E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lemma[fontem recensere]

It is in my opinion that the city be known in Vicipaedia as Parisius. Lutetia was only the name it had in Roman times and in later times it became known in almost all languages of the world as Parisius or a derivative of that name.The Latin that we use in Vicipaedia should not be a time warp language to ancient Roman times, but rather should be that ancient language as it applies to modern life. France is known as Francia here rather than Gallia because France is the country's modern name. Kedemus 17:51, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see just what you mean. But you're brave even to consider this. Just start counting how many Vicipaedia pages mention Lutetia ... To make the change consistent, you'd have to spend a lot of time on it. Let's see what others say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like a disambiguation-page will be in order! A Parisius is a person who belongs to the tribe of the Parisii. Maybe there should be two articles: one, Lutetia, on the ancient Gallic city, and one, Parisius, on the modern city; but where would we draw the (temporal) line between them? It's probably best to look for Latin attestations by French writers of the past few centuries. IacobusAmor 20:08, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can have both the ancient and modern city on the same page, at least until we have a long section on the ancient city that would merit creating a new article. It would probably be best to put a redirect at the top of the page for the city for the atricle on the "Parisii" tribe once that article is written. Disambiguation pages for only two articles where one article is much more popular than the other are quite annoying. As for the articles that have "Lutetia", when we move this page to "Parisius" it will automatically redirect the articles with the link to that page to the new page. It will not happen to all of the articles and not happen all of a sudden, but if we rename this article "Parisius" it will lead other Vicipaedia articles to change the name to "Parisius" as well. When I made the list of the 100 largest cities in the world, I put "Parisius", but later is got changed to "Lutetia". We should change that back. -Kedemus 06:53, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be a good idea to wait and see what one or two French users say. It's an important article (though it certainly wants improvement) and it has been here for quite a while; maybe some think this is the best place for it.
I don't myself think there is sufficient reason to have two different articles. It is the same city, with a continuous history. Both names are pre-Roman in origin (Celtic) and you couldn't ever say there was a moment when the name changed from one to the other.
I put a message on the Taberna asking for comments. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:22, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess it would be better if we use Parisius rather than Lutetia because the first one is this city's current name. It's just like the name of Lima, which was known as Urbs Regum in the past, and the article doesn't use the ancient name but the current.--Le K-li 14:49, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not being a Parisian, I think it would be fine to change the name to Parisius so long as Lutetia is mentioned second. One article is enough to cover both and should explain about the change in name. I don't think it would be a problem for articles that use Lutetia instead because both names are fine and we will have a redirection page Lutetia->Parisius to take care of the links.
Regardless of the page name change, I think people should be able to continue using the term Lutetia due to the charm that the ancient name evokes. --Rafaelgarcia 15:28, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A point in favour of retaining Lutetia is the element lutetium, discovered in Paris in 1907. There's also the asteroid 21 Lutetia, but that's neither here nor there. IacobusAmor 15:46, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been Lutetia on Vici for so long ... Why change it now? Doing a redirect is NOT the solution. The name Lutetia is mentioned thousands of times in hundreds of articles! Just redirecting Lutetia->Parisius is hardly a solution. It Lutetia wasn't a "good" name, someone would have thought so a thousand mentions ago. I'm not in favor of the change. LionhardusCiampa 15:47, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor I, unless expert French Latinists approve of the change. If the change is made, a disambiguation page will be necessary to distinguish between (1) Parisius, the city of Paris, and (2) Parisius, a member of the tribe of the Parisii. IacobusAmor 15:50, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am against this. The city was founded as such as Lutetia Parisiorum, and I guess that there is more evidence for the name Lutetia than for the city being called Parisius. Modern day France isn't called here Gallia because today it is called France. Gaul is a territory which does not relate with modern-day France - in some regions Gaul goes beyond the French border (Rhineland) and in others France is beyond the old Gaul (Basque country). France is called as it is because the modern state comes from the regnum Francorum, the kingdom of the Franks. --Xaverius 16:00, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, the archaeological discontinuity between the Roman and the Merovingian towns is very weak (H. Hamerow, 2002; E. James, 1988). The city was the same one. Had they been two diffferent things, maybe I would have been for a page on the old city and another on the modern one, but I do not see the point in doing it under the current circumstances.--Xaverius 16:04, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And a last thing, just google both for Lutetia and for Parisius (I know the very low scientific value of this argument, but it still works) and you'll see the difference between the results.--Xaverius 16:06, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scientific, no, but compelling, yes! If Google had been around in the 1970s, you would have seen many more hits for "Peking" than "Beijing," more hits for "Indian" than "Native American," etc. But on the other hand, if there are thousands of references to Lutetia, I'm not going to be the one to go back and change all of them! Of course, if African-Americans had had that attitude, we'd have kept the term "Negro Spiritual" instead of "African-American Spiritual," simply because there were more hits for the former. So maybe I'm contradicting myself. HOWEVER, Xaverius's arguments are compelling. LUTETIA PARISIORUM is what I strongly consider to be correct, based on everything he wrote above. LionhardusCiampa 17:19, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Xaverius is right. Due to that info, I consider Lutetia to be correct too.--Le K-li 18:03, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are both correct but Lutetia would be my preference. The ancient term has charm.--Rafaelgarcia 20:27, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't feel strongly about it -- both names are valid -- but personally I also prefer Lutetia, because it is the classical name and because it is much more commonly used by modern (Renaissance to present day) Latinists. I don't think it matters that the name in most other languages is something like "Paris". This is Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to go against you, but my preference is still Parisius. I do not believe Latin place names should have names that are very different from the modern ones. But Lutetia does have the charm and is also correct. I think it should be left up to the author of the article if he or she wants to use "Lutetia" or "Parisius". Since the person who write this article titled it Lutetia (if that's the case), it should be left as such. However, articles written by other people that say "Parisius" should be left as such also but have a redirect to this page. -Kedemus 06:55, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know how I missed this. I'm definitely for Lutetia, Lutetia Parisiorum if need be, certainly not Parisius. --Ioscius (disp) 06:57, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a matter of places having names similar to what they have now it is a matter how how are they called originally in Latin, Kedeme. Whne I'm speaking Spanish I do not say London, Warszawa, Milano or even Girona; I say their Spanish names which are Londres, Varsovia, Milán and Gerona. In Latin is the same.--Xaverius 09:08, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Rafael and Kedemus have proposed allowing some leeway for personal choice. Vicipaedia, with its piped links and redirects, makes this sort of thing easy. Was I perhaps wrong to say, at the very beginning, that we need to make the change consistent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what about Parisii?[fontem recensere]

Pour mon part, j'ai toujours vu le nom "Parisius" en forme pluriel, c'est à dire "Parisii" (Parisiis publice iure factus etc.). Je crois que celà remonte à la "Lutetia Parisorum," qu'on ait abbéviée à "Parisii" (pluriel). Alors moi je dirais que le nom contemporait devrait être "Parisii" (dont le locative "Parisiis"). -Jackmitchell 19:43, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Parisius comes from a later period than Parisii. You will find some evidence for Parisius if you Google Parisius indeclinable -- because indeed, in at least some medieval texts, it was treated as indeclinable, believe it or not -- and there's plenty more evidence in medieval literature.
But as regards the name one is to use currently, the trouble with your devrait être and with Kedemus's original "my opinion" [added a moment later: and my very own choice expression "personally I prefer"!!] (please forgive me for selective quotation in this way) is that they don't really cut it. The fact is that Lutetia is very well attested in modern Latin, much better (or can someone show otherwise?) than Parisii or Parisius. I think that should weigh heavily with us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:22, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to sound normative. If Parisius is indeed more modern than Parisii we should go for it. I see there's an www.google.ca/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnq.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Fcitation%2Fs7-I%2F16%2F307-c&ei=1IU6R4y0AqjKhgKj7tjMDA&usg=AFQjCNG0ZkrioYrQbejjH9FurANgjC2QMA&sig2=C-68oFrwm0fcV64m-kc5xg article on the development of Parisius from Parisiis, unfortunately costing $$$. Anyway, explaining the difference between Lutetia, Parisii, and Parisius is (one of the reasons) why we have a Latin wikipedia, n'est-ce pas? -Jackmitchell 05:28, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, just reread & realised you were arguing for Lutetia. And there's one thing that, come to think of it, is a clincher for me, pro-Lutetia: it doesn't look wacked, like Parisius. I mean, if we use Parisius, regardless of its legitimacy, someone is bound to come along and accuse vicipaedia of being full of idiots who tack -ius onto everything. Also, Lutetia appears in the Asterix books, which are pretty authoritative IMHO. -Jackmitchell 05:34, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Now that is an argument that really cuts it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lutetiae aliae[fontem recensere]

What about these Parises (from en:)?—

New Paris, Indiana
New Paris, Ohio
New Paris, Pennsylvania
Paris, Arkansas
Paris, Dakota Territory, now Beresford, South Dakota
Paris, Idaho
Paris, Illinois
Paris, Kentucky
Paris, Maine
Paris, Michigan
Paris, Missouri
Paris, New York
Paris, Ohio
Paris, Pennsylvania
Paris, Tennessee
Paris, Texas
Paris, Grant County, Wisconsin
Paris, Kenosha County, Wisconsin
Paris Township, Michigan
South Paris, Maine
St. Paris, Ohio
West Paris, Maine

For them, Lutetia could be seem a little unexpected. Are we restricting Paris, -idis to persons (real or fictional)? If so, what do we call each American Paris? Are we back to Parisius, -ii again? or are these Parises Lutetia too? And what does the Vatican call Saint Paris? IacobusAmor 10:44, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should not call the American cities "Lutetia", that would not make much sense. If it is a small place that it not well known, and does not have an already existing well-attested Latin name, we should just leave it at it is. The American cities should be known as Paris, -idis, or as Paris, indeclinable -Kedemus 08:04, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually with the vernacular name goes the Latin name as with Novum Eboracum, Nova Aurelia and Cenomannica. So all these Parises are Lutetias. --Alex1011 08:51, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same hapens with many of the Spanish cities in South America--Xaverius 10:46, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Novum Eboracum and Nova Aurelia are major places, so they get to go with the Latin name for the "old" places. However, none of the Parises in the United States are major places (except maybe Paris, Texas to a certain extent), so none of them should be called Lutetia. Parisius I might accept for these places but Lutetia is way to far removed from Paris to merit tiny community names be changed to it. As for Cenomannica for Maine, are there any other attestaions for that name or is that just a name that Vicipaedia uses? -Kedemus 07:40, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we want to keep consistence here as in every single respectable reference work, and unless these tiny places have a local inscription or any other source indicating the opposite, these should be called Lutetia too, I guess. With Guadalajara (Mexico) and Guadalajara (Spain) happened something similar, because although they are called the same, both have evidence for their Latin names, despite the fact that both are called Guadalajara.--Xaverius 09:20, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a precedent in each case, that's fine. But if not, I am not sure if consistency should extend to calling Lutetia all places whose English name is Paris. It's a bit like translating the names, which we don't do. The same question arises as with West Point (see my query at Promontorium Occidentis, as yet unanswered): why is it called that, what does the name "mean"? Is it named after the French city, or after St. Paris, or after Helen's toyboy? If we don't know, maybe we shouldn't make assumptions. Paris is an acceptable Latin word, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With a welter of American places named Athens, Corinth, Berlin, Boston, Dublin, Florence, Ipswich, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Naples, Norwich, Plymouth, Rome, Salem, Sparta, Syracuse, Valencia, Vienna, Vincennes, and the like, and the paucity of American places named after characters underlying the Homeric epics, the weight of the evidence supports the proposition that the American Parises are named after the French capital. IacobusAmor 13:32, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But all of those places are not the original Athens, Berlin, Dublin, etc. So why should we give these tiny and unimportant places a completely different name in Latin, especially a Latin name that's very different from what the place is known as in all other languages. As I said before, calling all these places "Parisius" is acceptable, as that is a Latin version that close to the name the city has in English and other languages. However, "Lutetia" should be reserved for the city in France. We don't want to call Paris, Texas "Lutetia in Texia". It's not the Lutetia in Texas. -Kedemus 04:48 XX Novembris MMVII (UTC)
I think the point is that their names did not come from an indian name nor were they named after a fellow named Paris. The point is that they are named after the city of Lutetia (Paris). To name them Parisius and the French city Lutetia would actually go against this fact.--Rafaelgarcia 05:39, 20 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is clear. Noster Kedemus wants to change their names, well beyond the minor tweaks that typically occur between Old-World and New-World examples—as between Moskvá in Russia and Móscow in Idaho (and then there's Múskovy in historical accounts). IacobusAmor 14:09, 20 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's just leave it up to the people who write the articles on Paris, Texas or Paris, Maine to decide what to call them. "Parisius" has been attested in Latin, so it is an acceptable form. -Kedemus 03:38, 21 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it's mostly a question of values. You see a latin place name that is strikingly different from the english name and think that it bad. I, and I think most people here, would think that it is interesting, neat, educational, different from the other Wikipedias in a novel way. For me ancient, archaic is neat, something to be valued, cherished, preserved. Why else bother with latin, if somewhere you did not also think so.--Rafaelgarcia

Turrim/Turrem[fontem recensere]

Yes, indeed, turrim is the slightly better option. The preferred accusative singular of the pure i-stem "turris" is "turrim," though the form "turrem" is recognized (see A&G §66 and L&S). Thank you,, for catching that. LionhardusCiampa 19:49, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two halves of Paris[fontem recensere]

The text said that the half of the city on the right bank was/is called "superior" and the left bank "australis". There doesn't seem any logic or probability to this, so, if anyone is insisting it's true, I think a source is needed. I tried to find a source for the "superior" assertion and failed (perhaps I looked in the wrong place). Till a source appears, I've deleted these claims. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked around at this as well when I was working on the page, and couldn't find any sources either. In particular I poked around in the pages of the Circulus Latinus Lutetiensis and drew a blank. Superior and inferior would make sense, or septentrionalis and australis, or even dextera and sinistra -- but I agree the pairing that was in the text seems odd. On the other hand that could be a reason to accept it; if it was just a guess from a previous editor, surely it would have been two terms that go together, no? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:00, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, "Lectio difficilior potior" to the rescue! But would that be applicable here? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:10, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did wonder. But the logic of the Latin invented by French speakers who don't know any Latin is (crede experto) stranger even than that invented by English speakers, and I felt suspicious that invention of that kind might have been involved here. I'd be happy to be proved wrong! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]