Disputatio:Osloa

Numeri incolarum differunt in arca et in textu. Et quid significat "Circiter sextans semuncia scriptulum"? Est numerus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Or, in English, there's a different population given in the infobox and in the text; so which do we want to go with? is there a source? And, I'm probably stupid, but I don't know what "Circiter sextans semuncia scriptulum" means. If it's a number, can we write it as a number? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Norway Statistics seems to disagree with the figure listed in the article. Also, for what it's worth, this student newspaper article talks about how Oslo's population "just recently passed the half million mark".--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:43, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, and Andrew, if you're stupid for not knowing what "circiter sextans semuncia scriptulum", you have a stupid comrade in me =] --Ioshus ^(disp) 15:47, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

De ipso urbis nomine

Quaero primum an Anslogae nomen sit ceteris eiusdem urbis nominibus praeferendum; deinde an aliquod vinculum, ad etymologiam quod attinet, inveniatur inter nomina Anslogae et Christianiae. Urbanus Ferrarius (disputatio) 18:30, 26 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Bene quaeris. Praefero ego orthographiam q.e. "Osloa" (sicut dioecesis Catholica "Osloensis") fontesque duos huius orthographiae in pagina ipsa nuper citavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 26 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

De re etymologica: nomina "Oslo" et "Christiania" nullo modo coniunguntur. Urbi ab aevo mediaevali "Oslo" dictae, sed ad honorem regis Christiani IV anno circiter 1624 "Christiania" appellatae, nomen historicum "Oslo" anno 1925 redditum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 27 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Bene rescripsisti, mi Andrew. Ne tamen meleste feras, si iterum quaeram de urbis nomine. Potestne dici nomen Anslogae aliquo modo referre formam nominis Oslo antiquissimam?Urbanus Ferrarius (disputatio) 18:21, 30 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Name in the Middle Ages

One source from 2018 (in Norwegian) says that "Outside Norway, the city's name was Anslo - in latin Ansloia."

Source: Lars Roede. "Tom W. Segalstad finner navnet «Opsloe» på et kart fra 1820, men burde ha sett på flere gamle kart. Hva betyr navnet Oslo?". 2018-02-22. Aftenposten. p. 19. Sju hav (disputatio) 12:48, 23 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
Quote from the source:
"... «Opsloe» ... 1820 [...] 1648 «Opslo fiord» [...] «Opslo» ... «Gamlebyen» [...] 1844 ... Oslo [...] første ledd er ås ... «gud» eller «høydedrag» ... «áss» ... urnordisk *ansuR [...] «Ansloo» [...] «Old Anslo Up Sloe» [...] Anslo ... Ansloia [...] Ósló ... [the district] Óslóhverfi ... Óslóaherađ [...] «Gudenes slette» ... «sletten ved åsen»."
My comment: The original text does not use the three signs "..." together. Sju hav (disputatio) 20:56, 24 Februarii 2018 (UTC) [The above quote was added after the reply, below.]

I believe your source, but unfortunately in Latin there were many spellings, not just one. Choice was difficult for us -- it's hard to see any consensus among the sources. In our footnotes 1-3 you can see many Latin versions of the name (unless I'm mistaken, "Ansloia" is not yet included). In such a case, ceteris paribus, we might slightly favour a spelling that resembles the name used in other languages. It makes it easier for people to recognise. Hence at last we went for "Osloa", supported by the sources in footnotes 1 and 2, which you can verify online.

You could certainly add the version "Ansloia" at the end of footnote 3 or 4, if you can also add a link to an online version of Lars Roede's article (or to another reliable source). But, much better than that, if you want to write a whole paragraph about the names of Oslo, the problem is solved. This article contains practically nothing yet, and a paragraph about the names is one of the almost infinite things it doesn't contain!

If I understand, the medieval and current names were essentially the same, or close variants of one another, but the medieval and current Latin names, although based on the vernacular names, varied more widely. If so, that's really too complicated to try to say in the first sentence. The first sentence of an encyclopedia article must be about the subject, not about the history of its names. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 23 Februarii 2018 (UTC)

"Osloa" as a title, was a good choice (and possibly the best) in my view.

I have added, right behind my first post, a quote from the article.

(The quote consists mostly of the various Norwegian names of the locality, (and one Latin name),

and some text about etymology.

The article was not online, as of yesterday.

And thank you for your previous reply. Sju hav (disputatio) 21:13, 24 Februarii 2018 (UTC)

One possible remedy for the article ...

How does one write (in Latin):

• Historical names (in Latin), of the locality, are ...
• "Previous names of the locality - in Norwegian - are ..."
• "Other names of the locality, used on maps, are ..."
• "Names and etymology"
  

(One might want to have a section about "Names and etymology".)
With some, or all, the above information, I can complete a relevant paragraph (with references). Regards! Sju hav (disputatio) 21:13, 24 Februarii 2018 (UTC)