Disputatio:Catharina Hauarda

Catharina Huarda?

Estne fons huius cognominis? Putabam quia mos noster est cognomina vernacularia retinere.Tergum violinae 10:49, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Credo te recte monuisse. Apud Google paginas istius nominis solum apud Vicipaediam nostram repperi. Ergo, pro tempore, movi: si quis re vera fontem habet, potest in paginam addere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Her Latinized name seems to be Catharina Hauarda,[1] not Catharina Howard. Amsal 16:55, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Seems correct. Those works by Iohannes Carion and Ianus Gruterus look like handy sources of reference for Vicipaedia ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:52, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

What about other people with the (sur)name Howard? Should we move them all to Hauardus/Hauarda?[2] Amsal 20:47, 13 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

We tend to be "conservative" here. We definitely do not make such a change for unrelated people on the grounds "same name in English > same name in Latin". As to whether it should be done for individuals who are related and more-or-less contemporary with one another, that could certainly be justified. Others may want to comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 14 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that the rule is at VP:TNP and is, I understand, based on the conventions of modern Latinists, not a peculiar conservatism on our part. I think that even transferring the name to contemporaries might not be debatable; even among people who did Latinize their surnames, using the same Latinization was not the rule (I think our canonical example is Cassinus/Cassini). Another point, brought up in the discussion of Octavius Mirbeau, is that there may be more than one contemporary Latinization of a name, and we have no heuristic to say whether one is 'better' than another—in that case the first proponent of Latinizing pushed hard for 'Mirbellus' without enunciating why, even when 'Mirbellius' was found to be an equally valid form used by bearers of the surname. —Mucius Tever 23:14, 14 Iulii 2010 (UTC)