Disputatio:Res publica popularis democratica Coreana
NPOV? Calling him a crude dictator, while subjectively true in my opinion, isn't the most academic way of putting it.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:29, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)
- Congruo. Illud erasi. cerasusvoca! 12:38, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Ego non loquor latine. Auxilium cum articulum!!! --Jeneme 08:09, 17 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Title
[fontem recensere]Since in classical Latin, "democratic" is popularis, and "the (common) people" is plebs or vulgus or multitudo, and names that use "of" in English are usually rendered with adjectives, why wouldn't a better, or at least a more literal, version of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" be Res Publica Hominum Popularis Coreana? or perhaps with what Bradley's Arnold suggests might approach the more typical classical word-order, Popularis Coreana Hominum Res Publica or Coreana Popularis Hominum Res Publica? or perhaps, more accurately reflecting the communist ethos: Coreana Popularis Vulgi Res Publica etc.? Would whoever coined or first used the term here provide an explanation or cite informed attestations? IacobusAmor 12:18, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
- Or Corea Borealis or (already present as an alternative) Septentrionalis? The shorter the Latin names we invent, the smaller are the messes we make, I sometimes think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:26, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, Andrew, except that the world has seen more than a handful of "democratic people's republics," and we'll want to translate them all the same way. The foundational noun, res publica, is set. For the "democratic" part of the notion, the classical term popularis seems unarguable. For the "people's" part, communist ideologies might be taken to favor the common people—which leads us (as said above) to plebs or vulgus or multitudo. Which of these is preferable, and the order of the resulting words, remains unclear. IacobusAmor 12:39, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
- This issue has come up before in the context of naming political parties in the US. Republicans and Democrats. We need to remember that political party names usually don't mean anything in particular, or translatable. They are just names. Their meaning vary not only from country to country, but from year to year. The best you can do is Latinize the endings.--Rafaelgarcia 12:41, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
- After reading the new page Forma administrationis, I can see your point better. Perhaps it would be a good idea to rename People's Democratic republic by transation since it is understood to be a kind of government rather than just a proper name. If so I think it would be better to name the page Corea Septentrionalis and start it by saying: Corea Septentrionalis, publice Popularis Vulgi Respublica Coreae, ..."--Rafaelgarcia 20:35, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
- This issue has come up before in the context of naming political parties in the US. Republicans and Democrats. We need to remember that political party names usually don't mean anything in particular, or translatable. They are just names. Their meaning vary not only from country to country, but from year to year. The best you can do is Latinize the endings.--Rafaelgarcia 12:41, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, Andrew, except that the world has seen more than a handful of "democratic people's republics," and we'll want to translate them all the same way. The foundational noun, res publica, is set. For the "democratic" part of the notion, the classical term popularis seems unarguable. For the "people's" part, communist ideologies might be taken to favor the common people—which leads us (as said above) to plebs or vulgus or multitudo. Which of these is preferable, and the order of the resulting words, remains unclear. IacobusAmor 12:39, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Auxilium voco, hic sunt Vandalis [Anon]
- Gratias ago. Obstrui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 17 Decembris 2009 (UTC)