Disputatio:Lionhardus Ciampa

Eventhough we have our usor:LC, I think that the two forms of Leonard and Leonardo etc. that are used most in Vicipaedia are Leonardus and Leonhardus. Google will back me up on that. Surely it corresponds to the original name (i.e. Leonardo) better too? --Harrissimo 11:35, 26 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Well, if L. C. uses the form "Lionhardus" himself, then we should stick to it! ;-) --UV 19:06, 26 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

OK. The only point I was raising was that there are 7 google hits for the search I did about Lionhardus, but I suppose that it should indeed be his own choice. --Harrissimo 21:10, 26 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesiae Christi Lutheranae

This could be a tricky one. Google says the name of this church is Christ Lutheran Church. Is there any Latin way (with vocabulary or word order) to force readers into that phrasing, rather than into 'Lutheran Church of Christ'? IacobusAmor 11:26, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)

There is an adjective Christinus, -a, -um. Is Christina Lutherana Ecclesia or Ecclesia Lutherana Christina what you want? --Gabriel Svoboda 16:24, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to force "Christ Lutheran Church", you could write "Ecclesia Lutherani Christi", (assuming 'Christ Lutheran' to be a noun with postposed adjective in the English, as in 'the body electric'). But it would be, of course, somewhat forced. But if "Christ Lutheran Church" really means a Lutheran Church with "Christ" as a noun in apposition as the name of the church, there's always just duplicating the construction ("Ecclesia Lutherana Christus"). Or, overlooking the new rule at VP:TNP which would force us to create a name, we could just write generically about the "ecclesia Lutherana quae Christus vocatur"... —Mucius Tever 23:39, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I'm hurt at the suggestion that anything I write would force anyone to do anything, but I realise, Mucius, that you're continuing Iacobus's choice of words. I think you're referring to the rule I just added to VP:TNP (and immediately opened a discussion on), but, if so, I believe you're wrong. This is a religious body, and, as such, is covered by our long-existing rule. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:12, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the long-existing rule "Companies, religious societies, etc. are not to be translated unless they have a Latin name or a translated name is usual in other languages"? In that case we'd either have a Latin name (and this discussion would be moot) or we'd have attested forms in other languages to compare how they handle this grammatically, but I don't think either have been brought forward. —Mucius Tever 11:25, 26 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:05, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)

A writer's job is to force words to mean things, and a reader's job is to assist: an editor's job is to constrain that assistance as much as possible. IacobusAmor 10:35, 26 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Not agreed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:05, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Of course not on the poetical side of the continuum, where simultaneous multiple meanings come into play, or other genres (e.g., humor) where polysemy & ambiguity furnish the fun; but expository prose, as in a reference work, needs to be clear & unambiguous: each successful expository sentence follows a narrow path to an unmistakable end. For example, we occasionally see this attempt to convey information: X est urbs in regione Y et caput provinciae eiusdem nominis. Well, what's the "same name"? X? or Y? That sentence doesn't convey the information it could: despite what it says, it doesn't unambiguously tell us the name of the province; it may lead some of us even to a wrong name. Its writer isn't forcing its readers into a wanted meaning. IacobusAmor 10:49, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you'll persuade me! I enjoy the freedom of language too much. I won't force readers, or even words: the furthest I'll go is to cajole the words into saying what I want, and the readers into understanding it, before they even noticed :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:33, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)