E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial request and discussion[fontem recensere]

The following is moved from Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I'm afraid I know just enough Latin to kind-of-sort-of be able to read through things, but certainly not to write. However, I do have an interest in making sure decent articles on Judaism appear in various Wikipedias. To that end, I just finished working on simple:Shabbat, and succeeded in reaching GA status for that article. My question is: Would someone be willing to translate it—or at least its lead—for this Wikipedia? To me, a Wikipedia in Latin surely should cover a subject as important as the Sabbath. Many thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:00, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re "a subject as important as the Sabbath":—The problem that you see recounted below began with the assumption that "the Sabbath" is the same thing as "the Jewish Sabbath." From that mistake ensued others. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:28, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when lawiki kicks over 100,000 articles, I will personally make sure it gets onto Simple English Wikipedia's Main Page. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:02, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing this. I worked on translating the first few lines at the English wiki.I hope the latin is ok. --Jondel (disputatio) 06:11, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look too, when you've done a bit more, Jondel. (Or someone else may get there before me: this is a topic that would possibly interest Iustinus, noting his recent page Sisith.)
That's a very thoughtful offer, Steven -- we accept, naturally! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple:Shabbat wrongly links to Sabbatum (the general concept), and instead should link to Shabbat (the Jewish concept); likewise en:Shabbat. The articles en:Sabbath, en:Biblical Sabbath, en:Shabbat, en:Shabbat (Talmud), en:first-day Sabbath, and so on cover different & clearly distinguishable topics. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:30, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Written thirtysome hours ago:] An easy & practical solution might be to overwrite the whole text of the current Sabbatum with that of Shabbat (but keeping the lemma Sabbatum), and link it to en:Shabbat; and then to take the text of Sabbatum that was reverted (vide infra) and make it the basis of an article Sabbatum (significatio generalis) or the like (it somewhat serves the function of a pagina discretiva), and then link it to en:Sabbath. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the overwriting idea: it got you blocked. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overwriting—another name for thorough revision—happens all the time. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:37, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sabbatum is developing as a translation of simple:Shabbat (I can take over if Jondel doesn't continue). Let that continue and see the result.
You are welcome to use your text below to start a page Sabbatum (significatio generalis) or the like. Good idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that what you are arguing is that the the English transcription of a Hebrew word (in modern pronunciation) refers to a concept in the Jewish religion, whereas the Roman transcription of that same Hebrew word refers to a general anthropological phenomenon. That seems a little fishy to me. By Translitteratio linguae Hebraicae שַׁבָּת is Sabbath anyway, exactly the spelling en uses for the general concept. It's a little absurd to argue that one transliteration of the word means one thing in Latin, wheras another, unattested transliteration means another thing, simply because it tends to do so in English.
I could see an argument for doing that if the evolution of the word went the other way, but the fact is it started out as a Jewish practice, and in Latin pretty much continues to do so even after the rise of Christianity. Is Sabbatum ever used for the Christian day of rest? I'm sure it is.--Iustinus (disputatio) 17:55, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: Abelard, 12th century, a poem that begins (as one memorized it in college): "O quanta qualia sunt illa sabbata, quae semper celebrat superna curia": he wasn't talking about Jews. ¶ The text later on attests a convenient word, in the phrase perpes laetitia sabbatizantium 'the continuous joy of the sabbathizing' (those celebrating the celestial sabbaths). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent example, though I think you may be wrong to say he wasn't talking about Jews. How would Abelard have responded if asked? In medieval paintings of similar scenes the "forerunners of Jesus" take part in the celestial chorus. An example is the predella illustrated on this page. The middle left panel is of saints and fathers of the church, the middle right panel of "forerunners of Jesus" -- Jewish patriarchs and prophets. The images on Commons are not very clear, but you can see a long-haired John the Baptist, the last "forerunner", among his elders in the middle of the top row. Moses is there holding up a tablet. I'm sure Elijah's there -- maybe it's him top left. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are welcome to join us (Christians) and the angels in the celestial choir, so long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, simultaneously acknowledging the work of the Holy Ghost, as the concluding stanzas imply: "Illic ex sabbato succedet sabbatum, / perpes laetitia sabbatizantium, / nec ineffabiles cessabunt iubili, / quos decantabimus et nos et angeli. // Perenni Domino perpes sit gloria, / ex quo sunt, per quem sunt, in quo sunt omnia; / ex quo sunt, Pater est; per quem sunt, Filius; / in quo sunt, Patris et Filii Spiritus." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:30, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But do note that the entry in L&S, hardly a Jewish source, focusses almost entirely on "Shabbat." Yes, it does mention that it was "considered by the Romans to have been ordained as a fast-day," yes it does mention it can be used "as a name for the seventh day of the week, Saturday," but nowhere does it say anything about the Christian "sabbath" on Sunday. (I would check Cassell's for you, but I can't seem to find my copy right now. Still, I'm sure if you look it will agree.)
I'm sure you can find me a passage, possibly even an ancient one, where sabbath, sabbata or sabbatum are used to refer to the Christian concept (and certainly, later on, to the idea of a "Witches' Sabbath," the conceptual origin of the Wiccan Sabbat), but the fact remains that throughout history in Latin (and continuing in the Romance languages), Sabbatum was used as a commonplace word for Saturday, not Sunday.
I think it's fair to say that the Latin word refers first and formost to the Jewish practice, and by transference to parallel ideas in other religions and cultures.
--Iustinus (disputatio) 17:55, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iustinus raises a pertinent point, as reference works usually give pride of place--which here means the bare term, without a (parenthesized) qualifier--to the earliest known term or use (rarely a newer but prevalent one). If historical order is to prevail here, perhaps you might want to link the bare Sabbatum to an English article different from the one proposed above, making a set of correspondences like this:
Sabbatum = en:Biblical Sabbath
Sabbatum (Babylonia) = en:Sapattu ~ en:Babylonian calendar
Sabbatum (Zoroastrianismus) = en:Shappatum ~ en:Pentecontad calendar
Sabbatum (Iudaismus) = en:Shabbat
Sabbatum (Buddhismus) = en:Uposatha
Sabbatum (Christianitas) = en:Sabbath in Christianity
Sabbatum (ecclesiae diei septimi) = en:Sabbath in seventh-day churches
Sabbatum (Paganismus) = en:Sabbat ~ Circulus Anni
Sabbatum (academia et commercium) = en:Sabbatical
Sabbatum (significatio generalis) = en:Sabbath
and so on. (Or perhaps the earliest was the Babylonian, and it crept into the biblical text as part of the revisions made during or after the Babylonian captivity—in which case the Babylonian sense might want to be represented by the bare term.) If instead of historical order you'd give pride of place to the current (over the past few hundred years) sense, that would undoubtedly be Sabbath in Christianity (i.e., Sunday) in English, but what such prevalence in Latin would be is less clear. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But the Babylonian point is a neat one :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a note on your talk page before seeing yours here. Jondel has begun to translate simple:Shabbat, which is what Steven requested. Jondel's title seems OK to me: if you think it needs to be altered, you could propose a move at Disputatio:Sabbatum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be moved; its first sentence—a definition of the sabbath in general—should stand (revised out of its infelicities, of course), and the rest of it should be cut & replaced (the reverted action). See "A note on the sabbath" below. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:28, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, the reverted (abolished) text was:
Sabbatum (ex Hebraico שַׁבָּת 'Shabbat') generatim in multis culturis est hebdomadalis otii dies vel tempus venerationis. Varie observatur in religionibus Abrahamicis, ac tempora similia in nonnullis usibus aliis efficit. Multae sententiae definitionesque per millennia ortae sunt, sed plurimae ex eadem memoria quae ad verba scriptoris pertinet factae sunt. Vocabulum ad describendam similem spatii septem dierum observantiam in aliis memoriis adhibetur, inter quas intermenstruum; unaquaeque ex septem feriis annuis in Iudaismo et nonnullis memoriis Christianis; unaquaeque ex octo feriis paganis ad Circulum Anni spectantibus (usitate sabbat appellatis); annuus dies festus profanus; et omnis otii annus in usu religioso vel profano.
Incidentally, the reversion deprived Circulus Anni (also known as Sabbat) of its only internal link. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:28, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the sabbath[fontem recensere]

A text beginning

Sabbatum (Hebraice Shabbat שַׁבָּת est dies quiescendum quod accidit die septima hebdomadae enim inter diem Veneris et diem Solis.

(disregard its infelicities!) manifestly corresponds with, and should link to, Wikipedia's article beginning:

Sabbath or a sabbath is generally a weekly day of rest or time of worship.

Instead, it currently links to articles on a more specific subject:

Shabbat is the name of the day of rest in Judaism.


Shabbat (Hebrew: שַׁבָּת‎, "rest" or "cessation") or Shabbos (Yiddish: שאבּעס) is the Jewish day of rest and seventh day of the week, on which Jews remember the traditional creation of the heavens and the earth in six days and the Exodus of the Hebrews, and look forward to a future Messianic Age.

The article on the sabbath (Latine sabbatum) should be the general article, and Sabbatum accordingly should be pruned of its Jewish excrescences; the article Shabbat, as requested, translates the more particular English text (Shabbat), and someone who knows how to do these things should change the links in the English wiki so they'll make the appropriate connections. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:28, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the use of a Hebrew or Yiddish word as a title is objectionable, the title of the article Shabbat could fairly be changed to Sabbatum Iudaicum—and see how that presupposes that Sabbatum be the article on the topic in general, as Sabbath is in Wikipedia. The sixth word of the definition of Sabbath in Wikipedia is generally. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:36, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our aim, for the present, is to translate as Steven requested. Improvements to the translation and to the eventual article belong at Sabbatum; suggestions for moving the page, if that's what you propose, belong at Disputatio:Sabbatum. Don't disrupt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The translation requested has been provided, at Shabbat. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:29, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a translation of part of en:Shabbat. It may be OK as such -- I'm not judging that -- but it's not what was requested.
The article simple:Shabbat, which is a GA on Simple English Wikipedia, is the one that Steven asked us to translate. Jondel had announced here that he would do so, and had begun at Sabbatum, before you began at Shabbat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who started this in the first place ...
  1. To the extent that the subject of the article is Shabbat, rather than the general concept of Sabbath, I can hardly complain if Iacobus finds something in enwiki's article to include. Personally, I just find that article fairly disorganized, and I would offer that the simplewiki article has enough detail for Vicipædia's needs.
  2. Myself, I don't have a strong feeling as to whether there should be separate articles on Sabbath as a concept and Shabbat in particular. enwiki does that, but not all of the wikis are big enough to have articles at that fine a level of distinction. I would suggest that if Vicipædia goes that route, having suitable hatnotes at the top to make sure people get where they want to get is very important.
  3. I wonder why "mythology-stub". Is that policy here? [StevenJ81]
    Not policy; but at a quick guess, it may have been because the sabbath is rooted in the Genesis creation myth. In this article that might soon be overshadowed by detail about the practice. Evidently religio-stipula is the crucial one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Stub tags will be gone at the end of the day anyway, though categories will remain. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:50, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Last night, I changed the list article at Feriae Iudaicae so that the Shabbat line would link to Sabbatum rather than Sabbata (red link). But L&S shows Sabbata as "more common". So why choose one over the other? Is it possible that one is used more frequently for the concept, and the other for the Jewish particular? Otherwise, in any event, Sabbata should exist as a redirect. [StevenJ81]
Certainly. Iustinus would perhaps be the fellow to say whether there is any observable difference in meaning between the singular and plural form. Many Greek and Latin names for religious festivals, games, mysteries, etc., are habitually plural: that may have influenced usage. But I'm just guessing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly cannot say with any authority here. My suspicion is that Sabbata will turn out to be more common for the meaning "Shabbat" and Sabbatum for the meaning "Saturday." However, I have not looked into this at all yet, this is just a guess. (It's equally plausible that it's Sabbata in pagan sources and Sabbatum in Christian sources.)
And yeah, I agree with you, Andrew, that it's plural under the influence of other festival names. Sometimes if a Hebrew name comes out in the plural there is a possible morphological reason, e.g. ירושלים looks dual (or, if you read it wrong, plural), which might explain Hierosolyma -orum. But there's no such explanation in this case.
--Iustinus (disputatio) 00:10, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is really fascinating stuff. This also feels like the likely explanation for something I learned in 7th grade French but never understood. I don't know if it holds in Latin, but in French, Passover=la Pâque, but Easter=les Pâques. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:47, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Spanish, it's Christmas that's usually plural (felices Pascuas 'merry Christmas'), while Easter is singular (see es:Isla de Pascua 'Easter Island'). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:30, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for your support here! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 12:11, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke aftermath last word follow up[fontem recensere]

Woow Guys, could we like chill ? Iacobus, it is great that you take concern but we are not very obligated to follow the English wiki. Like Andrew said I went straight to Steven's simple E version. Anyway, it is great that you Iacobus accellerated a lot of work. It is great to have you magisters around, Iacobus, Andrew etc. Jondel (disputatio) 13:05, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[fontem recensere]

I've gone ahead a bit now. I think I have said everything Steven said, up to the first paragraph of the second section, but I have changed the order and included more direct quotation in the text -- either because Vicipaedia has a slightly different style from Simple English Wikipedia, or because I'm a born tweaker. I aim to continue with the translation (unless anyone else takes over). Meanwhile, if anyone wants to improve my Latin etc., please do: I'm sure it needs it. Once we're done, it's open for all kinds of improvements and extensions, like any other page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased and honored! Ave!
There are all kinds of Rabbinical explanations of why the Exodus version ends by saying "... because God created the world in six days ..." while the Deuteronomy version ends by saying "... because God brought you up from Egypt ..." I'm not sure you want to get lost in that, though. The critical idea is between "Memento" and "Observa". And I know you are headed there. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:48, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further progress[fontem recensere]

Hadn't forgotten. Next stage tomorrow probably. I started and was immediately distracted by verifying the picture date and provenance. Found it! Necessary links here [1] [2] till I write that article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this. I will investigate the next steps.Jondel (disputatio) 09:54, 31 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for catching that, and for fixing it over there. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 03:35, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update question at 15:45, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[fontem recensere]

Ave! (Now that I've exhausted the Latin I actually know how to write ...)

A couple of things here:

  1. I can hardly ask you to make this a higher priority than anything else you have going. At the same time, the article is still missing its ending. One thing that I would ask be added, even if nothing else is, would be the idea that saving a life can take priority over the labor restrictions. But if you get a chance to finish, I'd be most grateful.
  2. Shouldn't the article Shabbat be merged here? If you want help with that, let me know what key concepts are present that are absent from my article and I'll try to let you know (a) if they are important enough and (b) where they should go in.

Many thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:45, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to investigate why the articles are written separately. About the additions could you write what you would like to appear /here? maybe with 2 to 5 sentences. Jondel (disputatio) 11:14, 20 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are written separately, Jondel, because while you started translating from simple:wiki as Steven requested, Iacobus started out in competition, translating from en:wiki. I warned him that we'd have to merge the articles. But that's ancient history now :) My opinion, for what it's worth, is that they should be merged, but that there's no great hurry. It would be better to finish translating the simple:wiki article first.
Yes, now as to that ... I'm sorry, Stephen, it's true that I have had some other things to do ... I can't promise to do more on this till the end of the week. Have a go, Jondel, if you like! I have been following the order of the simple:wiki article, so it should be easy to see how far I've got. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 20 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IacobusAmor has an amazing grasp of the Latin language. Thanks to him, I am able to implement classical at much higher levels than if he were'nt around. I am wondering about his competitiveness. Its' like competing for air. There is so much work needed here. If his articles can replace mine then that would be fine but I will check if the ideas are still there. I am forced to remind everyone that Wikipedia works because despite vandalisms and that poor quality material is enterred into an article once in a while, there are enough people to spot this and remove or improve the article. I feel that the latinitas is abused and undermines many articles and the effort of many latin enthusiasts and is not really constructive. At least, there should be some indication why an article is bad in quality. At least, one or 2 or a few of the sentences which can not be understood should be indicated at the disputatio. Quid custodes custodet.
I would like to take up your invitation and will be attempting to merge the two articles although it will be very slow at the same time refer to the simple wiki versions. I need to be sure no idea was left out of the other article. Jondel (disputatio) 05:57, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I invited you to continue translating from simple:wiki. I didn't actually invite you to merge the two articles. My view was that the merger could come later, when we have finished the translation. But never mind -- everyone's free, so you can try to merge them if you want :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is great that you mentioned the simple wiki version. I 've been examining it and it is really very well organized. I will probably be referering from the simple version I guess.Jondel (disputatio) 03:50, 4 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached the end of the translation now (but am still verifying various things in dictionaries etc.) Thanks, Jondel, for your contributions. You and I have also taken everything supplementary (there wasn't very much, after all) from Iacobus's page Shabbat, which is now a redirect. (Meanwhile Lesgles has begun a page Sabbatum in religione Christiana.) Steven is on Wikibreak, but the next revisions of the page will constitute our translation that he requested.
Others, improve this page! I'm sure "a bit of mending won't hurt it" (quotation from Norman Hunter, The incredible adventures of Professor Branestawm). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:20, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am most appreciative. Thanks to all for your hard work. (And Andrew, the Wikibreak is 90% about my responsibilities in the real world, and 10% a passive-aggressive response to frustrations with the GA process on English Wikipedia. My experience here at Vicipaedia has been terrific. Thank you!) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 23:57, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real world slowed me down, Steven, but I'm glad we got the job done. I understand your frustration: I never touch GA and FA on en:wiki (except en:Rosetta Stone, but there it was my collaborator who steered us through).
A comment, for whenever you have time to answer. My impression is that it is a bit POV really to describe at length the detailed rules of "Judaism" and then say "but to tell the truth Reform Judaism doesn't do much of this at all, and North American congregations don't really do what their rabbis tell them ... etc." Forgive me for the unfair and simplistic summary! Not being an expert I'm not really sure how better to handle it, but, anyway, this was the reason that I rearranged, and moved, the paragraph about these variations. What would you say to that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 21 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also to Andrew D for help and guidance. The many versions of the Sabbat (let alone Latin grammar :) ) is confusing. We really need to be as neutral as possible being an encyclopedia.Jondel (disputatio) 10:06, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to all.
I've been thinking of an answer for Andrew, especially, and for Jondel and the rest. The truth is that (a) Andrew's summary is more or less correct, but (b) the reason for that is not about Shabbat per se, but is a bigger theological and social question, and therefore (c) too big for this article.
To summarize the problem more completely:
  1. Orthodox Judaism sees these matters as governed by a corpus of religious law (halacha). The description of Shabbat in this article basically summarizes that vast corpus of religious law relating to Shabbat.
  2. Conservative Judaism as a formal movement also sees these matters as governed by a corpus of religious law (halacha). The differences are that (a) Orthodoxy sees the religious law as being outright divine in origin, while Conservatism is more ambiguous on that; (b) Conservatism sometimes rules differently on some issues within this corpus of law; and (c) most Conservative Jews do not actually practice at home according to the tenets of their movement's approach to Jewish law.
  3. Progressive Judaism (Reform and similar) takes this corpus of Jewish law to be entirely man-made and not legally binding, only culturally informative. Accordingly, Reform Jews kind of pick and choose what they want out of the whole corpus that is meaningful to them.
In general, even people who do not keep Shabbat according to the letter of the religious law tend to start with the religious law as a cultural framework and go from there. So the text in the Simple English Wikipedia article tries very hard to reflect that neutrally. (Language constraints in simple sometimes make that difficult: the most neutral word is sometimes not the most simple.) However, your point is a good one, and I just added two sentences to the section simple:Shabbat#Shabbat in non-Orthodox Judaism to try to improve the neutrality of it.
I hope this explains things a bit. Happy Thanksgivukkah to all! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:16, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat[fontem recensere]

This article is slowly and progressively being integrated with material from the Shabbat article. Your help would be appreciated.
Hic articulus paulatim gradatimque immescatur cum materiis ex Shabbat. Auxilium vestrum/tuum valde gratum sit.Jondel (disputatio) 06:29, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbata etiam ad diem Saturni spectantur, dum Shabbat nonnisi diem Iudaicum tractat. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 18:35, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Videbis disputationem supra actam: origo nominis est Iudaicus; sensus primarius est dies Iudaica. Inde veniunt usús Christianorum, quorum alii diem Saturni hoc nomine indicant, alii diem dominicam. [Vide iam, breviter, rubricam "De nomine" huius paginae.] Si de hac re addere vis, libenter potes.
"Shabbat" fuit nomen male electum, quia e translitteratione Anglica derivat. Nomen Latinum huius diei Iudaicae est "Sabbatum" aut "Sabbata". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dixi idcirco, quod hoc nomen exceptis Germanicis linguis aliae quoque linguae transposuerunt, ut Hungarice szombat et Russice subbota etc.. Dies autem Dominica non Saturni, sed Solis diem pertinuit. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 09:34, 4 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]