Disputatio Usoris:Alexander Gerashchenko

Bijskum/Biscum et alia nomina locorum Russiae

Unde haec nomina locorum Russianorum sumpsisti? Ipsene finxisti an fontem habes? Nam <ij> non est combinatio valde Latina: "Bijskum" et "Bija" (Bia) fortasse melius Latine scriberentur Biscum et Bia... nisi habeas fontem, nam solemus nomina iam exstantia in pretio habere. Sed etsi habeas, adhuc difficultati nobis sit quod mos vicipaedianus est littera j non uti.

Where did you get these Latin names for places in Russia? Did you make them up yourself, or do you have a source? Because <ij> isn't a very Latin combination of letters: "Bijskum" and "Bija" (Bia) should probably be Latinized as something like Biscum and Bia... unless of course you have a source on those forms, because we normally prefer to use pre-existing forms rather than make stuff up. But even if you have such a source there's still the problem that the usual rule here is not to use the letter j.

--Iustinus 15:34 apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

Nomina locorum Russianorum (et Ucrainorum) hic inveni: Graesse.Orbis Latinus, Sebastianus Glavinich. De Rebus Moschorum, Horreum - Lexicum nominum geographicorum latinorum, etc.etc. Ibi littera j est.

Sed Бийск (Anglice Biysk, Germanice Bijsk) nomen Latinum traditionalis non habet. Si "Biiscum" (sine j) scribo, nomen urbis non solum qui "Bijskum" (vere), sed quodque qui "Bjiskum" (non vere) legere possibile est. Sed, si debeo et si possibile est, "Biscum" ("Pax vo Biscum"?), non "Bijskum", scribebao.

Estne littera j hic non uti? Sed cur hic in pagina navigationis littera j est - "Adjutatum"?

I found Russian (and Ukrainian) placenames here: Graesse.Orbis Latinus, Sebastianus Glavinich. De Rebus Moschorum, Horreum - Lexicum nominum geographicorum latinorum, etc. There is letter j.

But Бийск (English Biysk, German Bijsk) does not have a traditional Latin name. If I write "Biiscum" (without j), it can be possible to read the name of the city not only as "Bijskum" (correct), but also as "Bjiskum" (not correct). But, if I should and if it is possible, I shall write "Biscum" ("Pax vo Biscum", "Pax um Biscum"?- "Go in Peace", "Peace be with you"?), not "Bijskum".

Isn't letter j used here? But why is letter j on the navigational page - "Adjutatum"?

--Alexander Gerashchenko - apr 19, 2005

Thank you for that list of sites. I have added the horreum link to fontes nominum locorum. It might be a worthwhile project to compile a list of Russian place-names with pre-existing Latin forms (along the lines of index locorum in Regno Unito).

You are right, the general ban on <j> is not very strictly followed, and we should fix the "adjutatum" link. I have myself passionately argued for permitting j in certain contexts, but not in the titles of articles.

You will note that Latin (at least Classical Latin) tends to avoid the combinations ji and ij in generally, usually reducing them to one i. Note, for example, the Latin equivalents of the following Hebrew names:

jiśrå’ēl > Israēl

jiṣḥåq > Isaac

’ēlījåhū > Ēlīās

etc.

Whether or not this means that Вийск should come out as Biscum I cannot say for sure, but it seems like the best way to handle it for now. --Iustinus 05:55 apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

--- A list with pre-existing Latin forms of Russian place-names is a good idea. It was really a problem for me to find such names. Besides, there can be several variants for the same place-name. By the way, I've given more speculations on the topic of giving a Latin name to Biysk, etc., on the discussing page of Biscum ("Bijskum"). --Alexander Gerashchenko - apr 19, 2005

---

I created the index of Latin names for Russian places. --Alexander Gerashchenko apr, 2005

Imagines superflua

Onerare imagines locationum nationum superfluum est. Iam potes conectare eis via Commons, ut: [[Imago:LocationBelarus.png]] — dat: —Myces Tiberinus 02:33 mai 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tzar

I've seen the word царь glossed in Latin texts, but never used as a title. So the usual question: did you have a source on this, or did you coin it yourself? Maybe I can do some research later to see what the best way to tranlsate it is--it certainly looks out of place to me. --205.188.116.202 15:48 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, as I have written in the article, the proper Latin translation for the word "царь" given, e.g. in my Russian-Latin Dictionary, is "rex". It'd better give this translation of the title "царь" in my articles in Latin, if the non-Russian European writers of Middle Ages didn't prefer to give various transliterations of the title, telling about Russian (Muscovian) rulers, e.g. "tzar" or "czar". Transliteration "tzar" is used, e.g., in the following documents: [1], [2] -- Alexander Gerascenco 16:12 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed you'd already started an article on the word itself. Let's just add some more loci then. I still think in titularies it's probably better to use a translation, but I'm not sure rex is the best word. We shoudl hold out to see what other contemporary authors used. --205.188.116.202 17:17 iun 5, 2005 (UTC) (Iustinus)

Alexander, I can't find the transliteration in the second document. --Iustinus 17:55 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the word "царь" (from Caesar), as well as the word "король" (Russian word for "king", from Carolus Magnus), was invented when Latin no longer was a living language. The Latin-language documents about Russia were written by foreigners, who themselves could hardly understand how to understand the proper meaning of the Russian word "царь" (rex? imperator? In fact, the level of the title is approximately equal to "king", being higher than the "magnus dux", as the title "великий князь" was translated, e.g. "magnus dux Lituaniae" - "великий князь литовский", but lower than "imperator"). So, these foreigners preferred transliteration. In Russian books on history, the word "царь" is applied to the rulers of the ancient word, e.g. "римский царь" (rex Romanus), "царь Македонии" (rex Macedoniae), etc. Such a saying, as "Inter caecos luscus rex" (the English translation I once saw was: "In the kingdom of blind a one-eyed man is king"), is translated as "Среди слепых одноглазый царь". But "rex" referring to European rulers of Middle Ages, is, as I can judge, translated into Russian as "король". The title "rex Russiae", possessed by a Polish prince Wladislaw in the beginning of the 17th century, is translated as "король (not царь) России".

In my opinion, "rex", or, possibly, "caesar" should be considered the best translation to "царь". But the tradition, if I don't mistake, is using transliteration to this title of Russian rulers. "Tsar" is the best transliteration, which can be read closer to the original pronunciation, but I failed to find it in a Latin-language document. And "czar", more usable, according to the "Loci", can be read as [kzar]. So, I chose "tzar", though I won't insist on it, if a better variant can be offered. --Alexander Gerascenco 04:25 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The second document, you can't find the transliteration in, it is a Russian translation of "Travel to Muscovy" by A.Meierberg. Some Latin expressions of the original are given in brackets there, e.g. "Cartalinios et Grusinios Tzares", "Tzarum Tzar". --Alexander Gerascenco 04:25 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to me that caesar is the logical translation, both in terms of etymology, and in terms of level of dignity. But it does not seem to have been much used as the Latin equivalent. The texts I've seen usually translate it as dux magnus or give some sort of transliteration. I am still uncomfortable with a word so un-Latin-looking as Tzar or Czar, but what can you do? And certainly modern languages make the distinction.

I've looked through that Meierberg translation, but the only relevant Latin quote I've found is the title "Iter in Moschoviam Augustini liberi Baronis de Mayerberg et Horatii Guil. Caluucci ab August. Rom. Imp. Leopoldo ad Czarem et Magnum Ducem Alexium Mihalowicz anno M. DC. LXI Ablegatorum. Fol." That title may work as a quote for the loci section... unless you can find a better one? --Iustinus 05:25 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Царь и великий князь всея Руси" ("Tzar et magnus dux totae Rutheniae") - such was the adressing to Russian ("Muscovian") monarchs in 16-17th centuries (since 1547, see Iohannes IV (tzar Russiae)). "Magnus dux" is lower than "tzar" in dignity. It is not a translation of the word "царь", it is an old title of Muscovian (of course, not only Muscovian) rulers - "великий князь" (see, e.g. Iohannes III (magnus dux Moscoviae)), still preserved by Russian ("Muscovian") rulers, but put after a new higher title of "tzar"("czar"). --Alexander Gerascenco 05:49 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but the change in title didn't seem to be immediately reflected in the West. Some of the quotes I put in the article talk about that. I just added a couple of loci; I think we might be getting two many ;) --Iustinus 05:54 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we should either translate "tzar" as "rex" (the necessary reasonings are given above), losing the difference between "king" and "tsar", or leave it as it is. Neither "tzar" or "czar" look Latin-like, but "tsar" doesn't look English-like, does it? Let this word reflect a cultural phenomenon (like, e.g., "pharaoh"). --Alexander Gerascenco 06:04 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I definitely think we should leave the tzar article, I mean we have much less attested terms like sachus already. I just have mixed feelings about using it in titles of articles about indvidual tzars. I'm wondering if maybe in such instances we should use a more Latinish term like caesar or rex. But I am not certain in any case. It would be nice if others woudl weigh in.

Pharao is at least accomodated to Greco-Latin phonology, a better analogy would be later terms like shahiludium, wayvoda, Oughtredus and the like. --Iustinus 06:35 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Being not sure of the proper Latin equivalents to Russian titles had long been preventing me from creating any article about Russian monarchs. I'm still not completely sure which Latin eqivalent is better for "князь" - "dux" or "princeps". But this title at least WAS translated, being as much "duke" or "prince", as "царь" is "king". I can hardly understand, why didn't they translate "царь" in similar way. I myself won't be against turning, e.g. Iohannes IV (tzar Russiae) into Iohannes IV (rex Russiae). (I'm really thankful to Peter the Great for his becoming Imperator and making the task of translation of his title easy.)

And in the times of pharaohs there were Romans to accomodate titles to their phonology...--Alexander Gerascenco 07:03 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

As for why rex was not considered the proper translation, see the Herberstein quote:

unde factum, ut Rhuteni interpretes audientes Principem suum ab externis nationibus sic appellari, coeperunt & ipsi deinceps Imperatorem nominare, nomenque Czar dignius esse quam Regis (licet idem significent) existimant.

--Iustinus 15:55 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Am I right understanding the meaning of this extract in such a way: The dignity and meaning of czar is equal to king, but the tsars of Russia themselves considered the rank of their title closer to Emperor? As far as I know, such a situation is very possible - Russian tsars considered their dignity among European rulers to be very high - no lower than that of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. (In fact, the etymology of the English word king, as well as German König, is possibly close to Knyaz - and Velikij Knyaz, i.e. Magnus Dux, was lower in dignity than Tsar.) But a tsar should be lower in dignity than an emperor, otherwise Peter I would not have taken the latter as the main one, preserving the former one in the full list of his titles.

I see the transliteration czar is more widespread than tzar. But does the combination of letters cz in Latin texts stand for sound [ts] in general? --Alexander Gerascenco 16:52 iun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the etymologies of slavic words for king are pretty funny. I think knyaz is supposed to be borrowed from Germanic *kuningaz, korol from Charlemagne, and tsar from Caesar.

The quote actually says: "and so it has come to pass, that Russian interpreters hearing their Prince so called by foreign nations, and have begun to refer to him as Emperor themselves, and they consider the title of Czar to be of higher dignity than that of King (although they mean the same thing)" In other words, he is saying that Czar technically means King, but that because the Russians consider their monarch to be of higher status than is conveyed by other foreign words, they prefer not to translate the word Czar to avoid problems. The very definition of a "diplomatic translation" ;)

Phonologically, neither cz nor tz make sense. I mean the sound in question is equivalent to Latin ts, but if you do a thorough search of a Latin dictionary you will find scarcely ANY words that contain that combination other than etsi. This is because normally in Latin t + s assimilates into s or ss. If the Ancient Romans had by some bizarre distortion of time encountered the Russian Tsars, they would almost certainly have spelled the word sar. However, what we have attested in actual Latin works (so far) is czar and tzar. If I had written the article I probably would have gone with czar and let pronunciation be damned. How to pronounce Russian words borrowed into post-Classical Latin isn't high on my priorities ;) But I did not write the article, you did, and tzar IS attested. So I am willing to let it stand for now. --Iustinus 19:37 iun 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Let's leave "tzar" as it is, until ideas of better rendering this title of Russian rulers appear. --Alexander Gerascenco 15:35 iun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not very good with latin, and don't really know where to start editing here, but I did want to know why Haec is spelt so many different ways? Alexanderr 05:32, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

"Haec" is the variant of "this" for Nominative case, feminine gender, singular number; and also for Nominative case, neutral gender, plural. "Haec is spelt so many different ways" depending on its case, gender and number. E.g. in Nominative Singular of masculine gender it will be "hac". "Huius (hujus)" is Genetive Singular for all 3 genders, while "his" is Dative and Ablative Plural... -- Alexander Gerascenco 05:55, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

dates

Yeah...I have been chastised by the administrators that be for this very same thing. Check out use of numbers in latine or anglice. General consensus is in naming articles, arabic means year, roman means an article about the actual number, cf XLII vs 1993. But in the writing of articles, we use arabic for both. The advice on writing out in spelt form of numbers for small values seems to be adhered to with less discriminance.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:18, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

OK... So, Roman numbers will do for denoting centuries and Arabic ones for other dates, right? If there is such a general preference towards Arabic numbers, I'll start limiting the usage of Roman numerals in the articles I edit, according to this principle. But let me not do it immediately - I'm not eager to increase the number of editions of articles just for changing the numbers. Let me do it alongside with adding new information to the articles. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:43, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Bija

Alexander, you requested the deletion of "Bija", which is just a redirect. Myces wants to keep it: [3] Is it ok to keep it? It's just a redirect ... ;-) --Roland2 21:07, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Myces wants to keep it, as far as I understand, because "Bija" "has stuff linking to it". But I guess this "stuff" is nothing more than some mentions on the discussion pages - where, if I don't mistake, it was agreed that "Bija" is a spelling, unacceptable in Latin Wikipedia. So, what's the use of keeping useless redirect links? -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:09, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the links which point to Bija. So we could say: ok, let's remove this unused redirect. However, please see the discussion on Disputatio Vicipaediae:Redirectio. I think we have other options as well. ;-) --Roland2 15:24, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed the links which point to "Bijskum" - which is needed here even less than "Bija". (Someone possibly could have looked for "Bija", but I'm sure no one will ever search "Bijskum" here - rather one would look for "Bijsk" or "Biysk".) -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:51, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Paginae delendae

What really MUST be deleted is "Universitas Paegagogica Publica Biscensis" and "Universitas Publica Paegagogica Barnaulensis". It's a foolish misprint made by me - "Paegagogica" instead of "Paedagogica". So, I'll be glad if someone deletes these absurdly wrong-titled redirect links. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:20, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:55, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Multas gratias! -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:56, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

ISO 9

Cur, in VP:TNP, removisti translitterationem ISO 9:1995 ex sectione translitterationes ISO tractanti? Non in linguam Latinam redditur, tantum litteras Latinas. —Myces Tiberinus 17:00, 2 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Quia ad evitandam confusionem transliterationem "Ûŝenko" non debemus "in forma normalizata, ut sine fastigiis" adhibere, quia "Ющенко" ("Juščenko", in forma normalizata: "Iuscenko", "Iuscenco" - i.e. prognatus viri vocabulo Iuchim) et "Усенко" ("Usenko" - i.e. prognatus hominis vocabulo Us, Anglice: "moustache") duo diversa cognomina sunt. Sonus initius cognominis ellius non est "U", sed "Iu". (Cognomina "Yuskenko" et "Yustsenko" non existat, ergo "Iuscenco" pro "Yushchenko" adhibere possumus - confusionem non creabimus.) Puto, possumus formam "Ûŝenko" solum cum fastigiis adhibere. Sed cur instructio separata scribenda est? -- Alexander Gerascenco 02:44, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Certe scio sonum non 'U' esse. Sed si vis nomine sine fastigiis non uti, melius est regulam mutare vel proferre ad mutandum, non exemplum qui bene regulam sequitur removere, quasi non regulam sequatur. —Myces Tiberinus 05:02, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Nolo nomina sine fastigiis non uti. Puto, explicatio regulae scribenda est (e.g. - "si forma sine fastigiis confusionem notionis non afficit"). Possibile, exemplum alium pro "ISO 9 sine fastigiis" dandum est. -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:43, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Immo, ‘Usenko’ exemplum controversum elegi ut regulae difficultates plane ostendantur. Volo has regulas disputari. Ita, hic melius: fortasse possumus dicere ‘cum litteris Cyrillicis ISO 9:1968 utere’ per quod inoffensivum Juščenko/Iuscenko habeamus. —Myces Tiberinus 15:43, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Consentio. Transliteratio ISO 9 pro lingua Ucrainica data est in pagina de lingua illa in Vicipaedia Ucrainica (nunc etiam in Vicipaedia Latina!). Sed in dubio dubio sum, suntne "c" et "č" transliterationes optimae pro "ц" et "ч" - problema transliterationis in lingua Latina litterarum illarum disputanda est. Etiam puto, suffixum patronymicum "-enko" possumus latine "-enco" scribere - si littera "k" hic "non placenda" est (e.g., Chiliometrum, non Kilometrum).

P.S.: Vidi latinisationem "Milosevic" pro "Милошевић/Milošević". -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:56, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

'chiliometrum' propter χ Graecum est, non K evitandum, sed intellego. Nescio si 'c' difficile erit, quia haec sunt nomina aliena: lector iam sibi cavet. —02:44, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Comparatio transliterationium litterarum Cyrillicarum (alphabeti Russici) per litteris abecedariorum Graeci et Latini

Litterae Russicae	Transliteratio Graeca hodierna	Transliteratio Anglica	Transliteratio Polonica	Systema transliterationis Academiae Scientiarum Unionis Sovieticae	Systema transliterationis ISO/R 9:1968	Systema transliterationis ISO 9:1995	Systema B transliterationis GOST 7.79	Transliteratio Latina, a me proposita
а	α	a	a	a	a	a	a	a
б	μπ	b	b	b	b	b	b	b
в	β	v	w	v	v	v	v	v
г	γκ	g	g	g	g	g	g	g
д	ντ	d	d	d	d	d	d	d
е	γιε, ε	ye, e	ie, je	e (post consonantes), je (in initio, post vocales, ъ, ь)	e	e	e	e, in initiis verborum et post vocales possibile ie (ubi possibile, je)
ё	γιο	yo, e	io, jο	’o (post consonantes, praeter ч, ш, щ, ж), o (post ч, ш, щ, ж), jo (in initio, post ъ, ь)	ё	ё	yo	io (vel e)
ж	ζ	zh	ż	ž	ž	ž	zh	z
з	ζ	z	z	z	z	z	z	z, inter vocales possibile s
и	ι	i	i	i in initio, post consonantes et vocales; ji post ь	i	i	i, i`	i
й	ι	y	j	j	j	j	j	(si possibile) j
к	κ	k	k	k	k	k	k	c, ante e, i, y, ae possibile k
л	λ	l	ł, l	l	l	l	l	l
м	μ	m	m	m	m	m	m	m
н	ν	n	n	n	n	n	n	n
о	ο	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
п	π	p	p	p	p	p	p	p
р	ρ	r	r	r	r	r	r	r
с	σ	s	s	s	s	s	s	s
т	τ	t	t	t	t	t	t	t
у	ου	u	u	u	u	u	u	u
ф	φ	f	f	f	f	f	f	f
х	χ	kh	ch	ch	ch	h	x	ch
ц	τσ	ts	c	c	c	c	c, cz	ts aut tz
ч	τσ	ch	cz	č	č	č	ch	ts, tz aut cz
ш	σ	sh	sz	š	š	š	sh	s, possibile sz
щ	στσ	shch, sch	szcz	šč	šč	ŝ	shh	possibile sts, stz, scz, szcz, sc
ъ					″	″	``
ы	ι	y	y	y	y	y	y`	y aut i
ь				’ (in initio et ante consonantes)	′	′	′	`
э	ε	e	e	e	ė	è	e`	e
ю	γιου	yu	iu, ju	’u (post consonantes), ju (in initio, post vocales, ъ, ь)	ju	û	yu	iu; in initio, post vocales, ъ, ь (ubi possibile) ju; post litteram l (si illa palatalisatur) possibile u
я	για	ya	ia, ja	’a (post consonantes), ja (in initio, post vocales, ъ, ь)	ja	â	ya	ia; in initio, post vocales, ъ, ь (si possibile) ja; post litteram l (si illa palatalisatur) possibile a

Puto, pro lingua Latina creanda est, si nondum exsistit, systema speciale transliterationis litterarum Cyrillicarum. (Intellego, Vicipaedia non est locum creationis et mutationis regularum pro lingua – sed potest esse locum disputationis illarum. Etiam, si variae regulae exsistant, possumus selectionem facere.)

Quid opinatis?

Disputatio regularum transliterationis

Opinor translitterationem ficticiam non verifiabilem esse; propterea, in Vicipaediae usu peius, etiamsi optimae Latinitatis sit. Necesse est fontem externum habere in omnibus rebus quae facimus, quia encyclopaedia fons secundarius est, non commentor rerum. (Quamobrem ISO 9 proposui.) —Myces Tiberinus 11:22, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

In articulo "De standartisatione transliterationis a litteris latinis textuus Russicorum", ab A. Reformatski anno 1972 scripto, dati in tabula sunt methodi nonnuli transliterationis. Nullus illorum optimus est. Puto, systema separata transliterationis litterarum Cyrillicarum pro lingua Latina creanda est (sed ubi?..) - quia aliae linguae illa habent et non saepe utuntur ISO et alia. (E.g., lingua Theodisca pro littera "щ" adhibet transliterationem "schtsch", non "shch" vel "šč".) Pecularitates phoneticae Latinae (pronuntianionis Classicae?) respectandae sunt, ergo nonnulae pecularitates phoneticae Slavicae ignorandae sunt. "ISO/R 9:1968 sine fastigiis" potest basis esse, sed problema transliterationis litterarum "ё" (puto, saepe melius "io" uti), "ц" (puto, melius "ts", non "c", uti), "ч" ("ts", "tz" aut "cz" - exempla pro quaque variante exsistant!), et "щ" ("sc" aut "sts"?), possibile etiam "ы" ("y" aut "i"), disputanda est! -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:46, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Puto, transliterationes nominum propriorum in Vicipaedia Latina non semper verifiabiles sunt. Etiamsi illae datae in textibus Latinis sunt, possunt exsistare nonnulae variantes nominum (vide: Disputatio:Victor Iuscenco). Ergo, "criteria selectionis" statundae sunt. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:22, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

A gdie miakkij znak? Na urokach russawa jazika my pisali na kniżkach "'". Kromie tego, Tiebie nada nie zabywat', szto "o" możet byt' czitane kak a, jesl'li niet udarienia nad bukwoj i szto "г" możet byt' czitane kak "w", w ukraińskam kak " twiorde h", katorego mnoga liudiej nie umiejet gawarit'. I eta jest probliem, poetamu kak nam nada napisat' - kak jest bukwa, ili kak my czitajem? Eta ili eto? Ja tak napisał, sztoby prawierjat', czy Ty praczitajesz tak napisane. If you don't understand it, please contact with me in English, Fr or Ru, but I'll answer you only in En. Paka, Bocianski 06:08, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Ja znam, jak czytać po polski, bo ja trochę uczylem ten jezyk. Let me explain: this is a proposed system of transliteration (not transcription, i.e. "nam nada napisat' kak jest bukwa") of Russian (not Ukrainian, etc., - which should be treated to a certain extent separately) alphabet into the Latin alphabet of Latin language (i.e. the alphabet without modified letters like "š" or "č" and signs like "'" for "miakkij" or "twiordyj znak", which is the alphabet created for the language which doesn't have many sounds existing in Russian). So, we should take into consideration both the limited possibilities of the alphabet of 25 letters (J is out of use in Vicipaedia; K and W should also be avoided, if possible) and the difference of the sound system of Latin in comparison with Russian. Even if we denote, e.g., "ш"/"sh"/"sz" in a certain way, we won't be able to read it being limited by the Latin language consonantism. (This is also true for "miakkij znak".) So, why not do as the Greeks do, i.e. turn "ш" into "s"? We should also take into consideration the spelling of Slavic proper names in medieval latin books - that is where the "Latin column" consonant clusters "tz" and "cz" (which can stand both for "ts"/"c" and "ch"/"cz") in the table above come from. Cześć!

P.S. "г" możet byt' czitane kak "w" only in adjective endings "-ого" and "-его" (po polski - "iego"?) and in pronoun "его" (= "jego"). (In Ukrainian analogues of these forms "г" is "twiorde h".)

-- Alexander Gerascenco 07:43, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Latinisatio nominum locorum Poloniae

Now I understand, transliteration=/=transcription. But, if k and w should be avoided, what do you propose for Kurówka? Curovca? Curoviana? And for Chrząchów and Końskowola? Chrzachov? Conscovola? Or maybe to use oryginal name? Servus, Bocianski 08:04, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

The best way out is finding the already existing latin names of these places (see: Fontes nominum locorum, etc.). If such ones don't exist, possible latinisations (from my point of view - which can be wrong) could be: Kurówka (read as [kurufka], right?) -> Curovca, Chrząchów -> Chrachovia ("rz" -> "r", e.g. Rzeszów -> Resovia; I'm not sure about "ą" -> "a"?, "o"?, "on"?; "-ów" is usually "-ovia" in Latin, e.g. Kraków -> Cracovia), Końskowola -> Conscovola. -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:02, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Primo, great thanks for your contribution on polish topics, especially about region my parents. Secundo, see: ru:Хжонхов. "Ą" ("ą") we should transliterate into "on", I think. Tertio, if you want, please correct my articles daring, there are only propositions. Servus, Bocianski 13:40, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Рад помочь!

As for "ą" -> "on" - it is, of course, the most logical transliteration from the point of view of phonetics. But we'd better find examples of such a way of transliteration. "Хжонхов" is much like a transcription, as "Жешув" is for "Resovia" (not "Zesuf"!); and, I think, can hardly serve as an example for Latin (phonetic pecularities, you know...). Are there any well-known Polish placenames with this sound - so that their Latin equivalents could be easily found (and give us the example of proper Latin transliteration of "ą")? -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:17, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

• Several examples with "ą": Dąbrowa Górnicza, Piekary Śląskie, Ruda Śląska, Wąwolnica, Elbląg, Gąbin, Książ, Grudziądz, Morąg, Nowy Sącz, Mrągowo.
  • Śląsk -> Silesia; Elbląg (Elbing): Elbinga, Elbingus, Elbinca, Elbangum, Elbingense castrum (Graesse. Orbis Latinus). Well, before latinising placenames on our own, we should look for their already existing latinisations (in case with Polish cities, we should sometimes recall their German names - in order to look for them in the book by Graesse).
• And with "ę": Częstochowa, Jędrzejów, Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Będziny, Dęblin, Kętrzyn, Nałęczów, Oświęcim, Ostrołęka, Święta Anna. All you can find in pl-wiki. Bocianski 14:41, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
  • Częstochowa -> Czenstochova [4]. From this example we can make a conclusion, that scheme "vowel+n" can be used in Latin for transliterating nasal vowels of Polish. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:04, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can agree with this argument. But when we'll find any historical name, we'll change our form according to these, exactly like you wrote (we should look for their already existing latinisations). Generally, seeking only one latinized name can be longer than writing some article. Now we'll make some articles, and after eventually we'll change. Bocianski 15:24, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Russia, link to Alexander Suvorov

I added this link to page Russia, because page Alexander Suvorov is listed on Specialis:Lonelypages, which means that no page links to Alexander Suvorov, which is bad. What other page is better for linking to Alexander Suvorov? See also Vicipaedia:Vide etiam. --Rolandus 13:36, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

I wrote something about Suvorov in page Imperium Russicum. -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:50, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is even better. :-) Thanks. --Rolandus 13:54, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Praemium

Gratulationes! Propositus es Numismae Heroicae Ruthenicae! Vide Vicipaedia:Praemia Vicipaedianis--Xaverius 15:15, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Multas gratias! -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:48, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

nunc ego tibi gratias ago ob praemium meum!--Xaverius 08:27, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Gratulationes! -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:18, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

de figura paginae primae

Salve Alex. A few of us were discussing the layout and content of our pagina prima, and some expressed desire to rehaul it. This might include color changes, content changes, layout changes, and who knows what else. Could you join the discussion at Disputatio:Pagina prima/Nova? Give us a list of things you want a main page to have, what you dont want a main page to have, and what specifically you might think to do differently with ours. We will then try to come up with a design that meets as many of these requests as possible, based on content from everyone. Thanks, and regards.--Ioshus ^(disp) 20:41, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Jurij Gagarin

Salve Alexander. Someone started the page on Jurij Gagarin, but as we do not use J here, I was wondering if you had an idea of how to latinise the name. I know that in Spanish we transliterate it as Yurii, but maybe you have a better suggestion. Vale--Xaverius 08:42, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I afterwards noticed that there is already a page Georgius Gagarin, so we will need to merge them. It would still be good to have your confirmation on this: is Georgius a correct equivalent of Yurii? Thanks Andrew Dalby 11:50, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

See, e.g., here. (Though, in fact, nowadays Georgiy, Yuriy and Yegor are treated as separate names in Russian.) -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:30, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Example of latinizing "Yury" as Georgius can be seen on site Lingua Latina Aeterna (administrator of the site, "Yury Semenov" latinized his name as "Georgius Semenovus"). -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:40, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

One more example: "Ю.Стасюк" ("Юрий Стасюк/ Yury Stasiuk") is "Georgius Stasiuk" in Latin[5]. -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:45, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Divisiones administrativae Russiae

Salve Alexander, quomodo verbum Russicum Rajon (e.g. Rajon Kalevala) Latine redderes? An pagus? Si vis, inspice Kalevala (oppidum). Gratias ago.--Iovis Fulmen 20:41, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Possibile, "districtus"... -- Alexander Gerascenco 00:05, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

gratias ago pro versione Leningrader Oblast; pagum pro rajoniam scripseram, ita manebat; haud scio an recte?--Iovis Fulmen 05:42, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Versiones verbi "район" (rajon) in dictionariis Russico-Latinis: "район districtus [us, m]; regio [onis, f]; ditio [onis, f]; dioecesis [eos, f]; pagus [i, m]" (Lexicon Russico-Latinum Michaelis Poliachev); "район dioecesis, -eos, f; pagus, -i, m" (Lingua Latina. Русско-латинский словарь Alexandri Podosinov et Alexii Belov). "Pagus" tamen in dictionariis illis etiam est prima versio verbi "село" (selo, i.e. oppidulum rusticum, etiam "vicus" traducitur). "Pagus" in usu est ut versio Latina verbi selo in Atlante Russico, anno 1745 Petropoli publicato [6]. Ergo, verbum "pagus" quum non impossibilem, sed non optimam versionem notionis rajon esse puto.

In Atlante Russico notio verbi ujezd (ujezd ut pars gubernii Imperii Russici est sicut rajon ut pars regionis Foederationis Russicae) sic explanatur: "territorium, districtus s. circulus" [7].

--Alexander Gerascenco 06:29, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Vere gravia cogitas. Videamus et exspectemus... Fac, quaeso, quicquid censes. Equidem te sequar.--Iovis Fulmen 07:34, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Chirgisia/Kyrgessia

Fabullus Alexandro s.p.d. Opinionem tuam scire velim de eo quod pertinet ad orthographiam Latinam nominis Rei publicae Chirgisiae. Commenta, amabo, quod scripsi in disputatione de hac pagina. Fac valeas, --Fabullus 13:47, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Драгун

Hello Alexander, would you care to have a quick look at Carolus Gustavus Aemilius Mannerheim; I think the army division names are a bit too much for me...--Iovis Fulmen 19:13, 27 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

‎Romanus Jacobson

I prepared a page about this Russian citizen ‎Romanus Jacobson, perhaps you could check if there's some misstakes: Ciao and thanks --85.2.135.27 16:02, 5 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

That's it! Nice to see you back, Alexander Andrew Dalby 19:18, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the categorization of Categoria:Moscovia. I forgot. Andrew Dalby 16:16, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

I recently made a cetegory Categoria:Socii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae. To judge by what I see in your article Academia Scientiarum Russica, I think it would be better to delete my category, and instead to create Categoria:Socii Academiae Scientiarum Russicae. Do you agree? Andrew Dalby 14:25, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea - at least for the period, when there are few articles in that category. In fact, even in Russian Wikipedia, where a separate category for the members of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences exists, including 110 pages, the same proposal is under discussion. -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:30, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Inhabitants of empires etc.

The solution you adopted for Vladimir Dal' and others makes perfect sense to me. They can be writers (etc.) for the country they belong to, and also (simply) inhabitants of whatever empire it happened to be.

I have now deleted the category Categoria:Scriptores Imperii Russici et Unionis Sovieticae, which, I agree, was not really useful.

You will see that I have created Categoria:Incolae Imperii Russici rather than Homines .... This is because Fabullus suggested (somewhere) that Incolae would be a better and more precise term -- we use Homines rather too much! -- and no one disagreed, and so, for all new categories of "inhabitants", it seems best to adopt this word. I think we will probably change the old ones over from Homines ... to Incolae ... soon. Does this seem OK to you? Andrew Dalby 13:19, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

OK! I also think that "Incolae" is a more precise term. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:53, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Vavilov brothers

I just glanced through these two articles, made a couple of minor changes (I hope these are OK), and marked them L1!

I was trying to see where Nikolai studied. If I followed the correct link in the Russian biography, it led me to ru:Российский государственный аграрный университет - МСХА им. К. А. Тимирязева, which again is linked to the English article en:Russian State Agricultural University. On the other hand, the English biography says "Moscow Agrarian Institute" (but no link) and en:wiki has many mentions of an "International Agrarian Institute" (but no page about it). I guess these may all be the same place, but I don't know. Do you? If so we could probably translate its modern name as Universitas Agraria Civica Russica, although its name was perhaps different when Vavilov studied there. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections!

As for Nikolai Vaviov, he graduated from Московский сельскохозяйственный институт, i.e. Moscow Agricultural Institute, now called Российский государственный аграрный университет — МСХА имени К. А. Тимирязева, i.e. Russian State Agrarian University - MAA (which stands for "Moscow Agricultural Academy") named after K.A. Timiryazev. If to create an article about this institution, I'd support the idea of using the Latin translation of "Российский государственный аграрный университет" ("Russian State Agrarian University") as its name. As for the adjective "государственный", i.e. ("state"), I'd rather translate it as "publicus", following this Russian-Latin dictionary, though I'm not quite sure... -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:20, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Publicus is a better word, I think. Thanks, Alexander! Andrew Dalby 13:25, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Nomina Russica

tibi gratia ago propter nominorum Russicum inventionem. Mihi difficilis est nomina Russica Latine vertere. Ciao--62.202.110.24 14:03, 2 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)