Disputatio:Lingua Anglo-Saxonica

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Corrigendum est verbum locutus in prima sententia, nam participium praeteritum eumdem casum, numerum et genus habere oportet quam nomen cui refert. Scribere oportet locuta. Etiam corrigendum est verbum Norvegiensis nam nomini lingua refert et hoc nomen in casu ablativo est; ergo Norvegiensi scribere oportet.90.21.37.195 17:27, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Iacobus B.

Bene fecisti.--Rafaelgarcia 00:34, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

"Anglica et Saxonica"[fontem recensere]

The article mentioned the name "Anglica et Saxonica" and gives

Athanasius Kircherus, Turris Babel, sive Archontologia (Amstelodami: Jansson-Waesberge, 1679) textus pp. 212-215

as reference. In the text there is:

  • "Filiae autem, quas peperit, sunt Belgica, Angica, Scotica, Danica, Suecica. [...] Anglica originem suam sumpsit à Saxonibus, qui expulsis Valliis insulam occuparunt, Saxonicâ in Wallicam veterem substitutâ: unde & in hunc diem Anglo-Saxones dicuntu: vide de hisce Bedam." (p.212)
  • "Caeterùm caeterae linguae ex Germanica, tantò majorem corruptionem passae sunt, quantò magis ad Septentrionem accesserunt, Anglica, & Scotica, uti & Belgica ex vicina Gallia, plurima verba Gallica suae inseruerunt, adeoque ex Gallica, & Germanica compositae videntur, radicali tamen Germanico semper retento." (p.213)
  • "Atque omnes hae vastissimae regiones idiomate utuntur ex Danico, Suecico, Anglico adeò corrupto, ut vix à Germanis inteligi possint." (p.215)

As far as I can see, there nowhere is "Anglica et Saxonica" (English and Saxon) refering to the Anglo-Saxon language. -Halutzim (disputatio) 21:24, 12 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. On the other hand (you have just made me look) we can now find sources for "lingua Anglo-Saxonica", so I'll cite one. It may still be worth citing Kircher verbatim in a footnote because he gives an interesting viewpoint, even if he doesn't supply "Anglica et Saxonica" as such. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sources for "Anglo-Saxonica" (with hyphen) can be found, sources for "Anglosaxonica" (without hyphen) too. My impression is that "Anglosaxonica" is more common and that "Anglo-Saxonica" was often used by Englishmen, maybe because it is similar to the English spelling "Anglo-Saxon".
Mentioning or quoting Kircher should be ok. -Halutzim (disputatio) 13:30, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Move?[fontem recensere]

Since we now cite sources for "lingua Anglosaxonica", and there are probably no Latin sources for "lingua Anglica antiqua", I think we should move this page to lingua Anglosaxonica. There's nothing wrong with the name. Historical linguists don't favour it these days, but they are no longer writing Latin anyway. Any other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Google says the Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici has this text (boldface added for your convenience): "est differentia, credo, inter linguam anglicam antiquam (seu Anglo-saxon) et linguam anglicam hodiernam, quanta inter germanicam et anglicam modernam." :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:45, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Anglica antiqua is an obvious calque of 'Old English', a modern English name universally in use; indeed, "Anglo-Saxon language" in Wikipedia becomes a redirect to en:Old English. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:51, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Oh, well, now that you've found a source, we have free choice! Thanks! And we may well think "lingua Anglica antiqua" is better because it agrees with the historical linguists. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, here's a hint for searching on Google: try the oblique cases! For example, if you search for "linguae anglicae antiquae," you'll find two more attestations, but they're from internet discussion boards and should probably therefore have less weight than a bishop speaking at an ecumenical council (if that's what it is), so I didn't cite them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:16, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
I usually do that. To tell the truth, I never thought we'd find an attestation for "lingua Anglica antiqua" so I never looked properly! Just shows how wrong one can be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Credo equidem testimonium episcopi illius admodum tenue esse. Itaque "Anglo-Saxonicam" praeposui, quippe quae inter scriptores praevalere videatur. Ipse quidem Anglosaxonicam praetulerim, quia sermo Anglosaxonum erat, sed in paucissimis fontibus apparere videtur. Quodsi errasse videor, mutare licet. Neander (disputatio) 17:52, 14 Octobris 2017 (UTC)