Disputatio:Mare Caribaeum

Um... I don't think this is right. I think either Caribaeum or Caribicum, no? (if not Canibalum or Antillense...) —Myces Tiberinus 16:45, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I trusted the red link ... your suggestions sound better. ;-) To avoid such problems in the future: Would it be better to ask in the taverna before creting a new page or when can I trust a red link? --Roland2 16:52, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my immediate inclination, given the general quality, especially of older contributions, is to say 'trust no one', but that may just be my cynicism. :x) I suppose a good guideline would be, do a reality check first, e.g. checking a printed reference, or seeing if you could turn up anything other than wikipedia mirrors in google, and then resort to asking in the Taberna if you can't find a name that already exists, as some of our contributors certainly have access to good resources. —Myces Tiberinus 17:10, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was this ever resolved? I just looked in because someone is writing Montserrat and I fancied knowing how to spell the name of the sea it's in. I can't find it in Hoffmann or Graesse. I fell back on ITIS and found that biologists have devised many, many spellings for Latin adjectives based on this name: evidently they, too, found no consistent authorities. And many are marked 'valid' by ITIS, even the illiterate Eptatretus caribbeaus. I think, if there is a majority, it is perhaps for caribbaeus -a -um, suggesting therefore Mare Caribbaeum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:12, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a quick survey. Conflating masc/fem/neut forms, and discounting names marked "invalid" by ITIS, I found

1 scientific name containing the adjective caribiensis
5 caribeus
1 caribensis
about 70 caribaeus (which was Myces' first thought, above)
1 caribaeensis
37 caribbaeus (I wrongly guessed, above, that this form had a majority)
12 caribbeus (also a handy circumcaribbeus)
1 caribbeanensis
1 caribbeanicus
11 caribbeanus
1 caribbensis
6 caribbicus
1 caribbianus
1 caribbiensis
1 caribbeaus (illiterate or a typo)

and, curiously enough, no "caribius" at all. There might be other forms my search didn't cover, but no major ones, I think. I discount the few "caribbei", "caribaeorum" and "caribaearum", which I suppose might mean "of Carib/Caribbean man/men/women/islands". If other Latin sources exist, we may think they should have preference over the biological Latin tradition. But if there isn't a consensus for any other form, maybe we should move to Mare Caribaeum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up rather close to the sea in question, in South Florida, where the natives universally pronunced Caribbean as Car-rib-BE-an, not (as many others pronounce it) Ca-RIB-be-an. The stress on the penult, "be," may imply a long-E in some source language, and that could in turn represent the ae of Latin, implying that Carib(b)ēus and Carib(b)aeus are likely forms. In contrast, Spanish calls it the caribe (accented on the penult, "ri"), which accordingly may imply a Latin term something like Caribĕus (accented on the antepenult). So it may well be that the word had no settled form from early times, and we'd be right to accept Caribaeus and Caribeus (the latter with a long or short E), whichever an author prefers, though the inconsistency might be regrettable. ¶ Is there a way of restricting the enumerated attestations to an early period, say 1492–1692? ¶ Since the Indians—the source of the term—are the (English) Caribs and the (Spanish) caribes, is there any reason for Latin to double the B? IacobusAmor 13:27, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Caribs appear in Hofmann as the Caribae; from the interwiki links the extra 'b' appears to be unique to English. The Caribbean isn't thus named in Hofmann because apparently they went with Mare Boreale [1] instead ("pars ampla Oceani, Americam Septentrionalem alluens cum parte Boreali Americae Meridionalis; & eius partes sunt sinus Mexicanus, mare Brasilicum, & mare novae Franciae") map . —Mucius Tever 12:36, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well searched, Myces! I had meanwhile looked on all the early maps within my reach and found that the sea is not separately named on any of them -- which is really another way of saying the same thing, they counted it as part of the Northern Sea.

To answer Iacobus's question, all my attestations are post-Linnaeus (and they are scientific Latin). Possibly for the reason just given, as yet we have no early attestations at all.

To switch to other languages for a moment, the Oxford English Dictionary's first citation for the word Caribbean is in Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, 1719. And even this is a reference to the people(s), not to the sea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mare Caribaeum seems to be best supported. I'm going to move to that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:13, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caribicus, -um (not -a) gets 241 hits and Egger SL has Mare Caribicum on page 58. This -icus, -a, -um would also correspond with the Caribae. Harrissimo 21:20, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I googled but all of the google hits are italian, russian and portugese not latin. Google caribaeo and I get latin hits, right from the start, albeit botanical latin.--Rafaelgarcia 21:37, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those German sites are talking about the ship Mare Caribicum (obviously based on latin). But it is more important that Egger gives this exact phrase, for it is him, not the dozens of different botanical names, that matter here. Harrissimo 21:48, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that Egger is a good source, but before moving I wonder what the 1800's version of Robinson Crusoe in latin used?--Rafaelgarcia 22:09, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here if you haven't found it. I've just spent 5 minutes searching though and found nothing. Harrissimo 22:29, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Go slow. We did a lot of work on this, see above. Egger's just one source; we found lots of sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:38, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. Then I think we should have the first line as "Mare Caribicum(ref) sive Caribaeum(ref)(ref containing other names) est..." then we should note these other forms inside that third reference. Unless you prefer any over caribicum? Harrissimo 23:06, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that format would be fine, and certainly those are the two best options. I don't know why I prefer Caribaeum -- no strong reason probably -- but it is odd that (unless my search method was faulty) not a single one of the biologists has used the form Caribicus/a/um. Botanical and zoological names are relevant. Their authors are real users of Latin and certainly intended to name their new-found species after the Caribbean sea or region. Egger is just one more user of Latin, and we don't know what his sources were (or do we)?

Still, if Caribicum seems best, I've no objection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iustinus refers to them as "Egger's coinings" and many of them do just look like simple sticking on of endings (Hongcongum, Nairobia etc.) I'm going to put those sources on now and move. I'll put some examples of scientific naming as well as just Egger for Carib -icum and -aeum. Harrissimo 18:16, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Caribaeum is closer to spanish/Taino Caribeo; while Caribicum is closer to italian Caribico. For this reason, Caribaeum sounds better to me, and I think perhaps Egger may be wrong in prefering Caribicum.--Rafaelgarcia 00:29, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caribaeum is closer to English too. Why does Egger think the sea needs the -CO- infix? IacobusAmor 00:44, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to trend towards "Caribaeum", which is already the name of the category, so I am moving to that form at last. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 13 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]