Disputatio:Partes Regni Hungariae Transylvaniae annexae

Titulus[fontem recensere]

Si "Partium" est gen. pl., nonne melius "Partes Regni Hungariae"? Vide Google sub hac locutione. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forsitan, sed sunt "partes regni Hungariae superiores" (~ Slovacia), "partes regni Hungariae inferiores" (?), "partes regni Hungariae adnexae" (~ Lugos), "partes regni Hungariae applicatae" = Partium? - All the other Vicis have "Partium", and so also the historic map on de:Partium.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:56, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the other Wikis do, but they are not the authority on Latin. We are, and we know that "partium" is a genitive plural. Both the maps used at de:wiki, the complex one giving "Partium Regni Hungariae" and the simple one giving "Partium Regni Hungaria", were made by Wikipedians: we cannot take them as reliable. (One of them seems old, but it is "own work" of 2010 by a Wikipedian: you can see that the fonts used are modern.)

If I search for "Partes Regni Hungariae" on Google I find (a 2012 book) Regnum Hungariae, territorially referred either to Hungary proper (like in partes regni Hungariae); also (an abstract of a dissertation) Urkunden zur Rumänischen Unierten (Griechisch-Katholischen) Kirche aus Siebenbürgen (und den Partes Regni Hungariae) im 17.-19. Jhdt. Do these not help?

I don't think any other of our 93,000 pages is headed by a word in the genitive plural. The nearest parallel place name I can think of is "Amazonum flumen", but there we do not call it "Amazonum", we add the nominative noun on which the genitive depends.

The Latin phrase that we have attested on the existing page is "princeps [Transsilvaniae et] partium Regni Hungariae", proving -- if we needed to prove it -- that this is a genitive. Can we find any other Latin texts in which this phrase is used? They might suggest a noun on which the genitive could depend. Otherwise I think we really ought to say "Partes Regni Hungariae". Does anyone else want to comment? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:22, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There ist a book called "Approbatae Constitutiones Regni Transylvaniae et Partium Hungariae eidem annexarum" (1653), a collection of Transylvanian laws (Hungarian / Latin mixed). The point is: These aren't just "partes regni Hungariae" (of which there are several), but "partes .... Transylvaniae annexae"! If we decide to change the title: Maybe we should substitute "Partium" for "Partes Regni Hungariae Transylvaniae annexae"?--Utilo (disputatio) 09:45, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. I recognise that "Partes Regni Hungariae" is vague and is used in other senses too. I believe the phrase that you have now found will solve the problem.

Of course we would retain a redirect from "Partium", because it's clear that many people believe this is a proper name in itself. Is that OK, then?

I find this very interesting, because I never previously encountered a general name for these regions (now mainly belonging to Romania) that surround Transylvania on the east and north. This page of yours, which I had not read before, gives us a historical name for exactly those regions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. Then I'll change the name and revise the page as far as necessary.--Utilo (disputatio) 10:02, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]