Disputatio:Moles Xiaolangdi

Nomen[fontem recensere]

An simplicius "Moles Xiaoliangdi"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 4 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicius, sed melius an non? As is one's custom, one has drafted a couple of short articles to see how they look. We know that Chinese names can easily adapt themselves to Latin morphology because we have Hongcongum, Macaum, Nancinum, Pecinum, Taipeium, Taivania (not Hong Kong, Macau, Nanking, Pekin, Peking, Beijing, Taipei, Taiwan etc.), with attested adjectives hongkongensis, macaensis, nankinensis, pekinensis, taipeiensis, taiwaniensis etc. (Incidentally, note the conflict between C in the nouns and K in the adjectives; but that's a question for another day.) So the pattern is clear: a Latin adjective = a Chinese noun + ensis (sometimes with an alteration in the stem to support Latin phonology). Because most of these adjectives have been coined in the most recent decades, we can grant that the pattern is productive (a technical term & concept in linguistics), with implications for all. IacobusAmor 14:31, 4 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have the general rule "noli fingere", don't invent. The adjective here is invented. The pattern in other languages is not to invent an adjective (cf. en:Xiaolangdi Dam), so I don't see why we need to do so here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 4 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I moved to "Moles Xiaolangdi". Hope that's OK Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 20 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]