Disputatio:Mille et una noctes

Et

Google Books seems to prefer the versions with the conjunction: 'Noctes Mille et Una' (no hits without) and 'Noctium Mille et Unius' (same); there seems to have been a nineteenth-century book made called Nonnullae in opus arabicum quod inscribitur Mille et una noctes animadversiones collectae. —Mucius Tever 22:03, 9 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Before posting the article, I checked Allen & Greenough #133, whose table of cardinals & ordinals gives the forms with "et" as nonpreferred alternatives. Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, like the British–American discrepancy of "two hundred and three" vs. "two hundred three." Personally, though, I don't care either way! IacobusAmor 00:02, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)

By our usual rule, we should call a book by its attested Latin name if any; if none, by its original name (Alf layla wa-layla). In this case, of course, talking simply of "a book" and "original name" may be oversimplifying ... but it's probably better to follow the rule if we can. That points to either Mille et una noctes or Noctes mille et una, the attested forms.

This is statistically weak, but (simply from Myces' links) all the citations for Noctes mille et una count as one, going back to a certain Dr Pusey, while those for Mille et una noctes are more varied and include a real actual book on the subject. So I'm inclined to move to Mille et una noctes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means change it, bearing in mind that the actual book may be reflecting a British & Romance style of numbering (in opposition, say, to an American one and the preferred Roman one). IacobusAmor 12:19, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)