Disputatio:Pinacotheca Nationalis (Britannia)

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Movenda?[fontem recensere]

I think our recent custom has been to translate the names of institutions (e.g. universities, academies, museums ... galleries?). They often, but not always, have official Latin names. On the other hand, I don't see where this is specified at Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis. So, should we now make a rule? What should it be? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:09, 14 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

I made this move. There's a discussion at Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis/en. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
A minor quibble here would be with the syntax, which makes Latin adj+n. the equivalent of English adj.+n., instead of Latin n.(genitive) + n.(nominative). Cassell's: "national render by genit. of word for 'nation', with or without addition of proprius (=peculiar to)." Ergo fortasse melius: Pinacotheca Regni Britanniarum? IacobusAmor 12:50, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Does National have that meaning in that name? Alternatives: Gallery dedicated to British artworks, Gallery dedicated to the British nation*, Gallery dedicated to the nations of the world, Public Gallery run/established by the British government. My pic has the star, and its meaning aptly translated by the adjective nationalis, but not by Cassel's construction, unless Pic. nationis Britannicae, but I see no advantage of it here.-- 13:07, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
The point in Cassell's seems to be that there's no appropriately classical adjective nationalis, and that the natural idiom for the concept that we call a 'national thing' is in Latin n.(genitive) + res(nominative). IacobusAmor 13:25, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, anon., I don't understand the sentence beginning "my pic has the star ...". What do you mean by "pic"? The original intention of the name, if one glances at the history on the English page, is different from all those you suggest: it seems to be something like "a gallery provided for the people/nation". [Looking at your comment again, perhaps this is what you meant by "Gallery dedicated to the British nation", and perhaps this is the meaning you preferred (hence the star): if so, we are in full agreement!]
Iacobe, I don't specially like your suggested version: as a translator, I would describe that as "over-translation" because it specifies the nation concerned, whereas the original term, "National Gallery", does not. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
In that case, the solution is obvious: Pinacotheca Regni. IacobusAmor 13:51, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
"a gallery provided for the people/nation" ... in this case, maybe Pinacotheca Popularis? --Gabriel Svoboda 14:28, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
A glance at the interwiki links shows that the Icelanders do it your way (with "Listasafn Bretlands") but others, so far as I can see, don't. But, anyway, there's surely no need to quibble over "Nationalis". The concept would (as Cassell's shows you) be difficult to specify in classical Latin, but this word "Nationalis" is very common in the modern Latin names of national institutions such as museums, as you'll see if you Google it. Let's not reinvent the wheel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's modern people who are reinventing this wheel! The Romans invented it more than 2000 years ago! Innovations like nationalis are perfectly fine for a New Latin encyclopedia, and when Vicipaedia splits into multiple vicipaedias, each with its own dialect or register, it can certainly survive there, so it may well be OK here as a temporary measure. ¶ A similar case arises with 'international [thing]', which seems likely in Latina pura to be [res] inter civitates (gentes, populos) or maybe [res] gentium, or some other construction, instead of the obvious New Latin term. IacobusAmor 13:49, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Definitely no to Pinacotheca Regni. As to Pinacotheca Nationalis I'll go with "it may well be OK here as a temporary measure". I must get down to work now :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Is it the degree of political specificity that's bothersome? My impression from (albeit limited) reading is that the old Romans would have wanted to specify the kind of polity (Bibliotheca Imperii, Regni, Civitatis, Provinciae, Comitatus, Urbis, Municipii). If you want a blanket term so as to cover all the kinds of political organization that might be implied by national, maybe just the genitive Reipublicae would work. IacobusAmor 14:10, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Or civitatis. I know res publica covers both republics and monarchies, including the British one, but why not avoid the confusion when it is possible? --Gabriel Svoboda 14:28, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
I believe the controvery here is due to a culture clash: a clash between Roman and modern culture.
Rectio, Regimen, Res publica, Civitas are synonyms meaning "the state" or "the government", each emphasizing a different aspect. The gallery isn't dedicated to these, it is dedicated to the "British nation" which is synonym for "British people" (populus Brittanicus) and "British citizenship" (Civitas Britannica), but distinct from these, because whereas populus and civitas have overtly political meanings, natio is a purely cultural/racial reference. ("populus autem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus, Cic. Rep. 1, 25, 39") In modern western european/world view natio also carries the nationalistic/political implication that peoples (populi) and states (civitates/res publicae) should be organized/divided along racial/cultural/nationalistic lines. It is in the context of this philosophy/viewpoint (whose truth is disputable) that people claim the USA is a nation, even though it isn't in reality (and can only truely be considered a populus or civitas). -- 16:07, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)