Disputatio:Srilanca

Can we just call this Taprobane? That's what's usually done in Latin, I'm pretty sure. --Iustinus 02:18, 7 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favour that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 10 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that titulus sit lemma, but in this case I believe the discrepancy between these two should have been resolved by changing the lemma, not the titulus. Ergo I prefer moving the article back to Taprobane, since it is an ancient name. Indeed we don't automatically call modern countries after ancient regions, because the boundaries are almost never exactly the same, but Sri Lanka / Taprobane being an island there is no such problem. Moreover, Taprobane as a classical declinable word looks better than Sri Lanca with the strange element Sri. Gabriel Svoboda 12:54, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I merely wanted the title & the lemma to be consistent. IacobusAmor 13:17, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fontes[fontem recensere]

Fontibus nominis hodierni "Srilancae" iam citatis, fortasse paginam de civitate hodierna movere oportet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil usque hodie feci, sed paginam categoriasque respectivas nunc volo movere. "Srilanca" a lexicographis hodiernis accipitur et cum nomine nativo civitatis consonat. Insuper "Taprobane" nomen dubium et ambiguum est, origine incerto, ab aliquibus non ad Sri Lanka sed ad Sumatram attributum. An quis abnuit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 21 Februarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]