Disputatio:Bruxellae (regio)

Nomen

This name reminds me of the "head of a Brussels", i.e. of a Brussels sprout. Would it make more sense if it were Regio Capitalis Bruxellensis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 9 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

It's not impossible that demographers, geographers, sociologists, and whatnot use some other term altogether, like "(Greater) (Contiguous) Brussels Metropolitan (Urban) Statistical Area," or some other horror. ¶ Brussels sprouts (and all other cruciferous vegetables) are Good For You! IacobusAmor 18:10, 9 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

Placetne nunc novus titulus? Aliquid postea scribam de Brussels sprout (dignis quae commemorentur).--Bruxellensis (disputatio) 07:01, 10 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Placet ... et de cauli Bruxellensi avide exspecto! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 10 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Legito tunc Cauliculus Bruxellanus--Bruxellensis (disputatio) 22:29, 10 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the English, but this is complicated enough in any language - and my Latin sucks. So, the official name of the region is "Région de Bruxelles-Capitale" in French and "Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest" in Dutch. This is a typical Belgian compromise, because it says different things in different languages. In Dutch it means "Brussels[adjective] Capital[adjective] Region[noun], while in French it means "Region[noun] of Brussels-Capital[compound noun made of two nouns]. Basically, the Flemings wanted to express that this is not a "normal" region like the two others but a "capital region" (like Washington D.C., something like that), while the French-speakers insisted that it was indeed a "normal" region like the two others (but they were OK with mentioning that Brussels is indeed the capital of Belgium). It's like saying in one language that the District of Columbia has statehood and in another that it definitely hasn't. You got to be Belgian to do this, but Belgians do this! My point here is that one way or the other we need "Capital" in the name, without taking too much sides. As there is the nice distinction between "Bruxellensis" and "Bruxellanus", we have a good excuse for using an adjective here. Therefore let's split this in halves and use a noun for "Capital". So, what about "Regio Caput Bruxellana"? Does this work grammatically, an apposition between a noun and its adjective? (Constitutionally, it's the city and not the region that is the capital of Belgium, but hey...) Or any other ideas? Sigur (disputatio) 20:09, 26 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say Regio Capitalis Bruxellensis .. and now I see that I already said that, ten years ago. How boring. But I don't honestly think "Regio Caput Bruxellana" can work in Latin.

Caput Bruxellana is ungrammatical. On the model of Athenae, urbs praeclarissima (the illustrious city of Athens) and Syracusae, urbs opulentissima (the flourishing city of Syracuse) and most notably Roma, urbs aeterna, my ear wants to hear Bruxellae, regio capitalis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:05, 26 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very happy for someone else to suggest something, but there is no great reason to change at all, since the existing pagename is equally distant from both official forms (therefore quite neutral). Neutrality in Latin has always been available simply by choosing the mot juste, without undue attention to other languages. I think that's what Usor:Bruxellensis did here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 26 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

Why not use Bruxellae for the lemma, and "Bruxellae (regio)" for the title, and argue over the formal name later. Many (most?) of Vicipaedia's articles involving a well-established popular name and a legally prescribed formal name follow that model. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:50, 26 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

So, we would have "Bruxellae (regio)", "Bruxellae (urbs)" and "Bruxellae (discretiva)"? Could work for me. But for the more official title and if no-one finds a grammatical way to sneak in a noun, shouldn't it be "Regio Capitalis Bruxellana" rather than "Regio Capitalis Bruxellensis"? And couldn't we inverse it ("Regio Bruxellana Capitalis")? That way the grammatical structure is like in Dutch, but the word order is like in French. Sigur (disputatio) 22:35, 26 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't pretend we are doing something official when (a) we aren't: no Latin name is official in this case (b) our readers don't need us to. Vicipaedia is not an official source. Many things are officially named in Latin, and you would come here to verify the official name. For example, the université libre de Bruxelles has an official Latin name -- and we don't currently use it, but surely we should, I'll change that if no one else does it first, the official name is "Universitas Bruxellensis" as can be seen on its seal. But this region, so far as we know, is not officially named in Latin, and we don't know that anyone has ever named it in Latin in a reliable source. If anyone has, we would normally follow the reliable source, and all this discussion would be unnecessary. Hence Iacobus's suggestion is attractive. The city would be just plain "Bruxellae", because it is the primary meaning of the word and far more important culturally and historically.

As to the choice between "Bruxellensis" and "Bruxellana", the two adjectives have slightly different semantic ranges in the abstract ("Bruxellanus" belonging to Brussels, "Bruxellensis" geographically linked to or based in Brussels), but I don't see any strong reason for a preference here. I'm neutral. The word order that Sigur suggests is better for an encyclopedia, because you get to the most distinctive word ("Bruxell...") earlier, and is perfectly acceptable in ordinary Latin, so I'm in favour of that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 27 Decembris 2018 (UTC)