Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Illinoesia" differant

:This is a little tricky. First of all, Egger, as I have mentioned elsewhere, seems to have left out Chicago, which is utterly bizarre. Second of all, this whole thing is complicated by the fact that there are several Latinizations of "Chicago" out there. You and I may prefer ''Sicagum -i'' but not everyone does, and we can't ignore that (note especially the official seal of the University of Chicago). Most of the time when there is a river that has the same name as a city or state, Egger will just use the same name in the masculine, but I think it would look terrible to say ''Sicagus fluvius''. This is why I suggested "''Chicagoensis Fluvius''." Other forms of the adjective include ''Chicaginiensis'' and ''Chicagensis'', but ''*Sicagoensis'' is right out: it should be ''Sicaganus'' or ''Sicagensis''. For reasons I can't quite explain I'd rather use one of the ''Ch-'' forms for the river, but that's just my opinion. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] 17:09 oct 14, 2005 (UTC)

::Or maybe later than Monday or Tuesday. I can get behind ''Chicagoensis Fluvius'' for a few reasons. First, it might point a user searching for ''Chicago'' to the [[Sicagum]] article, though in a somewhat roundabout way (n.b ''Chicago'' is contained in ''Chicagoensis''). Second, I think having the city listed as [[Sicagum]] and the river as ''Chicagoensis'' is inconsistent. But the very nature of the Chicago River calls for an inconsistency. Don't you think? Anyway, I really prefer rendering the soft ''ch'' as an ''s''. Official seals nonwithstanding.--[[Usor:Sinister Petrus|Sinister Petrus]] 03:20 oct 18, 2005 (UTC)