.) But I have to disagree on the doubled /k/; it must certainly have been doubled in the original. The standard Latin "Iacó:bus" would have become, by the regular rules, something like "Jaous" (or Jeüs or Jûs or some such) or "Jaoub" etc. (depending on whether the nominative was kept), with the -c- dropping out as it did in "securus" -> OFr seür -> sûr, or "carruca" -> charrue. To produce "Jacques" it would indeed have to have been something like "Iáccobus" in the original VL, no? —Mucius Tever 04:34, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Please, don't bring inventions into this — when you say "presumably only for euphony", do you have a source on that? It really looks like the double diminutive. Cf. [6], where someone used the double-diminutive example of 'Jacqueline' to support a spurious etymology of 'morgeline', or [7], where a related name Jacquel is mentioned as a diminutive of 'Jacque'/'Jacques'—from this 'Jacqueline' would come freely, of course; in this case "Jacquel" would be "Iacobulus/Iacobula", from which it'd have to be "Iacobulina" to complete your series. Also supporting the idea are other diminutives of Jacquel formed from other French suffixes, such as Jacquelot and jacquelet. —Mucius Tever 23:33, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it will be the case that for Jacqueline, there will never be a consensus as to what is best. All three choices are attested and correct; the choice Iacoba may make more sense as default by virtue of being more classical, although Iacquelina seems best to me otherwise by virtue of being more conservative to the usage of the period in which the person lived; I think Iacobina a distant third, given all the above discussion.-- 02:37, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
"The period in which the person lived" ... An odd way to speak about someone who lived less than twenty years ago! But, I guess it was in another millennium :p —Mucius Tever 04:37, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)