Disputatio:Londinium

Londonium is not in J. G. Th. Graesse, Orbis Latinus (Dresdae: Schönfeld, 1861; 1909. Brunsvici, 1972, 3 voll.) 1 2 3. --Roland2 21:08, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub notam 1 haec invenies si ibi astericem premis:

Londini

Peddie: London

Graesse II:409 (Londinium, Augusta Basilea, Augusta civ., Augusta Trinobantum, Liendonias, Lindonium, Londinensis, Londinium Augusta, Londinum, Londoniarum civ., Londomensis, Londonia, Londoniensis, Londonio, Londonium, Londoviensis, Londunum, Lundaena, Lundena, Lundercensis, Lundinia, Lundinium, Lundinum, Lundona, Londona Britannica, Lundonia, Lundoniensis, Lunduna, Lundunensis, Lunduniensis, Trinovantum =London, Hst. von Grossbritannien.)

--Alex1011 11:24, 22 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the investigation. I had checked the online version: There is - I realized that now - Lundunensis, s. Londonium. — but the entry Londonium does not exist. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 13:55, 22 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this long list of names (most of them misspellings or simply not Latin) shouldn't be in the infobox. Infoboxes should be for brief, serious, important information that people can rely on: that doesn't apply to these names. Would anyone mind if I moved three or four goodish ones into a footnote and deleted the rest? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:39, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that now. The full list still appears above if anyone has second thoughts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:29, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you wanted to find "Londinum", Alex, and you found it; but it is possible to find mistakes in print. I think this is one such mistake, and it doesn't deserve to be in our first sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:06, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These people seem to have had the same quarrel: [1]. --Alex1011 19:18, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! IacobusAmor 19:23, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, all over London, at every bus stop, there were posters advertising a film Pyscho. And on that occasion, it seems, no one ever noticed.

I must admit, incidentally, that 18,000 is a pretty good Google score for a Latin misspelling. But then, "Euripedes" gets 444,000. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:38, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get away from this idea of "misspelling". Already in Roman times names of cities changed with time. If people started to call in Latin London Londinum then this is not a misspelling. We can decide for our vicipaedia that words and names of classical antiquity are to be preferred. Howerver that might not always coincide with our policy of attestation. --Alex1011 21:45, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only partly agree with that. People look to an encyclopedia to tell them what is verifiably true, so far as that's achievable. If they think that Euripedes is correct, because that's the way a teacher spelled it, and they consult Wikipedia, and Wikipedia tells them it's OK (because it has half a million Google hits), Wikipedia has misled them just as their teacher did; Wikipedia needs to do better than that, or it will never be a reliable encyclopedia.

When it comes to London it's slightly different, because the city still exists and people have written about it in modern Latin. But it isn't the case that "people started to call in Latin London Londinum" -- or, at least, we haven't proved that. People still continue to call it by its classical name Londinium. To prove that the name "Londinum" has some validity beyond a single source (a foreign author, a map engraver -- not all engravers can spell -- who may have mistakenly created "Londinum" by backtracking from a genitive or locative Londini) we would want more solid evidence. I'm not saying there isn't any! There might be, but I didn't see any in the first few pages of Google hits.

It's like those many alternative names for London that Graesse lists (this is one of them, in fact). Graesse's purpose is different from that of an encyclopedia. He wanted to collect all possible place names that might occur in ancient, medieval and modern Latin and tell people what place they represented (he failed, of course, but nice try). If we, in our encyclopedia, list all those Graesse forms (and many of them are misspellings, misunderstandings, deliberate falsifications, etc. -- the medieval equivalent of vandalism!) as if they were equal, we are misleading our readers. They aren't equal.

At present, for Vicipaedia, it maybe doesn't matter very much. Not many people look to Vicipaedia as an authoritative source. But they will in the future (or, at least, that's our ambition!). For those future users, I think, we have to distinguish what's valid, reliable, and (e.g. in terms of spelling) correct, from what's invalid, unreliable, and incorrect.

And that's not to say that we don't mention the unreliable names and pretend they don't exist. We have to judge among them. Some variants are common and valid enough to be listed in the first sentence alongside our preferred form; some need to be mentioned in a footnote, because they do exist and we can cite them, but they were never standard; some maybe don't even make the footnotes.

Well, that's my view, anyway! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 18 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I could have added that there are cases -- and I think this is one -- where we need a whole section on "the name". You've already found another case of "Londinum": and I notice that "Londinum", not "Londinium", is the form given in the version of Graesse available on Google Books [2]. We need to explain why the medieval vandal (Geoffrey of Monmouth) invented "Trinovantum"; we need to say during which period "Londinum" was acceptable. Our London article is very sketchy, and here's one way in which it could be improved. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 18 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points all. For this article, the present nominal compromise may be OK, as our concerns are here on the record, in case others wish to revisit them. IacobusAmor 12:07, 18 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you discuss in Latin on the Latin Wikipedia? What about users who don't speak English?

We are free, and this is a talk page. Any language can be used. Licet Latine scribere, o anonyme, si velis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever ends up writing that paragraph on the name, it may be useful to look at Hofmann, who uses Londinum but also gives Londinium, Longidinium, and Λινδονιον. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:17, 28 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Longidinium"! I've never seen that one. I must admit I was too dismissive (above) of "Londinum", which has definitely been used. If no one else wants to, I might soon have a go at that paragraph. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:59, 28 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Londin

The BBC documentary discussed King Richard III, who was accused of murdering King Edward V and his younger brother, Richard. There, a tombstone in honor of these boys was shown in Latin - London was referred to as Londin.

Kashubia is located in Poland and - interestingly - Londin is also spoken in Kashubian. Mir.Nalezinski (disputatio) 22:07, 14 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Londin" is not Latin. Show us the tombstone! If it's modern, "Londin" may be an error; if it's old, "Londin" may be an abbreviation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 15 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the tombstone plaque -

Edward V & Richard Duke of York | Westminster Abbey (westminster-abbey.org) Mir.Nalezinski (disputatio) 11:47, 15 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, just what was needed. The word is LONDIN^SI, which is an abbreviation for the Latin adjective (ablative case) "Londiniensi", making up the phrase "Turre Londiniensi" in the Tower of London.

The stone is, so to speak, in between new and old: I see it was inscribed and placed in 1678. It has other abbreviations which might puzzle the reader: the last line says ANNO DOM^I 1678 ANNOQ_— REGNI SUI 30 in the year of our Lord 1678 and in the 30th year of his reign (that's Charles II's reign, counted from the date of his father's execution). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 15 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You explained the problem very quickly and precisely! The stone is approximately 450 years old. Thanks! Mir.Nalezinski (disputatio) 12:37, 15 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]