Disputatio:Seulum

Nomen

I moved it back. If you really want to move the page, I suggest discussing it on this talk page first. Meanwhile:

1. The reason given (Google hits) seems to be mistaken. I got "55" (reduced to 13) for Seoulum, and "352" (reduced to 110) for Seulum.
2. If you actually look at the hits, none of those for "Seoulum" are in Latin, and I'm not sure if more than 1 or 2 of them are meant to be city names at all.
3. And anyway, Google isn't king for Latin. Many of the hits for "Seulum" are reflexes of our Vicipaedia pages, so what does that prove? We have to look elsewhere for place names, really. See Fontes nominum locorum for some suggestions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:13, 30 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree Seulum was the established usage in the past. Recently, however, Seoulum has come to use and the usage is much extended now.

1. I tried 'Seoulensis' and 'Seulensis', a derivative form, which is frequently used in latin nomenclature of species. While Seulensis gives only 264 results (reduced to 117)[1], I got 22,200 for Seoulensis (reduced to 426) [2]. This result excludes pages from wikipedia.
2. There is a copy of a letter in latin from pope John Paul II, on designation of new archbishop of Uijeongbu. You can see what he used, Seoulum. --Nudimmud 10:34, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing the work. Both forms are possible, then -- this source gives Dioecesis Seulensis as if from Seulum. Let's wait a day or so in case anyone else has a comment, and then move the page to Seoulum as you prefer. We can keep both spellings in the text of the article, and cite a source for each. Better and better! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a cad - I just moved yet another page without checking the discussion. I'll be more careful in the future. My problem with the Seoulum is that

1. It is not in the letter stated above - only the adjective
2. The whole argument presumes that the adjective ending in -ensis means the noun must end in -um. Which is completely wrong (or could well be)

There is a source for Seulum (on the page now) with the real noun ending and that is the only reliable source thus far. I'll be happy to move back if anybody can outweigh Seulum with Seoulum. Harrissimo 18:58, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

I'm with you, really. Seulum seems a more Latin-like spelling to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:50, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)