Aperire sectionem principem

WTF? 'Emiratus Arabici Uniti' longe melius esset. — 21:25, 9 Maii 2009‎ 82.36.94.228

Ego quoque mirabar, sed inveni commentarium quod fortasse hoc nomen sustineat apud Du Cange:
PHYLARCHI. Ita Saraceni Duces suos vocabant, quod εἰς φυλὰς, seu tribus divisi essent 12. quibus ii imperabant, ut testatur Procopius lib. 1. de Bello Persico cap. 17. 19. 20. Julianus ::Antecessor Constit. 95 :
Neque Phylarchum, id est Saracenorum Ducem, etc.
Marcellinus Comes :
Quindecim millia Saracenorum ab Alamundaro cum Chabo et Hesido Phylarchis limites Euphratesiæ ingressa sunt.
Occurrit passim apud Theophanem, et alios scriptores Byzantinos, et in Vita S. Nili junioris pag. 26. Vide Henricum Valesium ad Ammiani lib. 24. Glossarium Pabroti ad Constantinum ::Manassem et Glossar. med. Græcit. col. 1710.
Lesgles (disputatio) 17:24, 30 Maii 2015 (UTC)
Etiam apud Ciceronem: "ab Iamblicho, phylarcho Arabum". Nunc magnum quidem spatium est inter Arabes antiquos et hodiernos. Utique prima sententia onerosa retractanda est. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:31, 30 Maii 2015 (UTC)
Liddell et Scott insuper dicunt:
φῡλαρχ-ος, ὁ,
A) chief officer of a φῡλή, X.Cyr.1.2.14, al., BMus.Inscr.1005 (Cyzic.), CIG3773 (Nicomedia), Sammelb.6257 (v/vi A. D.).
b) = Lat. tribunus militum, D.H.2.7, Plu.Rom.20.
c) chief priest of a tribe among the Jews, LXX 1 Es.7.8: pl., elders of a tribe, ib.De.31.28.
d) sheikh, τῶν Ἀράβων Str.16.1.28, cf. Procop.Pers.1.19; Parthian term, = δυνάστης, Arr.Fr.171 J.
II. as a military term, at Athens, the commander of the cavalry furnished by each tribe, Hdt.5.69.
III. οἱ φ., an oligarchical council at Epidamnus, Arist.Pol.1301b22.
Nota bene sheikh et non emir. Res investiganda est. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:56, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Since the term "emirate" belongs to medieval and modern Arabic-language politics, it seems a bit far-fetched to use an ancient Greek term such as "phylarchia" to translate it, especially if, as Lesgles says, it's not clear whether the ancient phylarchi were emirs, sheikhs, or something else again. We have the medieval Latin words "emirus" and "emiratus", and they are surely appropriate here.
The Arabic terms (ignoring transliteration variants and approximating the DMG standard) are al-Imārāt, literally "Emiratús" (1) and Dawlat al-Imārāt al-ʿArabīyah al-Muttaḥidah, literally "Civitas Emiratuum Arabicorum Unitorum" (2). Since there is no disambiguation problem, a bold translator might shorten (2) to "Emiratus Arabici Uniti" (3), thus achieving agreement with (1) "Emiratús". We cannot use (1) alone as our heading because, unless accented, it looks like the singular common noun. So I propose to use (3), as did the anonymous speaker far above. I cannot guess the meaning of his/her exclamatory abbreviation :)
This suggestion doesn't agree with any of the sources cited, but I see no sign here that any of them is based in actual usage. My second choice would substitute "Coniuncti" for "Uniti", as preferred by the writer of most of our existing text and supported by one of those sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:48, 21 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
I see that the page used to be at "Emiratus Arabi Uniti" and was moved to the present title in 2007 by Xaverius Graniensis, who is no longer active. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 21 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the move to emiratus. I'd personally lean towards the Golden Age coniuncti instead of the post-Augustan uniti, but I'm fine with either. The other cited forms could then be moved to a section or a note, and whatever the state of knowledge is regarding phylarchus can be put in that article. Lesgles (disputatio) 13:16, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Let's go with "Coniuncti", which has a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:09, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Emiratus Arabici Coniuncti".