Disputatio:Angelopolis

Latest comment: abhinc 8 annos by VIGNERON

The usual name for Los Angeles in Latin is Angelorum not Angelopolis. One need simply look at the Latin Ordos for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles from before the 1960s. - [Anon]

Well, no, if you knew Latin you'd see that this can't be right. Angelorum is a genitive plural, meaning "of the angels". It can't, by itself, be the name of a city.
It's been hard to choose the ideal Latin name for Los Angeles, and further citations are wanted. Since you can look at "the Latin Ordos for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles from before the 1960s", you'd be welcome to cite a sentence from one such text so that others, too, can look at them; but anyway the current Latin name used in Catholic sources is "Archidioecesis Angelorum in California" (I've supplied a link). Maybe that's what you mean to say. Unluckily, that's a good name for an archdiocese but it's difficult to extract the name of a city from it. If we were to do so on first principles, it would probably come out at "Urbs Angelorum in California". Well, OK, but it would be handy to have a shorter name than that.
I'll move this to "Disputatio:Angelopolis", where it's even more relevant. We had no citation for "Angelopolis": I have now added one, from some West Coast Latinists, but this is not meant to pre-empt discussion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply
In a 1771 french dictionary it is Angelopolis too : s:fr:Page:Dictionnaire de Trévoux, 1771, I.djvu/374. Cdlt, Vigneron * discut. 07:50, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Revertere ad "Angelopolis".