- You could work linguistic evolution in reverse. How did history develop the usual modern sounds of "ch," "j," and "sh" from classical Latin? They come from a velar stop plus /i/. To indicate them, we'd use the spellings of modern Italian, but we'd pronounce them as our classical friends would have: so "ch" = ci, "j" = gi, and "sh" = sci, and I'd therefore offer Latin Iagiur Veda. In contrast, if you posit a modern classical Latin-speaker, or Cicero redivivus, confronting Yajur Veda, you might get Iadiur Veda. It's hard to tell. Let's buy a tardis and go ask Livy. IacobusAmor 17:46, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- I think the reverse-evolution thing is a really bad idea. Most of the time, as far as I can tell, people who Latinized these names historically used the common spelling anyway. Veda (-ae, f.) gets a lot of book hits, and there is an 1845 work by Albrechtus Weber, Yajurvedae specimen cum commentario, (  ) indicating the Latin name is just the expected Yajurveda. —Myces Tiberinus 21:46, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
If it's any comfort, the fifteenth-century humanists quibbled over the same issues; however, so far as I can tell from the only volume available to me here, they reverted, at least when Latinizing their own names, to what they thought classical Latin-speakers would have done, and they did not use "the common spelling"; that is, they worked backward through time to reach a spelling that they thought would be familiar to people of the Golden Age:
- Ermolao Barbaro called himself Hermolaus, not Ermolaus.
- Tristano Calco called himself Tristanus Chalcus, not Calcus.
- Girolamo Donà called himself Hieronymus Donatus, not Girolamus Dona.
- Pomponio Leto called himself Pomponius Laetus, not Letus.
- Giovanni Pico della Mirandola called himself Ioannes Picus Mirandula, not Mirandola.
- Ludovico Odasio called himself Ludovicus Odaxius, not Odasius.
- Pittorio called himself Pictorius, not Pittorius.
- Angelo Poliziano called himself Angelus Politianus, not Polizianus.
As for the present case, "Veda" is obviously Veda. For "Yajur," if the ideal typography doesn't allow J & Y, whatcha gonna do? To me, Iadiur, Iagiur, and Iaiiur look plausible. To Latin of the Golden Age, I'd guess the spelling that most closely matches the pronunciation would be Iadiur. (But hey, don't rely on that: I've guessed wrong before!) If you allow J & Y, you might as well stick with Yajur. IacobusAmor 23:04, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- Your examples look like originally Latinate words, which further are undergoing translation, not mere Latinization. (For untranslated versions, Girolamus, Ermolaus, Odasius, and even Polizianus, etc. are all attested and may be found by googling.) At issue here are non-Latinate words which are not being translated. (As for J, if V can get the dignity of a separate letter when it strays from the value of vocalic /u/ or semivocalic /w/, why can't J when it has a harder value than /i/ or /j/? Y, of course, has no prohibition here that I know of, though I don't like its use as a semivowel either.) —Myces Tiberinus 03:17, 21 Decembris 2006 (UTC)