Disputatio:Lingua Slavonica antiqua

We really shoudl go with one of the alternate names. "Old Slavic" isn't specific enough. --Iustinus 22:07, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that it would be better to use the long (though not incorrect) name "lingua Slavica ecclesiastica antiqua"? But what other language is called just "Old Slavic", so that such a detalization should be considered necessary? And what's the use of characterizing, e.g., "Old Russian"/"Old East Slavic" as an "Old Slavic" language (Sentences like "Lingua Ruthenica antiqua est lingua Slavica antiqua." are not a bad example to show that "Old Slavic" isn't specific enough, right?), when its very name already provides us with the information of the language's being not a modern one?

In Russian, the language told about in this article is called Staroslavyanskiy yazyk, i.e. "Old Slavic language", without being mixed with any other language. (And the article about it in Old Slavic Wikipedia is called Slověnĭskŭ jazykŭ - "Slavic language".)

Speaking about "lingua Bulgarica antiqua"... As far as I know, calling "Old (Church) Slavic" "Old Bulgarian" is widely accepted only by Bulgarians themselves (and the others just mention the fact). And I'm far from thinking that this name should be chosen for the title of this article.

-- Alexander Gerascenco 06:41, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Movi, fortasse audacter: credidi "Slavonica" formam potius classicam esse, sed quid dicis, Alexandre? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:52, 25 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Si forma "Slavonica" potius classica atque divulgatissima est, praeferenda est. Sed tunc familia linguarum fortasse etiam nominanda est "Slavonica", non "Slavica", uniformitatis gratia? -- Alexander Gerascenco 11:21, 26 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Rem acu tetigisti ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:21, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)