Disputatio:The Rolling Stones

Active discussions

Why was Ian Stewart removed from the list of original members? He WAS a founding member of the group. -Aiwendil42

Saxum Volutum aut Saxa VolutaRecensere

I first added the name as 'Saxum Volutum', because the singular is the form in the Latin equivalent of the proverb "Rolling stones gather no moss", namely, Saxum volutum non obducitur musco. But then I thought, come on, they are a band, so we should have the plural form.

But then, if people are happy with the translation, shouldn't the page Rolling Stones be moved to Saxa Voluta, as this is a Latin Vicipaedia? D Ambulans 04:11, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Proper names (including companies, people, bands, and works of art, but least often places) are rarely translated in different-language Wikipedias unless they're already well-established words in the language in question (in this case Latin). They should certainly be translated within the article text, but producing brand-new translations and using them for the article title is, while admittedly very fun, both unhelpful to most readers (since only people who have already been to the article will know what the article's named!) and tantamount to original research, which, though to some extent necessary in a Latin encyclopedia (since there are so many new words we'll have to form and unearth to describe new technologies, etc.), should be avoided where possible just for the sake of convenience (and of avoiding edit wars over which of various possible Latin translations is the "best" one). If the band has an official Latin name for some reason, that'd give much more weight to the possibility of using a Latin name for the article title, but fabricating a brand-new one for the encyclopedia should be used within the article's text, not the title. The complication over singular/plural in the Latin and English versions of the phrase just gives us more reason not to go to such lengths on this issue. -Adamas 05:37, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come to think of it, you're mistaken on the Latin translation "saxum volutum". The English proverb isn't "rolling stones gather no moss", it's the same as the Latin one: "a rolling stone gathers no moss"! The band purposefully pluralized it from the original English, so they'd obviously do the same from the original Latin. Saxa Voluta stays. -Adamas 05:45, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)
  • Perfect, because that was my final choice. Well, thanks for the very welcome explanation. Though I would list works of art together with place names among those more likely to be translated, I know keeping the name in the original is the name of the game not only in different Wikipedias but also among the mass media, etc. That's certainly the case with rock bands. But I wasn't sure about how that worked in our own local Vici terms. That's why in this case I deliberately did not move the page without asking for other people's opinions and/or orientation here. I know the English proverb in the singular myself, so I was probably also influenced by the band's name. I was just led to the page because I saw it in the mutationes recentes list and because I seemed to recall the Latin proverb, it made sense to me to add the Latin name.

Though arguably Latin titles used in Vicipaedia other than those involving proper names (such as those describing technological advances) might also prove unhelpful to at least some readers for the same reasons you have named, your argumentation makes absolute sense to me and was also very helpful. Being new here I sometimes don't realise that adding two pages to Vicipaedia (one with the name in Latin, be it "authoritative" or questionable, and the other showing the original name, which would then have redirect to the former) may not always be the best solution. Thanks again!D Ambulans 12:48, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Vide Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti. --Roland2 20:20, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Tituli petiti is the right page for this dispute. We're discussing whether or not to use Latin for this article's title at all (and if we do, presumably for all other bands, like Nightwish, The Beatles, etc.), not what the correct Latin title is (we now seem to agree it's "Saxa Voluta"). -Adamas 02:32, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Just because the discussion is more general it should be at least "registered" at a central point. People who are interested in such questions should not have to monitor all talk pages in order to realize an ongoing discusion. Maybe a category would help, maybe something like "Categoria:Disputatio de titulo articuli"(?). The intention of Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti is to motivate users to ask before creating an article with a bad title, moving this sort of discussion away from the taberna, making it easier to follow it for people who are not interested in the other things which are discussed in the taberna. Please add your opinion to Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti and especially feel free to correct my English or to translate the intro to Latin. The page is just a start. Where can the page help, wehre not? What has to be improved, changed? --Roland2 08:47, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Saxa Voluta literally = 'Rolled Stones'; voluta is a past participle and is hence passive: 'rolled, tumbled, fallen out of, hurled'. The only way a past participle can be active is if it's part of a deponent verb, but my dictionaries don't show a deponent use of volvor. English 'rolling', if taken straight over as a Latin participle, is likely to be the present participle (hence Saxa Volventia). In any case, for the proverb "A rolling stone gathers no moss," Ainsworth's dictionary gives the Latin as Saxum volubile non obducitur musco. So the most appropriate Latin gloss of the band's name could be Saxa Volubilia. IacobusAmor 01:46, 17 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Saxa voluta is alright as a mediopassive. saxa volventia would mean that the stones roll something else, but son't they roll themselves?--Iovis Fulmen 18:27, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Revertere ad "The Rolling Stones".