Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Lingua Paniabica" differant
Content deleted Content added
penjabicus, panjabicus, punjabicus, pengabensis... |
|||
| Linea 2: | Linea 2: | ||
Si "Penjabica" (vide citationem) est verbum Latinum, sine dubio "Panjabica" taliter. Igitur (Sacreum mihi in mentem ponit) nobis oportet, more Vicipaediae, "Paniabica" scribere. An recte dixi? <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 15:22, 27 Martii 2014 (UTC) |
Si "Penjabica" (vide citationem) est verbum Latinum, sine dubio "Panjabica" taliter. Igitur (Sacreum mihi in mentem ponit) nobis oportet, more Vicipaediae, "Paniabica" scribere. An recte dixi? <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 15:22, 27 Martii 2014 (UTC) |
||
:There are some taxonomic attestations for [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=panjabicus&tbm=bks panjabicus] and also [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=penjabicus&tbm=bks penjabicus], though the most are for [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=punjabicus&tbm=bks punjabicus], doubtless because of English influence. I agree that if it has a Latin ending, we might as well stick with our "i, not j" convention. But using ''g'' is also an option: Hofmann calls the region [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof3/s0649a.html Pengabum] (also [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof2/s0735b.html Lahoria]). And here's a source for [http://books.google.com/books?id=L3ZYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA609 Pengabensis ditio]. [[Usor:Lesgles|Lesgles]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles|disputatio]]) 21:22, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC) |
:There are some taxonomic attestations for [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=panjabicus&tbm=bks panjabicus] and also [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=penjabicus&tbm=bks penjabicus], though the most are for [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=punjabica#hl=en&q=punjabicus&tbm=bks punjabicus], doubtless because of English influence. I agree that if it has a Latin ending, we might as well stick with our "i, not j" convention. But using ''g'' is also an option: Hofmann calls the region [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof3/s0649a.html Pengabum] (also [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof2/s0735b.html Lahoria]). And here's a source for [http://books.google.com/books?id=L3ZYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA609 Pengabensis ditio]. [[Usor:Lesgles|Lesgles]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles|disputatio]]) 21:22, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Does [http://books.google.com/books?id=fw8YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA604&lpg=PA604&dq=quinque+flumina+india&source=bl&ots=qJgKJIRXAT&sig=L7GhQ2K2PnBksB5YWPgCbmYN4WU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LqZNU4ikAePQsQTpqYH4BA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=quinque%20flumina%20india&f=false ''Panjábi''] imply a nominative ''Panjabu(m,s)''? In any case (sic!), it would seem to support ''lingua Panjabica.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 21:42, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Emendatio ex 21:42, 15 Aprilis 2014
Orthographia
Si "Penjabica" (vide citationem) est verbum Latinum, sine dubio "Panjabica" taliter. Igitur (Sacreum mihi in mentem ponit) nobis oportet, more Vicipaediae, "Paniabica" scribere. An recte dixi? Andrew Dalby 15:22, 27 Martii 2014 (UTC)
- There are some taxonomic attestations for panjabicus and also penjabicus, though the most are for punjabicus, doubtless because of English influence. I agree that if it has a Latin ending, we might as well stick with our "i, not j" convention. But using g is also an option: Hofmann calls the region Pengabum (also Lahoria). And here's a source for Pengabensis ditio. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:22, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
- Does Panjábi imply a nominative Panjabu(m,s)? In any case (sic!), it would seem to support lingua Panjabica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:42, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)