E Vicipaedia
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere

Possibly, the city name should be latinised as "Caliningradum"? --Alexander Gerascenco 18:10, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Equidem censeo toponymata Slavonica per illud -gorod vel -grad suffix formata semper ad exemplum Constantinopolis esse in linguam Latinam convertenda.--Irenaeus 00:04, 2 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Orbis Latinus (reference [2]) lists this city's latinized name as "Regiomontum", not "Regiomontium". The "i" should be deleted. See Orbis Latinus, p. 166: "Regiomontum, Königsberg, St. in Preussen". -- 13:06, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Graesse re vera ambas formas dat, e quibus Regiomontium forma multo usitatior est. Non est, cur i deleatur. Neander (disputatio) 15:30, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but, actually, Grässe gives two different, separate entries as follows (see Grässe, Orbis Latinus (Dresden: Schönfeld, 1861), p. 166, right column, the 18th--13th lines from the bottom):
"Regiomontium, Kingsberg oder Königsberg, Bergschloss in Schlesien." [Bergschloss = "castle", not "city".]
"Regiomontum, Königsberg, St. in Preussen; St. in Ungarn." ["St." stands for Stadt = "city".]
I.e., Grässe 1861 lists Regiomontum (without "i") as a certain city's name and, separately, Regiomontium as a certain building's name; he doesn't give two possible forms of the city's name. At least, Grässe 1861 doesn't work as evidence to prove that the "i"-ed Regiomontium form is what the city (not castle) should be called. If the "i"-ed form is "multo usitatior" as the city's -- not building's -- name, feel free to add a reference to a source stating so. -- 15:50, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
What initially called my attention was the form Regiomontum which exhibits a strange derivational pattern (the normal and expectable one being -montium). My first thought was that it must be a typo (certainly not the first one in the old Graesse). Now that I'm looking at the 4th, revised edition of Graesse (i.e. Graesse; Benedict; Plechl: Orbis Latinus, Vierte revidierte und erweiterte Auflage herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Helmut Plechl unter Mitarbeit von Günter Spitzbart. Klinkhardt & Biermann: Braunschweig, 1971), I see my suspicion confirmed. P. 289, there are two entries:
  • "Regiomontium, Regalis, Regius mons, Regis mons, Konsbergum: Königsberg [Kaliningrad] (O-Preussen), Deutschl."
  • "Regiomontium, Regalis mons, Regis mons, Regis mons, Nova fodina: [Königsberg, Újbánya] (Slowakei), Tschechoslov."
After all, it was a typo. Vale, Neander (disputatio) 19:29, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I confirmed that another, newer edition of Orbis Latinus lists both the "i"-ed form and the "i"-less one (Grässe, Benedict and Plechl, Orbis latinus: Lexikon lateinischer geographischer Namen des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, Großausgabe der 4. Auflage, Band 3 (Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1972), p. 243, right column, the 7th line and 11th line from the top):
"Regiomontium Borussiae -> Regalis Mons"
"Regiomontum -> Regalis Mons"
At least, Grässe, Benedict and Plechl 1972 redirects both Regiomontium and Regiomontum to the same Regalis Mons equally. I still don't believe that the sources pointed out support the "'i'-less Regiomontum is a mere typo" theory, but it's become clear that Regiomontium, as well as Regiomontum, should be listed as valid alternative notations of the city Königsberg. -- 03:25, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
We need to move away from "Calininopolis", because that name is unattested and other names are attested. Where should we move to? I agree with Neander that "Regiomontum", although validated by dictionaries, is malformed. Thus it seems to me the best choices available to us are "Regiomontium", "Regalis Mons" and "Kaliningradum". I would prefer the first -- unless it is considered offensive to retain the older name in this case. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:26, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't directly answer to your question, Andrew, but perhaps it's better to create separate articles on Kaliningradum and Regiomontium, as has been done in some wikis. Kaliningradum is a political fact, but homines illustres mentioned in the article are certainly Regiomontani. ¶ It's hard to call gedrucktes Wort into question, but I'm still suspicious of "Regiomontum" (though the editio maior of Graesse keeps it as a relique), until I see that form in authentic Latin texts that have served as sources for Graesse. In any case, we don't need it in the main text. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the note. Have we to keep "Calininopolis" in the lemma? Neander (disputatio) 13:34, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
No, a source has been requested for Calininopolis and no one has found one. It should be deleted from the lemma, therefore: a redirect will of course remain.
I'm not enthusiastic about creating two articles, both for the city, if it is the same city, not a new one built over the ruins of the old. However, I don't object if others think it's the best answer.
I agree with you about "Regiomontum". Some of these dictionaries are so good at listing all possible Latin names that they include other people's misunderstandings and misspellings (and perhaps, in this case, their own former misspellings), giving them a ghostly authority. Maybe that happened here. Encyclopedias perform a different task, and need to guide users to forms that are accurate and valid (there may still be several such forms, not just one). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
I work for a publisher that concentrates on natural science, and on business I've been skimmed over some scientific books and journals published in about the 17th--19th centuries. I personally have seen the Regiomontum form (and gen. Regiomonti and dat./acc. Regiomonto), but not Regiomontium/Regiomontii/Regiomontio. (For instance, see Joannis Kepleri Astronomi Opera Omnia, ed. Frisch, vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer, 1859), p. 36, the 19th line from the top; Rzazynski, Historia Naturalis Curiosa Regni Poloniae (Sandomiriae: Typis Collegii Soc. Jesu., 1721), p. 18, the 10th line from the bottom. Both are in Google Books.) So I was under the impression that Regiomontum, rather than Regiomontium, is a prevalent notation. Of course saying "they are all misspelled" is easy, but since there are multiple sources that adopt the "i"-less form, it seems inappropriate to remove the existence of this form from the article, even if the "i"-ed one is theoretically more expectable. -- 15:27, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for those sources. I have found a plenty of other sources confirming your position, though I've found other sources confirming the existence of Regiomontium as well; e.g. Dissertatio secularis de Re literaria coenobii S. Michaelis, 1755. I readily admit that grammatical considerations (such as "derivational pattern") have only a heuristic value. What original texts say must of course be of decisive value. Given the well-established variants Regiomontum and Regiomontium, one may wonder why the latter appears to be more frequent in modern Latin. If my gut feeling is correct, I might suggest that, in the long run, Regiomontium has been cumulatively selected because it has been felt more correct. This is just a wild guess. I may be wrong on both scores. Neander (disputatio) 18:17, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
I too am surprised and impressed by the number of sources for "Regiomontum". Thank you for doing that work: obviously my simple assumption of an error was mistaken. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:20, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the information and editing. I shamefully didn't know that there are many instances of Regiomontium in many other written sources, so I was wrong, too. I've learned a great deal. Thank you again. -- 00:50, 18 Martii 2012 (UTC)