Disputatio:Regalis Societas Londini

Londini

Suspicor verbum Londini esse in casu locativo ("Londini ... concessa"), non partem nominis. In charta citata, vide typographiam tituli: "Praesidi, Concilio, et Sodalibus REGALIS SOCIETATIS Londini, a Rege CAROLO SECUNDO concessa." Ergo, nomen videtur Regalis Societas, non Societas Regalis Londini. ¶ In case it matters: in English, we ordinarily see "Royal Society," but not "Royal Society of London." IacobusAmor 14:51, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Regali societati ássentio loco societatis regalis, sed "londini" mihi pars nominis esse videtur: Regalis Societas Londini pro scientia naturali promovenda. cf. Regalis societas Edinburgi. --Alex1011 14:59, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

For "regalis societatis Londini pro scientia naturali promovenda" see [1] --Alex1011 15:16, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Nomina in -ius et -ium exeuntia nonnumquam genetivum in -i (vice -ii) mittunt. Locativusne etiam in -i (vice -ii) exire possit nescio. --Fabullus 15:24, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Recte dicas, sed in textibus invenibis "regalem societatem Londini". "Londinum" est alium nomen Latinum Londinii, Londini fortasse genetivus huius nominis. Numquam invenibis "regalis societas Londinii" vel "regalis societas Londiniensis". Ceterum quiddam iam hac in vicipaedia nexum rubrum instituit qui ad "regalem societatem Londini" ducit. Ergo nomen est "regalis societas Londini" vel ampliore modo "regalis societas Londini pro scientia naturali promovenda". Extat etiam regalis societas Edinburgi, ab "Edinburgum". --Alex1011 15:57, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Puto litteras -ii eo tempore saepe scriptae fuisse -i. ¶ Si Londini hic erat in casu genetivo, solitus verborum ordo fuerat Regalis Londini Societas. ¶ Standard English usage, in a style set by writers well versed in Latin and the Royal Society itself, is & always has been "the Royal Society." From the English viewpoint, all other royal societies require a qualifier (as in "the Royal Society of Edinburgh") to distinguish themselves from the Royal Society, much as all newspapers calling themselves The Times need a qualifier of some sort to distinguish themselves from the newspaper properly called The Times, the one in London. Hence the New York Times, the New Delhi Times, and so on. IacobusAmor 16:16, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

True: but, as you would agree, we on Vicipaedia are not writing from the English viewpoint! I think it is correct, and aids in disambiguation, if we lengthen the name to include Londini, since the full name of the society permits this lengthening. The form "Royal Society of London" is not unknown in English.

As for "Londinum", no! It is really a mistake, one that scholarly people in the 17th century would not have permitted themselves. They all knew that the Latin name for London was Londinium. A genitive/locative Londini is quite OK if the nominative is Londinium. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I see that Alex has found an 18th century example of "Londinum". The mapmaker wasn't a Londoner, though! I would still see this as a mistaken form, not one that we ought to give equal billing with "Londinium". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the disussion pertaining to the "Ecclesia Catholica Romana", which is most often and officially called simply "Ecclesia Catholica". Putting the Roman there helps us distinguish between it and other Churches that have Catholic in their title and/or which also legitimately may claim to be "Catholic".--Rafaelgarcia 17:53, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting angle, though I seem to recall some discourse here that maintained that Ecclesia Catholica Romana is the Roman Catholic Church (the Sancta Romana Ecclesia, as it sometimes calls itself), but Ecclesia Catholica incorporates into it other churches, small (semi-)autonomous bodies that are outside the Roman Church proper. IacobusAmor 19:57, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

De: "True: but, as you would agree, we on Vicipaedia are not writing from the English viewpoint!" Of course, but (as I implied) many of the Englishmen in question knew Latin thoroughly, and (I submit) were unlikely to call it the Royal Society in English but Regalis Societas Londinii in Latin. I still don't see why London would be a genitive instead of a locative, especially since the king's domain was not merely London but all of Anglia. ¶ Also, nobody has refuted my point about the typography in the charter: it must have meant something! In the 17th & 18th centuries, proper names were often set in small caps or italics. That Londini here is set in the style of ordinary text may not have been irrelevant. ¶ Also, Londini concessa works neatly as a single phrase (with a locative). Dispositive evidence could come from charters of organizations not based in London (if there were any) but granted in London by the king. IacobusAmor 18:41, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I want to remind that in the charter you find on page 20: "Et eandem societatem, per nomen praesidis concilii et sodalium regalis societatis Londini pro scientia naturali promovenda,..." --Alex1011 19:00, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Then I get to remind you of the name as you'll find it twice on page 2 and again on page 3: "Et eandem Societatem, per nomen Praesidis Concilii et Sodalium Regalis Societis, unum corpus" (italics original). Where's London? Then on page 3 we read about the "Regalis Societatis de tempore in tempus." Where's London? Then on page 4: "Membra Regalis Societatis praedictae" and then (italics original, marking a proper name) "Vicecomes Brouneker in officio Praesidis Regalis Societatis praedictae." Where's London? And on page 7 we learn about the "Concilio ejusdem Regalis Societatis." Where's London? Page 20 is from the second charter, but it too follows the same style, omitting any reference to London and usually speaking only of the aforesaid Royal Society. IacobusAmor 19:17, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree that Londini is a locative. The place name serves much the same purpose as in the "American Philosophical Society held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge". But I also think there's every reason to include Londini in our heading: there it is, attested. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:06, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know -ii can only be replaced by single -i if it is a genetive. If it is locative or nominative plural it retains -ii. --Fabullus 19:29, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Bradley's Arnold (#213) says otherwise: "The Locative case, answering to the question, where? at what place? has a form distinct from the ablative only in certain words. Rōmae, at Rome; Londinī, at London." IacobusAmor 19:50, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

For reference: just noted on another discussion page, the title of a most famous book: Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica. Autore Is. Newton . . . Imprimatur S. Pepys, Reg. soc. præses. Julii 5. 1686. N.B.: Reg. soc. præses, non Reg. soc. Lond. præses. IacobusAmor

Praesides

De: "Primus praeses societatis fuit Christophorus Wren." Secundum hunc indicem in en:Royal Society, Wren fuit praeses quartus: Robert Moray (1660) · William Brouncker (1662) · Joseph Williamson (1677) · Christopher Wren (1680). IacobusAmor 10:20, 18 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Correxi. --Alex1011 11:24, 18 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

"nomen Latinius"

Noster Gualterius Reptilarius dicit nomen Societas Regia Latinius esse nomino Regalis Societas, sed aliter dixit rex: nomen attestatum in societatis charta et usu societatis sociorum, nomen ab rege ipso concessa, est Regalis Societas. Qui sumus ut corrigamus et regem et societatem? IacobusAmor 13:46, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Several days later, and the article is still giving precedence to a German writer's name for the society (Societas Regia Londinensis) instead of the society's own—multiply attested—name for itself (Regalis Societas). Why? Why is an obscure Saxon's opinion on this matter receiving more weight than, say, Sir Isaac Newton's opinion? IacobusAmor 12:49, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it.--Rafaelgarcia 13:37, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)