Disputatio:Religio Anatolica

Litterae maiusculae[fontem recensere]

Ait Iustinus: "I think we should keep the capitalization, because translations often just call him The Storm God, almost as if it were his name, translating DINGIR.U literally."—And just when our Neander has had some success in persuading me to lowercase more proper nouns, we have a counterargument! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been so away for so long, I have no idea what this refers to. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:07, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guidelines are editiones philologae auctorum classicorum (Teubner, OCT, etc) which tend not to wield American / English style capitalisation like "Bellum Frigidum". WRT things personified as gods, also philologists tend to use capital letters, e.g. Bellum (= Ianus), Discordia, Fortuna, Furor, Spes, etc. Neander (disputatio) 16:15, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The Chicago Manual of Style, used by many academic presses in North America, formerly lowercased the cold war but has recently gone over to the style with capitals; similarly, it now capitalizes Rivers where it used to have, for example, the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. (See http://www.editing-writing.com/the-chicago-manual-of-style-essential-changes-in-the-16th-edition/.) In these respects, it seems to be moving away from European style. Nevertheless, I myself, writing in American English, would typically capitalize World War II (a quasi-name) but lowercase the second world war (a characterization). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:46, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen[fontem recensere]

If 'The Storm God' is intended, why isn't the Latin 'Deus Procellarum'? (Someone's brain wants to translate Deus Procellae as 'god of a storm'; objective nouns that look singular are usually plural in reference, as in baseball = 'ball of bases'.) In any event, the world has lots of storm gods, so why should one of them have exclusive title to the name? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both points are valid, and I would write "deus procellarum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or why not Tempestas with capitalisation; cf. Ovid. Fast. 6.193 "te quoque, Tempestas, meritam delubra fatemur," though Tempestates with capitalisation is more frequent. Neander (disputatio) 16:26, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempestas is certainly a possibility, but I'd prefer to retain the word Deus either way. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:35, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but then we are dealing with a characterisation (not a name), aren't we? In this case, the editores philologi would scarcely use capitalisation, cf. Stat. Silv. 2.3.18 "insequitur velox pecorum deus". Neander (disputatio) 17:01, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more of a set epithet, like Paean or Dispater. Perhaps this departure from the norm, if that is indeed what it is, will be more tolerable if I start writing an explanation of where that epithet comes from in the article, as I suggest below? --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:32, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After all, I have no objection to your proposal which, moreover, might be justified by Dius Fidius 'god of faith'; cf. Varro, Lat. 5.66 (Roland Kent): "Aelius Dium Fidium dicebat Diovis filium, ut Graeci Διόσκορον Castorem." Neander (disputatio) 05:18, 30 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, if either of those proposals are even the correct etymology of THAT appellation (though for Varro's theory, compare Etruscan Tinas Clan.) Yeah, it seems like some titles of deities are more like characterizations, and some more like bynames, and that it's based more on usage than on composition... but there is not really a bright line between the two, so it's often going to be a judgement call. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:39, 30 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

objective nouns that look singular are usually plural in reference: I would put that the other way around: the first element of an English compound is normally rendered singular even when it is plural in reference (we sometimes make excepetions—though they bother me—for nouns with irregular plurals, and of course in the UK "drugs" is regularly kept plural in compounds). --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:07, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Brits really speak of drugs-stores? Some do write of trades unions, but one often sees trade unions too. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:53, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, to us it is a "chemist's" or a "chemist's shop". I don't dare to say Justin's wrong, but I can't call a supporting example to mind. "Trades unions" is a unusual form, consciously created to emphasise a multiplicity of trades. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are the native speaker, but my understanding is that in compounds referring to the narcotics trade, drugs is regularly plural, e.g. drugs cartel. --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:32, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right after all. Living quietly in the country as I do, I don't happen to refer to drugs cartels every day :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard phrase in the United States is drug cartel. It clearly refers to a cartel having something to do with drugs (pl.). This drugs cartel must be rare, as it's never been heard in these parts. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:53, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so why should one of them have exclusive title to the name?: He doesn't. That's kind of the point, actually. It was common in the Cuneiform-using world to write names of deities using Sumerograms that reduce them to such descriptions: "Storm God," "Moon God," "War God," and so on. Since Cuneiform was used to write many languages by even more nations, people could just plug in the name of their own storm god or whatever. The problem is, the Hittites used some Sumerograms so often that it can be difficult to find out the underlying Hittite word, and even though we have ample evidence for Tarḫunza-/Tarḫunt- (though I gather there is some kind of issue with respect to which stem is used where), many scholars prefer to just refer to him as "(The) Storm God." If anything, when forced to give a name to many of them seem to ^DINGIRU, many of them prefer to read ^DINGIRU as Tešub—his Hurrian name—even in a Hittite context. En: even puts its article under that name!

Returning to the main point, I went with Deus Procellae in the caption just because I translated it that way in the Nomen Sumerographicum column, where I was trying to be literal (it is, after all, ^DINGIRU, not *^DINGIRU.MEŠ (he said, as if he were an expert at Sumerian)). In places where that is not an issue, I admit I would probably prefer a genitive plural, however I think a singular is perfectly justifiable... think "The Storm" in the general sense (a friend of mine likes to use as his example of this phenomenon "The goat," as in "the goat is a wily creature."

And compare the case of War God. I doubt anyone would seriously object to Deus Belli... in fact, it's hard to imagine anyone preferring Deus Bellorum, even though there's no semantic or grammatical reason to rule that out. It may have something to do with the fact that English would prefer "God of Storms" but "God of War," but no doubt Latin has something to do with it to.

In any case, if you do wish to overrule me on this, I won't really object, at least so far as the image caption is concerned. For the glosses on the Sumerograms I would prefer to keep it singular even then.

--Iustinus (disputatio) 16:07, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, this stuff should probably be in the article, shouldn't it? --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:35, 29 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 12:19, 6 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titulus[fontem recensere]

At present this is a list of gods, not an article about Anatolian religion: this could be resolved either by renaming it, or by adding some text! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 30 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]