Disputatio:Saravipons

What is the philological source of Saravipontus? I have found none, but maybe I have not looked hard enough ... (Well, some googling gives ample confirmation, but it seems as though everybody is copying everybody. So, I rather sit this out.) I do not know for sure but have a hunch that Saravipontus is a neologism, a conjectural back-formation based on the much-used locative form Saraviponti. As such, this form is a bit ambiguous, because it might as well be the locative of Saravipontum or even Saravipons (given the fact that the locative sometimes carries over to the 3rd declension, too; witness Carthagini as a variant of Carthagine).

User 87.172.203.140 has a point when saying: "Der Name der Stadt hat nichts mit dem modernen Wort Brücke zu tun, denn zur Zeit der ersten Erwähnungen des Ortes bzw. der Burg gab es dort keine Saar-Brücke: die erste Brücke über die Saar [die heute sog. Alte Brücke] wurde erst 500 Jahre später erbaut. Also ist die naheliegendste Lösung, dass mit dem ältesten Namen Sarabrucca der Burgfelsen [= Brocken] gemeint sein könnte." Indeed, Sarabrucca (Sarbrocken) is the earliest name attested (in 999) for the town, grown around the castellum Sarabrucca.

At some point of time, the old name Sarbrocken was reinterpreted so as to usher in the modern name Saarbrücken. While this modern name, taken literally, refers to virtually all the bridges that cross the river in the town area, the name Saarbrigge, as the local dialect has it, refers to one bridge only, but not necessarily to the Alte Brücke. Might it have referred to the quay that was certainly necessary as soon as industry and commerce took off? A lot of towns have got their names from being harbours or ports. Now, it is tempting to think that this brigge was called Saravi pons in Latin. If so, this also makes a good name for the entire town, and indeed, Saravi pons and Pons Saravi (adj. Saravipontanus) is reasonably well attested. See e.g. Forcellini's Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, s.v. Sarra.

If I were the kind of nomothetes Plato is talking about in the Cratylus, I probably had the Latin name of Saarbrücken re-baptized as Saravi Pons instead of Saravipontus, the Saravian Sea :-) . But I understand that the latter name has already had its take off, so let it be. But as a matter of personal idiosyncracy, I think I will stick to the good old Saravi pons. --Neander 23:07, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There have been many forms, but this one has poor authority if any. Graesse lists "Sarae pons, Sarebrugka, Salembrucca, Sarebrucha, Salebrugis, Sarraepontum, Saravi pons, Saropons"; just to be awkward, Hofmann has "Pons Saravi". I don't think we should let it be. Like you, I have seen Saravi pons. If you don't move it to Saravi Pons (upper case initial for each word in a Vicipaedia place name) I will tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:33, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well something to consider is the form used by the Societas Latina Saravipontana, which I would consider one of the major centers of modern Latin. Unfortunately I am having trouble tracking down a reference (though I know I have one somewhere), but they do seem to use locative Saraviponti (of course that works for Saravipontus, Saravipontum and Saravipons!) --Iustinus 23:44, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's leave it briefly to see if an authority turns up, then. But I suspect Saravipontus is just a mistake. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:56, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at a paper by Caelestis Eichenseer (De Saraviae condicionibus ferriviariis, Vox Latina 42, 2006, 390-392). Unfortunately, there was no nominative form to be found in the text, but instances of the accusative Saravipontum, the genitive Saraviponti, and the ablative Saraviponto are found, which suggests that the Saravipontic latinists are inclined to use either Saravipontus or Saravipontum (cf. Graesse's Sarraepontum [which seems to be attested in Hugo Grotius along with Saraepons]). Be that as it may, I think it was the right decision to mount Saravi pons. /Thank you!/ I have nothing in principle against keeping Saravipontum or Saravipontus as a specimen of Neotato-Latin. --Neander 23:23, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saraviponti (Vox Latina) could be a genetive/locative of Saravipontus/Saravipontum, but it can also be a ablative/locative of Saravipons (as Iustinus said already). I suggest moving to Saravipons, in graesse there is no Saravipontus to be found. --Alex1011 10:28, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the move. I feel sure it was the right decision. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s Saravipontum, neuter. See this article: Caelestis Eichenseer, Saravipontum (-i n.) = Saarbrücken, “Vox latina”, fasc. 42 (tom. 11, a. 1975), p. 92. I haven’t seen the article myself, but see here: http://periodica.pantoia.de/vox-latina/symbolae.php. The title is clear enough. (And compare e. g. Aenipontum, Innsbruck.) I’ve added the form Saravipontum. Neque doctor neque doctus (disputatio) 14:18, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that "Saravipontus" is long gone, I have no preference between "Saravipons" and "Saravipontum": let the sources lead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Latin-speaking world Saarbrücken is more often than not mentioned because of "Vox latina" and the Societas latina saravipontana; and therefore, I think that it would be fair to call it Saravipontum. At any rate, this is undoubtedly a well-formed name. Neque doctor neque doctus (disputatio) 20:23, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion faltered. We could discuss again.

I wrote a longer opinion, but then I thought I'd better say less until I'd looked at some sources. I still consider it pretty evenly balanced. If a couple of Saravipontanes stated a view, it would be interesting, and I would love to read the article by Eichenseer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 30 Maii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Saravipontem" bis aut ter inveni apud Google books, quae ab uno nominativo "Saravipons" venire potest |hic, §3 vel hic. Sed locativo "Saraviponti" in frontispiciis editores "Vocis latinae" utuntur. Jeanthorlon (disputatio) 09:47, 30 Maii 2019 (UTC)[reply]