Disputatio:Perth Amboy

Area cuncta

What were you trying to say? What I get out of the original text—Habet area cuncta 15.5 km², cum terrae 12.4 km² et aquae 3.1 km²—is 'The entire ground has 15.5 km², with the land's 12.4 km² and the water's 3.1 km²'. Is that right? This use of cum seems odd, but maybe one of our learned amigos can correct it. IacobusAmor 15:40, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to say the total area is 15.5km^2, with 12.4km^2 of land and 3.1 km^2 of water.Rafaelgarcia 12:52, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Manhata vs. Manahata

Which one is correct? I got Manhata from the webpage Manhata...Should one move that page to Manahata?Rafaelgarcia 12:52, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the most regular Latin form should be, but the earliest attestation (from 1609), is Manna-hata. See the entry for 2 October:

http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs216a1v,0,919043.story?coll=ny-lihistory-navigation. IacobusAmor 13:03, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Well, Manhata has a seventeenth-century attestation on the page itself: Hofmann, which gives Manhata as the Latin version of what is vulgo "Manhate", also without the Mana-. (Did Juet write that "Manna-hata" line in Latin?)

Incidentally, if one wants to work off modern forms, it seems clear that Manhattan is these vowel-ended forms with the adjective -an ending, i.e. insula Manhattana 'the Manhattan island' or 'the island of *Manhatta.' (But we went through this with Reykiavica/Reykiavicana.) —Mucius Tever 01:47, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)