Disputatio:Israël
- Mehercle magna confusio nominum oppidorum. Melius sit semper uti formis recentibus Hebraicis. Anthony Appleyard 18:52, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Movenda?[fontem recensere]
Vide Disputatio:Israel. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:56, 29 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Lemmata[fontem recensere]
Lemma "Civitas Israel" sine fonte additum est. An fontem huius locutionis Latinae reperire possumus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- The official Hebrew name (מדינת ישראל, medinat Yisrael) is routinely translated as "State of Israel". Are you looking for an explicit source for this? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:18, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- We ought normally to give a Latin source for a lemma if there is a source. Perhaps there is. If there isn't one, a simple alternative would be to use "Israel" as the only lemma -- we have a source for it, already cited -- then give the official Hebrew name, and then give "civitas Israel" unbolded, in quotes, as translation of the Hebrew. It may seem the merest quibble, but people look to Vicipaedia for exactly this sort of information, so we shouldn't bold (as a lemma) a Latin form that we have made up, as if it were equal to a Latin form that has a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- I take your point. Unless you can find a modern geography textbook or atlas in Latin, your best bet is probably the Vatican Secretariat of State. But I know they don't always translate their documents into Latin. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:07, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- The phrase itself appears to go back at least as far as Origen (third century). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:45, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- Here you go, in the first sentence, from 2005. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:46, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- Great. I had found the Origen item too, but I didn't find the modern one! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- Added (as you saw). I suppose I could argue that confirming a lemma would properly be a job for Victionarium, but I know that's not what people really do. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:27, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- You might argue that, but I might argue that Victionarium is not a reliable source ... The reason we are more careful about confirming lemmas than some other Wikipedias is a practical one (I'd say): modern Latin is relatively hard to confirm. On the other hand it is easy to create Latin names by guesswork, well or badly. To help users, we ought to indicate clearly whether we have a reliable source. And it fits with general Wikipedia policy: cite reliable sources, don't make things up.
- For two completely different recent examples, see Diploma inventionis/Litterae patentes and Carolus Darwin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- Added (as you saw). I suppose I could argue that confirming a lemma would properly be a job for Victionarium, but I know that's not what people really do. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:27, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- Great. I had found the Origen item too, but I didn't find the modern one! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- I take your point. Unless you can find a modern geography textbook or atlas in Latin, your best bet is probably the Vatican Secretariat of State. But I know they don't always translate their documents into Latin. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:07, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
- We ought normally to give a Latin source for a lemma if there is a source. Perhaps there is. If there isn't one, a simple alternative would be to use "Israel" as the only lemma -- we have a source for it, already cited -- then give the official Hebrew name, and then give "civitas Israel" unbolded, in quotes, as translation of the Hebrew. It may seem the merest quibble, but people look to Vicipaedia for exactly this sort of information, so we shouldn't bold (as a lemma) a Latin form that we have made up, as if it were equal to a Latin form that has a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)