Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Unio Astronomica Internationalis" differant
Content deleted Content added
m + |
m + |
||
Linea 14:
:::No doubt. ;) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:19, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
:::: Iacobe, given your "solitus ordo" argument, it'd be fair to concentrate on the place of ''internationalis'' in institutional names. According to my gut feeling, the pattern à la ''Societas internationalis X-ica'' or ''Societas X-ica internationalis'' prevails over ''Internationalis X-iae societas''. Methinks, there must be a very important reason for bettering that which is good. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 15:38, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
:::::Good point. The one that gets the most hits at Google (judging from the first few pages) is the Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences, with the often-attested form [[Internationalis Scientiarum Historiae Comitatus]] (see [http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/figuras/figurasingles/albuquerque.html here] and at what Google reports to be 1,659 other sites). Of course, ''internationalis'' itself seems somewhat newfangled, and for 'international law' in classical style, for example, Cassell's says to use ''ius gentium.'' ¶ Side note: that use of ''Comitatus'' for ''Académie,'' where most writers would automatically use ''Academia,'' is enlightening! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:00, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)<br>
Nevertheless, if an attestion of ''Unio Astronomica Internationalis'' be found, especially in use by the so-called "unio" itself (alternatively in various productions from Bremen, Radio Finland, etc.), then by all means let that be the lemma! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:17, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
| |||