Disputatio:Foedus Iroquesiorum

Nomen

Since foedus is neuter and Iroquesus is masculine, the lemma can't be, as it is now, Confoedus Iroquesus. The source cited here doesn't attest the whole lemma, but it does have the noun Iroqvesijs in a phrase (that we can rewrite ab Iroquesiis in Nova Francia) that implies the noun Iroquesius, -ii. So, for a lemma, [noun for 'Confederacy'] Iroquesiorum seems possible. But what's the source of confoedus? The word isn't in Ainworth's dictionary, or in White's, or in Cassell's. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:23, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Iroquesiorum, the genitive plural, is attested in this review, on p. 296. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:29, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Quid igitur scribendum, Iacobe? An "Consociatio Iroquesia"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Nescio! Fortasse Foedus Iroquesiorum? vel Iroquesii Foederati? But surely an eighteenth-century attestation will turn up somewhere! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:00, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Hope so. When it does, we can easily move again. For the present I've moved in accordance with your first suggestion: at least we now have a grammatical pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Forsitan cuidam placeat Francisci Greuxii Historiae Canadensis libros decem perlustrare: http://books.google.com/books?id=XK4sEsMRk1YC&pg=PP5 Ibi enim leguntur nomina alia, quae sunt "Iroquii" et "Iroquaei." Multa porro alia nomina tam gentium quam locorum ibi reperiuntur, quae possunt usui fore vobis qui de Indis sive incolis novi orbis terrarum disseritis.