Disputatio:Unio Astronomica Internationalis

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Doubts[fontem recensere]

I wonder whether the revised name is well chosen, because

  1. Official Latin names of institutions most often place the noun first (e.g. Societas Regalis Londini; Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis; Societas Philosophica Americana and many other examples, cf. alsoVP:UNI)
  2. The change from "Astronomica" to "Astronomiae" goes against our usual preference (also the case in one of the examples I quoted, but that is an official name, and, where they exist, official Latin names are trumps)
  3. Yes, it's nice if our Latin name agrees with an internationally used abbreviation, but we can't expect it to happen very often, because the majority of abbreviations are based on English, and English and Latin word order don't usually agree
Sometimes (as perhaps here), an acronym is the standard form. I've heard the university known as Em-Eye-Tee called just that many hundreds of times (including on one occasion that I particularly recall in Trinidad & Tobago), but probably never called "Massachusetts Institute of Technology." IacobusAmor 19:11, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My suggestion would be to move back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History: I (re)coined the name in ignorance of the present article while editing Makemake (planetulus) and then came here to make the names consistent. ¶ Yes, it seems, Neo-Latin names (perhaps with emphasis on the Neo-) may tend to put the noun first. The examples of universities may not be entirely pertinent, since most of them have vernacular names of the structure "University of X," not with modifiers to the left of the noun, but then there's Compluti Urbis Universitas, plus a nontrivial number that have or had a structure with a Latin form of 'royal' to the left, as in Regia universitas bononiensis, Regia Universitas Hafniensis, Regia Universitas Hungarica Francisco-Josephina (also Regia Scientiarum Universitas Hungarica Claudiopolitana Francisco-Josephina), Regia Universitas Pestana, Regia Universitas Tyrnaviensis, Regia Universitas Upsaliensis, and with a double adjective, Caesarea Regia Universitas Patavina. And of course we have the Pontificia et Regalis Universitas Sancti Thomae Aquantis Manilana and the Pontificium Institutum Biblicum Romae. However, even for universities, a quick search turns up structures like that of Internationalis Astronomiae Unio (often with a placename adjective after the word universitas), e.g. Regia Scientiarum Universitas Pestana hic, Regia Scientiarum Universitas Hungarica hic et hic, et regia scientiarum universitas hungarica debreceniensis de stephano tisza nominata hic, et etiam (with a genitive for the placename) Regia Scientiarum Universitas Hungariæ hic. Likewise with academia : Regia Scientiarum Academia Parisiis hic, Regia Scientiarum Academia Borussica, Regia Scientiarum Academia Svecica, Regia Scientiarum Academia Zagrabiae, and other examples, easily found via Google. ¶ The structure "[adjective] [noun genitive] [noun nominative]," according to Bradley's Arnold, is the classical order, so which form of names to use may depend on how "classical" one wants to be. In any case, the classical order happens to keep the acronym unchanged, and that's a plus in this case. ¶ As for "our usual preference" for adjectives over genitive nouns, how can it be "usual" when probably an overwhelming majority of pertinent phrases, as in maybe thousands of categories, take the form "[noun nominative] [noun genitive]," rather than "[noun nominative] [adjective]"? For example, not Categoria:Arbores Mexicanae (a structure I originally tended to use), but Categoria:Arbores Mexici. ¶ Incidentally, as one just now notices, clicking on the footnote in the present article generates a file-not-found error-message. IacobusAmor 12:29, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was aware of the "Regia ..." and "Pontificia ..." pattern, but I don't see its relevance. Those names have honorific adjective + noun + descriptive adjective or phrase, which is not the case here.
I well know from earlier citations what Bradley's Arnold says. But Bradley's Arnold isn't a grammar of how to construct institutional names.
I don't see how the structure of our geographical category names is pertinent to this.
So, thus far, I haven't found a relevant argument in your paragraph! I expect the fault is mine ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No doubt. ;) IacobusAmor 14:19, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iacobe, given your "solitus ordo" argument, it'd be fair to concentrate on the place of internationalis in institutional names. According to my gut feeling, the pattern à la Societas internationalis X-ica or Societas X-ica internationalis prevails over Internationalis X-iae societas. Methinks, there must be a very important reason for bettering that which is good. Neander 15:38, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. The one that gets the most hits at Google (judging from the first few pages) is the Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences, with the often-attested form Internationalis Scientiarum Historiae Comitatus (see here and at what Google reports to be 1,659 other sites). Of course, internationalis itself seems somewhat newfangled, and for 'international law' in classical style, for example, Cassell's says to use ius gentium. ¶ Side note: that use of Comitatus for Académie, where most writers would automatically use Academia, is enlightening! IacobusAmor 19:00, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if an attestion of Unio Astronomica Internationalis be found, especially in use by the so-called "unio" itself (alternatively in various productions from Bremen, Radio Finland, etc.), then by all means let that be the lemma! IacobusAmor 19:17, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ta-daa! I found one here (though not from the "unio" itself), so anybody may feel free to add that as a footnote to the resurrected original lemma. :) IacobusAmor 19:22, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Note, however, that site's nonclassicism in saying In certamine finali cantionum Eurovisionis instead of In ultimo cantionum Eurovisionis certamine (not to mention its Germanic punctuation). :/ IacobusAmor 19:26, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say, Iacobe, that's a very generous contribution to the discussion. (As regards your final or ultimate point, I fear non-classicism is to be found at times even on Vicipaedia. Pro tempore.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unio Astronomica Internationalis can be found on this page too ("Nuntii Latini"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since there wasn't consensus, and with the support of the citation provided by Iacobus, I've moved back. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]