Disputatio:Rosamaria Wells

What do we do with obvious compound names like this? I would rather write them as two words; is that an acceptable Latinisation? Pantocrator 18:21, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, Pantocrator - I can't think of why such Latinisation should be unacceptable. --Gabriel Svoboda 20:22, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, though. If we make this a rule it should be applied consistently - can we get away with, for example, making 'Louann' into Ludovica Anna?

For 'Marianne' we already have Marianna, which sounds fine. I suppose the clashing vowels in that one make the compounding more natural, but we'd never convert a 'Mary Ann' even though it's the same name. On the other hand we could have Mariana, fem. of Marianus; which does the English 'Marian' (female) correspond to? The former I'd imagine as 'Marian' and 'Marianne' are never considered the same. Pantocrator 02:09, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Hold on hold on! "Rosemary" isn't an "obvious compound name". "Rosemary" is also the name of a plant—cf. other plant names like Myrtle, or 'rosemary' used as a name in other languages: Romero, Romarin, Ramerino—thus it isn't necessarily related to the names Rose or Mary. Do we have a source saying with which Rosemary this article's subject is named? It could just as easily be 'Rosmarina' (a later Latin form of classical rosmarinus) as 'Rosamaria'. (Indeed, it's possible that 'Rose+Mary' is just as much a folk etymology of the forename as it is for the plant name; some sources don't list the compounded etymology at all, e.g. [1].) —Mucius Tever 05:35, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

I see, I was too hasty here. Now I'm not sure what we should do with this name. I don't want to leave this in the vernacular, though; would Rosmarina be better? Pantocrator 11:52, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's hold on. I still think we should Latinise compound names as two separate words (unless anything else is attested). Just, as the discussion shows, we should be very careful when we determine which names are compounds and which aren't.

Therefore, as for Louann (often spelled Lou-Ann), I see no problem with Ludovica Anna.

Naturally we should always prefer an attested Latinisation of the contracted form if it exists - therefore Marianna instead of Maria Anna. As for Marianna, behindthename.com says: "Combination of MARIA and ANNA. It has been confused with the Roman name MARIANA to the point that it is no longer easy to separate the two forms." This is difficult for Latin, though, because it must separate the two names: there always have to be either two n's (Maria + Anna = Marianna) or one n (Mariana), there is no intermediate form. Maybe we should be guided by the number of n's in the vernacular form?

Marion comes directly from Maria, neither Anna nor Mariana are involved.

This sounds like a good summary. I've dealt with our Marions accordingly (-> Marianus/Mariana ). Pantocrator 11:52, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Wait, according to behindthename.com, Marion comes from Maria (a Hebrew name), not from Mariana, a Roman name coming from Marianus < Marius < Mars. Therefore I suggest to move female Marions to Marias (the male form of which is probably Marius). --Gabriel Svoboda 12:52, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same name as Maria, only derived from it. Mariana could be derived from Maria also, as the Wikipedia page indicates ('Marian' and 'Marion' are only alternative spellings), so it is I think the only reasonable Latinisation. Pantocrator 00:04, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Well, Marian has got two etymologies and only one of them is an alternative spelling of Marion. Marion only is a diminutive of Maria, not of Mariana. Mariana comes either from Marianus or from Maria+Anna, not from Maria alone. --Gabriel Svoboda 07:36, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

And Rosemary probably should not be Latinised at all, unless we know for sure where it comes from in each particular case. And even if we conclude it comes from the plant, we should not mistake Latinisation for translation: of course it would be easy to use Rosmarina (or even Rosmarinus, f.) in this case, but does it have the tradition of being used as a forename in Latin? For example, I might also like to render the English name Ashley (from "ash tree") as Fraxina (or Fraxinus, f., which is the name for ash tree in Latin), but I can't, since it would be a translation, not a traditional Latinisation. The Japanese name Hana means "flower", yet we won't Latinize it as Flos, it would be a translation. --Gabriel Svoboda 06:53, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, the case of 'Rosemary'/'Rosmarin-' is different from the cases of 'Ashley'/'Fraxin-' and 'Hana'/'Flos', in that 'Rosemarin-' is not only a translation of 'Rosemary', but also cognate; its etymon, in fact. (Incidentally I suspect an apter translation of 'Hana' — were one in a position to produce one — would be 'Flora'.) —Mucius Tever 13:36, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Rosemary probably since the beginning of its existence has been only one name, just it has got two possible etymologies. This is how it differs from Marianna and Mariana that have always been different names, just over the course of history they somewhat merged and became hard to distinguish. That's why I now think we don't need to solve the unsolvable question of Rosemary's origin, we just have to found an attested Latinisation. Luckily it exists: en:Rosemary Murray is referred to as ALICIAM ROSEMARIAM MURRAY here. If no other attestation is found, I suggest to establish Rosemary = Rosemaria. --Gabriel Svoboda 12:52, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Rosemaria is ugly because it is only half-Latinised. Note that that page also has Margaretham (for English 'Margaret') which we should not accept; it should hardly be considered an authority. Pantocrator 00:04, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Still the text has got more authority than our making things up. Rosamaria may be attested, but out of the thousands of Google Books hits of Rosamariae an overhelming majority seems to be botanical and I don't feel like going through them and finding where it is not the case. Maybe someone else would have the patience? --Gabriel Svoboda 07:54, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a common strategy (especially with women's names, it seems) is just to Latinize the ending instead of trying to find a counterpart, and it seems that's what's done there. I have no problem with it in this case. —Mucius Tever 13:36, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)