Disputatio:Tanzania

Qua ratione Tanzaniam hanc terrae regionem vocemus neque Tansaniam ut multis in sermonibus nec non Germanico solent? Littera Z Graeca est non Latina neque nisi in verbis Graecis scribendis a Romanis usurpata.--Ceylon 23:13, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Huius credo aetatis Latinitate litteras Z et K esse libere "feraces," sicut adfirmant homines linguae periti vocabulo Anglico "productive." IacobusAmor 04:53, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are two conflicting kinds of rules for adapting foreign input: one deals with "faithfulness" (the outcome must be as close to the input as possible) and the other deals with "markedness" (the outcome must break as few customs of the language as possible). As far as faithfulness goes, the Z should remain because it is in the input (the international form, according to the majority of the interwikis off en:). As far as markedness goes, the Z should remain, as I believe the practice of the Romans from the classical age was (even when writing in a different alphabet, so how much more when in its own!) to use the original Z—discarding the antiquated practice of replacing it with s initially and ss medially, which was done when the Romans used neither the letter nor (according to Allen's Vox Latina) the sound; as, e.g. Plautus wrote sona for zona, Graecisso for Graecizo—massa is a notable exception where the ss survives.

Allen also notes that z was also used on occasion to represent sigma in contexts where it was voiced, and cites zmaragdus, azbestus, Lezbia in inscriptions (though indeed the Greeks occasionally wrote likewise); he also mentions that native Latin words were not generally structured so as to produce these voiced-s contexts—which suggests his lack of examples in that case indicates a lack of opportunity, not one of motive or means.

Converting z to s would be an interesting kind of archaism, but, I think, not something to do in a post-Plautine encyclopedia without a source to back it up. (At any rate, the Greek word is Τανζανία, so the point is somewhat moot.) —Mucius Tever 04:13, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Quod oportet fontibus uti hic. Nuper, ego ceterique diximus usori nomine Agnus multa de his litteris et usus eorum; vide haec: [1][2][3]. Inveni fontes multos Tanzaniae. Si nomen mutare vis, tibi fontem quoque inveniendum est. Vale! Harrissimo 23:53, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Gratias ago ob responsa. Dubito an fontes Neolatini magnopere utiles sint in nominibus vertendis quae recentissime (anno 1964) sint inventa (vel interpretatio Graeca in nominibus haud Graecis vertendis), sed agnovi id prius esse disputatum cedoque pluribus eisque optime de Vicipaedia meritis. --Ceylon 07:15, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Since our primary rule when dealing with modern names is to look for sources, and Harrissimo gives us sources, the following point is academic, but it may be useful to know. Use of the letter z was recently questioned elsewhere by Usor:Agnus. The only thing is, I can't remember where: some other African country or city. Agnus claimed that z was only used by the Romans in converting Greek names and thought this relevant. Whether relevant or not, I showed it was false by pointing to the Itinerarium Antonini for the African provinces. There are lots of names using the letter z, and they are are not converted from Greek. There are also some in Dacia, now I come to think of it. Evidently, once they had invented the letter, the Romans (being sensible people) used it in converting names from other languages when they fancied. So why shouldn't we? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Fancy on!, mea quidem sententia =] --Ioscius ^(disp) 22:06, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)