Latest comment: abhinc 17 annos by Urhixidur in topic Deimus

Quod ad nomen satellitis attinet: Scilicet "dimos" vel "dimus" pronuntiandum est. Tamen secundum linguae Graecae orthographiam et quia ea apud plerasque gentes in usu est, scriptionem Deimos proferendum duco. W. Bohmhammel

Nisi fallor, omnibus dictionibus Graecis quae in linguam Latinam ducuntur conversio digraphi Graeci ει in ī Latinum est, vel rarius in ē, ut Aenēas ab Αἰνείας, sed nunquam ei.Myces Tiberinus 23:08 iul 31, 2005 (UTC)



My Latin isn't what it should be (je parle français aussi), but the names of the moon seem to be Deimus and Phobus. Not only are these names the ones that were originally published (see the ref.), but they also match the Latin pattern seen with the moons of Uranus, for example (e.g. Puccius, Franciscus, Calibanus, Stephanus, Trinculus, Prosperus, Setebus, Ferdinandus). en:User:Urhixidur 17:15, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we shouldn't second-guess the original naming of the satellite. Although (as Myces says) it isn't usual to transfer -ei- direct from Greek to Latin, Hall isn't unique in having done so. I propose to move to Deimus (satelles). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
But... but... Hall was writing in English, and Δεῖμος is a classical name. Surely we would expect the classical pattern to hold here. --Iustinus 17:54, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, OK. Not so simple. But if the classical pattern holds, we shouldn't have Dimos, should we? The -os is quite non-standard. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
I believe that when a Britton says "quite" it's not as strong as when an American says it. I would say that when latinizing greek second declension masculines either -os or -us are acceptable, and in many cases they are even freely interchangeable. I opted for Dimos rather that Dimus simply because I worried taht the proper contraction of the ei to i might make it hard for modern minds to recognize the name, so I wanted to keep the rest unchanged. But I am not married to that. --Iustinus 20:00, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're right, I meant "relatively non-standard"! I still have a feeling we're being, shall I say, quixotic here. We have two well-attested forms, the pure Greek Deimos (which, in this case, is commonly used internationally) and the mildly-Latinised Greek Deimus which A. Hall originally chose. We have a third possibility, a standard Latinization of the Greek, Dimus, which would be our default if no Latinization is attested. Why reject all three of these and choose a fourth, also (I think) unattested, Dimos? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, the text of the article should be edited to mention all forms (something I'm not able to do, my Latin being barely level 1). en:User:Urhixidur 13:58, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Revertere ad "Deimus".