Disputatio:Ricardus Wagner

I know the article isn't complete, but I'm going to work on it, so please do not delete it!

Isn't it more correct, to use "Guilhelminus Ricardus Vagner" as latin Form? Guilhelmus is the usual latinisation of Wilhem. Richard is a native german Name, but Ricardo is (by gothic-german Influences) a usual spanish and italian name, so Ricardus should work. Modifiing Wagner to Guagner is IMHO a bit too hard, so I'd prefer Vagner, or alternatively translate charriot-builder into latin. Theoderich 19:17 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ricardus vs. Richardus isn't a big deal. I think Ricardus is considered more accurate, but Richardus also occurs, and may even be more frequent in Germany. As for Wilhelm, it would be misleading to call anything the "usual latinisation." See Gulielmus for details. That said, I have no idea why the author has gone with Wilheminus rather than Wilhelmus. As for the family name, it is the usual practice that the surnames of people within the last few centuries be left unlatinized and indeclinable. I would recommend we stick to that in this case, unless Wagner himself (or some Latin author of great authority) chose something else. For more details, see here. I apologize for not even attempting a German version, but my German is atrocious! --Iustinus 22:45 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

@Richardus: You are right, that is no big deal. @Gulielmus: Wow, I never thought that to be so variational. @Wagner: I cannot check, what you say. @writing german: That is ok. I think, german is the language, that has the lowest right to be here. I would have written it also in latin, but that would take me some hours. Theoderich 23:25 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the consensus is that disputatio may be written in any language, but English has obvious advantages. However, I prefer to speak to people in their own language if I can. It just seems impolite to make them speak mine. --Iustinus 20:51 iun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am happy about the discussion, but I cannot say anything about it. If somebody thinks that it should be "Ricarus" or "Guilhelmus", he or she is allowed to change the name. Another question: I have changed "Hermann" to "Arminius", but I often read this is wrong. Who is able to give an explanation? - Author of the article

Yeah, Wilhelminus doesn't seem right, unless you have a specific reason for adding the -inus suffix. That said, I'm not sure which form would be best. As I keep saying, I generally try to use the form closest to what the subject of the article would have used, but I don't really understand which variations of Gulielmus were popular in which places and periods. I suppose we should just pick something for this article and stick with it until contradicted by better evidence.

As for Arminius, it is true that it is not originally equivalent to Hermann. That said, the tradition of equating those names is so firmly entrenched, I see no reason not to continue using it. So keep Arminius. --Iustinus 20:51 iun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, that the ancient german hero Arminius is usually called Hermann in Germany. I was shocked to see on a webpage, that these are really different names. (Is it allowed, to give the link here on the disputation-page? So you might see it yourselves.)

On the same webpage I found Armand as the french version and Armando as the italian version of Hermann. So I guess, Armandus would be right. Theoderich 20:34 iun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Egger's Lexicon Nominum Virorum et Mulierum gives Hermannus as the equivalent of "Hermann," Arminius as the equivalent of "Armin" and Armandus as the equivalent of "Armando" (though it acknowledges that this name is etymologically identical with Hermann). On the other hand, the tradition of equating Arminius with "Hermann" is very deep set, and nothing to sneeze at. I mean, there's a very good chance Wagner himself would have used that Latin form had he done a translation of Tannhäuser. --Iustinus 22:09 iun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Theoderich supposed to translate "Wagenbauer" (someone who makes cars) into Latin, I think that would be "vehicularius", but I am not sure. What do you think? By the way: I do not mind changing the name of the article.

Vehicularius sounds correct to me. The problem is, which reader would think, this could be the famous composer? Perhaps it is a better idea to guess, what a latin writer would have made out of "Wagner", eg "Wagenerius"? Theoderich 20:34 iun 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way: check out one of the lists of historical personages that I've made, such as index philosophorum, astronomus, and mathematicus. Let me stress that I have only included names that are "official" -- that is to say, I did not make up any of those Latin names, but looked for works in Latin by these people, or failing that mentions of them in other Latin sources. As you go down the list, you will see that around 1700 or so, it starts becoming common to just use someone's family name unchanged, without any Latinization. By the 1800s, Latinizing the family name at all has become rare. Let's not reinvent the wheel here: in Wagner's era, he would most likely have been called Ricardus Wagner, gen. Ricardi Wagner. Do Wagnerius if you really must, but I would strongly oppose Vehicularius. --Iustinus 22:09 iun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ich weiß, dass der Artikel bisher unvollständig ist, aber ich werde noch weiter an ihm arbeiten!

Ist es nicht richtiger, die lateinische Form "Guilhelminus Ricardus Vagner" zu verwenden? Guilhelmus ist die übliche Latinisierung von Wilhelm. Richard ist ein nativ germanischer Name, aber Ricardo gibt es (durch gotisch-germanische Einflüsse) im spanischen und italienischen, von daher sollte Ricardus funkionieren. Wagner zu Guagner umzubauen finde ich allerdings zu gewöhnungsbedürftig, deshalb würde ich hier Vagner vorziehen, oder Wagenbauer ins lateinische übersetzen. Theoderich 19:17 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ich bin über die umfangreiche Diskussion erfreut, allerdings kann ich zu der Namensdiskussion beitragen. Wenn jemand der Meinung ist, dass es Ricardus oder Guilhelmus heißt, dann kann er den Namen ruhig ändern. Eine Frage allerdings hätte ich: Ich habe aus Hermann Arminius gemacht; ich habe bereits jedoch mehrmals gehört, diese Latinisierung sei falsch. Wer kann etwas dazu sagen? - Autor des Artikels

Scio orationem scriptoris non totam esse, sed mox scribam.

Moved from Wilhelmus Richardus Wagner to here: 1.# Wilhelminus Richardus Wagner ??????this form is wrong.correct WILHELMUS --Roland2 14:23, 26 Decembris 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guilelmus[fontem recensere]

This is a long discussion, and nobody seems to have come up with a justification for Wilhelminus. Doesn't the -inus suffix imply that he is "like" or "related to" Wilhelm, as in Augustus--Augustinus, Mars--Martinus, etc.? Wilhelminus, therefore, is wrong. I suggest moving the article to Guilelmus or Wilhelmus and leaving it there. -- Mardilius 23:44, 18 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Wilhelminus was a slip of the keyboard (helped by the known feminine form Wilhelmina) which has been retained for too long. I am moving it -- hope no one objects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonne melius est omnes illos, qui suis linguis aut Wilhelm aut William aut Guillaume aut, quaequae huius nominis species vulgatae sunt, appellantur, hos omnes in hac vicipaedia uno nomine Latino reddi? Suadeo ergo, ut aut Gulielmi aut Guilelmi nomine semper utamur, quae nomina faciliora et magis Latina videntur omnibus, quae per W litteram formari solent.--Irenaeus 12:38, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name again[fontem recensere]

No one seems to have offered a justification for Wilhelmus rather than the more standard form; I'm sure you would demand most Williams be Latinised as Gulielmus. In this case, however, I think the article should be at simply Ricardus Wagner, as this is the form used at all other wikis. Pantocrator 00:36, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that solves any problem as far as the pagename is concerned. As to his full name: I agree, I can find no argument for Wilhelm(in)us above. I think Irenaeus was right: we should certainly standardise on Gulielmus wherever the sources don't contradict this. Would anyone disagree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]