Disputatio:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

How to say basketball

Dude, we really need to start an article on that. Like most modern sports, there have been many attempts to name it in Latin (compare Basipila#De_nominibus). Here's David Morgan's very useful summary:

26 basketball follis canistrarius (cf. LRL: canistrifollis, follis canistrique ludus), ? calathosphaera, ae* f. (Mod. Gr.) < Ludus bascaudarius (Helf.) and follis bascaudarius (Alb. Imag.) appear to be based on an obsolete etymology deriving basket from the rare Latin word bascauda; in fact, bascauda is not a basket, but a scallop-shaped basin of bronze or silver, used for washing dishes (Hilgers 120; see OED s.v. basket) || Ludus bascaudarius (Helf. citing Soc. Lat.), follis bascaudarius (Alb. Imag.); canistripila, canistrifollis, pilae (v. follis) canistrique ludus (LRL) || "Bascauda" nec "canistrum" significat (potius "ahenum," "pelvim"), nec cognationem cum vocabulo Anglico "basket" habet, teste OED. Hoc apud Forcellinum: "bascauda, ae, f., catinus, conca, vas Anglicum, in quo calices et cacabus lavabantur." LS soli, inter lexicographos quos consului, του "basket" mentionem faciunt, fisi scilicet etymologiae obsoletae ("prob. a delicately woven mat, or dish-holder of basket-work"). Hilgers 120: "muschelförmige Wanne, tiefe Schüssel ... ein Gefäss zum Geschirrspülen." || EL: pallacanestro,

(That's an awful lot of material for one lemma. I hope he's not irritated at me for posting it publically). --Iustinus 01:44, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Traupman gives corbifollis, for what it's worth, with far shorter explanation. I think his summary is but "-is, m"...--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:48, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Vide hoc filum: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.latin/browse_frm/thread/d087a85319bea59b/c89ef74ff34db812?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#c89ef74ff34db812 IacobusAmor 02:13, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I just put it under "canistripila". Those are some interesting insights as to what basketball should be known as in Latin. However, basketball wasn't invented until 1891, long after everyday people stopped using Latin, so therefore there is no standard word for basketball in Latin, and no right or wrong as to how to translate it, as long as the translation has some logic. -Kedemus

The internet wasn't invented until sometime between the 1960's and 1990's, depending on your definition, and yet interrete has become standard enough in Latin that it gets 56,700 google hits (granted, a few aren't Latin, but the majority are)... hardly an insignificant number! Don't knock the modern use of Latin. There are more people who spend their time on it than you seem to realize. And it's long been the policy of this wiki to cite established words from independant publications wherever possible.

But more importatly, don't knock collaboration. This is, afterall, a wiki, and as others have pointed out to you, the whole point is to work on community consensus. And since we don't have an actual article on basketball yet, now would be a golden opportunity for all the people reading this article to sit down and discuss what heading we want it under (such an article would, of course, list all the attested names, but we shoudl start by deciding which one we want the actual article under. Other articles could call it somethign else so long as they linked to the right article. Makes things smoother that way, as redirects can be problematic.)

I for one would argue that forms with follis are superior, because a follis is specifically a hollow, inflatable ball. I'm not certain that a pila HAS to be solid (I can't remember if follis is in opposition to pila or if it's a subcategory thereof. Someone want to check?), but in any case, usng pila might imply to the typical nitpicky Neo-Latinist that we mean a solid ball.

Though I admit that canistripila has a certain nostalgic charm for me, because I independantly coined that form back in Jr. High, before I knew much Latin at all. Never COULD get the rhythm right for a verse translation of "Basketball is my Favorite Sport" though.

--Iustinus 18:36, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar till we do not have a Latin traslation in Latin for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar I put under the name Ludovicus Ferdinandus Alcindor --Massimo Macconi 04:35, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I think we should list him under Kareem. Not everyone should have a Latin name. Plus I authored this article so I really don't like when people change the proper names that I have selected. Please show some respect. -Kedemus

sorry--Massimo Macconi 06:11, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Kedemus, if you don't like people changing your work, you shouldn't write for wikis. I hope you will go on writing on this one, but with that possibility always in mind. It happens to everybody -- certainly it's happened to me and Massimo both on many occasions! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:10, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

People have made adjustments in my texts too, occasionally correcting a typo or a grammatical error, but more often clarifying an imprecision or replacing an idiomatic inadequacy with a more stylish wording—in other words, generally improving the text, for which I'm grateful, and from which I've learned more about Latin. Only rarely have changes made my texts worse. Shouldn't we welcome honest attempts to be helpful? IacobusAmor 12:10, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Kedemus, I agree with Andrew. Massimo has even explaind his action on the talk page. And, if you don't mind, please sign your postings. Writing "-Kedemus" is not "signing". I explained this on your talk page some time ago. --Rolandus 09:31, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

His new name means, if I've got it right (someone please correct me if not) "noble servant of the Almighty". Thinking about our usual practice of Latinizing forenames, in this case it would make no sense to change the first element alone -- it isn't a case of forename surname. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

This raises a question about what to call people who change their names. I'd propose that the lemma be the ultimate name used by the individual, with previous names recorded too, perhaps thus: "Karim Abdul-Iabbar, natus Ferdinandus Ludovicus Alcindor (Anglice: Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr.), est. . . ." IacobusAmor 12:10, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Ah, video Ioshum scripsisse: "Here we list authors by their birth names, and list their show names second. If there are exceptions to this, they are mistakes. Furthermore, there are better ways to Latinize Kareem. Listen to the pronunciation of this in Latin: ka-RAY-aim. Surely a beter way is Karim." So change my previous recommendation to something like: "Ferdinandus Ludovicus Alcindor (Anglice: Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr.), post annum 1971 Karim Abdul-Iabbar, est. . . ." Note this "post annum 1971": if we're listing people's names in chronological order, it would be highly useful to indicate the year of the change(s) right up there at the start. IacobusAmor 12:30, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

What Ioshus set out there is indeed our usual practice, but we don't do it with kings or popes (for example). I think we should allow for cases where varying the rule may be desirable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain this is the best practice, at least not in cases like this, where someone changes their name after a conversion. It seems disrespectful (not necessarily to Kedemus, this IS a wiki afterall, but to the subject of the article himself). I would say the best practice is to list people under the name by which they are known to history, which will usually be the last one--but not allways, e.g. Carolus Linnaeus, even though his later name Carolus à Linné IS in fact attested in Latin sources (contrary to popular belief Linnaeus is his birthname, and von Linné the form it took after his elevation to nobility). This can of course be colored by various circumstances, such as which names are attested in Latin and which aren't. But in this case I think we're kind of obligated to go with K.A.-J., not F.L.A. [--Iustinus]

I agree, for the reasons cited by Andrew & Iustinus. So I'm back to recommending the form: "Karim Abdul-Iabbar, natus Ferdinandus Ludovicus Alcindor (Anglice: Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr.), est. . . ." IacobusAmor 20:14, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Now, the problem is, how do we spell it? I have never encountered a Latin form of the name Kareem (and indeed, I can't even figure out what the proper Arabic form is! Anyone here know?), so I can't just say "Oh, that's a form of Carīmus, so let's just use that!" Normally we would have to leave the name unlatinized. Bt what about Iacobus' point about pronunciation? I'm really not sure what should be done in this case. If a name doesn't ahve a Latin form, we normally just leave it as-is, without worrying about pronouncibility. E.g. No one worries about how Latin speakers are going to pronounce names like Miraglia, Deraedt, or Bush. If this isn't a problem for unlatinized surnames, why shoudl it be a problem for personal names? The exception is that we normally try to use a "scientific" transcription for names not normally written in the Latin alphabet (e.g. see all those articles on various Slavic figures), and for which there is no pre-existing ancient system (Greek, Hebrew). Since Kareem is an arabic name we might argue it should be Karīm or something (if I could even find the damn Arabic form!), but I'm unsure of whether this name should be treated as English or Arabic, given that it's normally written in the Latin alphabet. Compare the similar hesitation I've had about Onassis.

OK, so obviously I'm trying to solicit opinions on these issues, so come on and let me know what you think. --Iustinus 19:01, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

The basketball star's name was most commonly spelled using the Latin alphabet, so that makes the spelling Kareem acceptable in Latin also. If you want to get phonetic, you may spell it as "Karim Abdul-Dzabber" (the "J" corresponds to the English "J", not a "Y". Therefore "Iabbar" would not be a logical spelling. --KedeumsKedemus 21:27, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

There is the Arabic form listed: en:99 Names of God in the Qur'an ... #42 Al-Kareem (الكريم) The Bountiful, The Generous --Rolandus 19:28, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! OK, so that would indeed be Karīm. Since the Romans transcribed most Semitic langauges pretty much the same way they did Hebrew, the expected form would have been *Charīm, but as I've said elsewhere it might not be a good idea to universally use this system on Arabic given that it was never done in the Middle Ages. And I just checked for authors named Kareem on WorldCat, but the nearest I can find is ^cAbd al-Karim ibn Muhammad Sam^cani, whose name is cited in one Latin translation as "as-Sam'anius." So, no help there. --Iustinus 20:25, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I meanwhile checked the scientific transliteration. The whole phrase is karīm ^cabd al-jabbār (Wehr, Dictionary of modern written Arabic, 1961, pp. 822, 586, 111). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

The use of the letter <I> to represent the sound [ʤ] (of English <j> and Arabic <ج>) may be illogical, but this would hardly be the first time. Latin consonental I is frequently used to represent the J's of other languages even when they are no longer [j]. On the other hand there's the Latin name of Abu-Mūsa Jābir ibn-Ḥayyān, Geber ;) --Iustinus 02:02, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

On the right transcription of Arabic <ج> [ʤ] see now also the long discussion at Disputatio:Gamahiriyya. --Fabullus 09:44, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

qua? quae?

Secundum paginam: "Notus est ob suam altitudinem, qua est 2.18 metra." Anglice: 'He's been marked for his own height, by which he's 2.18 meters.' (Hoc qua est in casu ablativo.) Fere melius: quae est 2.18 metra 'which is 2.18 meters'? Even so, I wonder if there isn't a more idiomatic way of saying it. ¶ Also: suam, which adds the notion of own to (the already understood) 'his', may not be necessary here, as nobody else's height is in question. IacobusAmor 12:46, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant to say "He is known for his height, which is 7 feet, 2 inches (2.18 meters)". Also, I would like to leave in the "7 pedes, 2 unciae", because that corresponds to the measurement system used in the U.S., the country in which he played. Plus the English system is closer to the system used by the ancient Romans than the metric system is. KedemusKedemus 21:17, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with using the American system (it might be wise to include metric in parentheses just for completeness). But something about the phrasing bothers me. Can we really say "His height is X" in Latin, with X being in the nominative? It seems more Latin to phrase it "He is famous for his height of X" (genitive), or "he is famous for his height: he is X tall" (with X in the accusative). Anyone have a good locus classicus? --Iustinus 01:55, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I just changed it back to feet and inches and put them in the genitive. --KedemKedemus 20:04, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Buckus? Lakerus? Clipperis?

Secundum paginam: "cum Buckis Milvauchiae . . . cum Lakeris Angelopilitis." Can these names be right? ¶ Also, in "per Clipperis Angelopolitis" what's the noun whose accusative is Clipperis? If I recall correctly, the only Latin nouns whose accustives end in -is share a paradigm with nouns borrowed from Greek, like tigris and perhaps basis, and so the nominative singular of Clipperis has to be Clipperis. Which looks odd in relation to Buckus and Lakerus. IacobusAmor 12:58, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Silver Age Latin, -īs was actually the regular acc. pl. for third declension. But Kedemus, is that really what you're going for here? --Iustinus 18:22, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

The names for the teams in the nominative are Lakeri, Bucki, and Clipperi. I think those names should be used, as it would not make much sense to make literal translations of these names into Latin. Clipperis is actually the ablative form, but you can correct me if it's really supposed to take the accusative. --KedemusKedemus 21:23, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

[wince]--Ioshus ^(disp) 23:54, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Kedemus, I think it would be better to follow the usual practice with foreign words mentioned in Latin texts, namely to leave them indeclinable. Yes, it is not unheard of to Latinize such things, but as I mentioned earlier we usually try to be conservative in such things and not make up forms if we don't have to. I also have always spoken out in favor of making sure such foreign words are italicized, so taht there's no question of what they are. Providing a Latin translation of the words in parentheses would also be commendable.

So I would recommend something like 'cum Milwaukee Bucks ("Cervis Milvauchiensibus") ... cum Los Angeles Lakers ("Lacuariis Angelopolitanis").' In any case, note the following: Latin generally uses adjectives in this context, even if English prefers to prefix the placename, almost like a genitive. And Angelopolis, genitive Angelopolis, locative Angelopoli, but adjective Angelopolitanus. And can anyone come up with something attested for "laker"? So far as I can tell, I just coined the word myself (though lacuaria is attested as a by-form of laquearia). --Iustinus 01:52, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

traupman

Per Iustinum above...

In naming sports we have usually gone with Traupman. If we are to continue, corbifollis is what he gives. This would be my vote, only because Morgan has still not given his book luci. =] --Ioshus ^(disp) 18:42, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure Morgan ever arrives at a decision, at least not a strong one. Corbifollis has the twin advantage of being short, and of using folis instead of pila. --Iustinus 19:03, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

If you read the posts at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.latin/browse_frm/thread/d087a85319bea59b/c89ef74ff34db812?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#c89ef74ff34db812, you'll see some useful attempts at building a basketball-related vocabulary. Back then, I too was favoring corbifollis (so the three of us are in agreement). Most of the time, of course, people would call it just plain follis. IacobusAmor 20:09, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)