Disputatio:Cincinnatorum Cyclones

message: Shouldn't it be "Turbones Cincinnatensis" because it's the "Cincinnati Cyclones [Cyclones of Cincinnati]" and Cincinnati, Cincinnatensis is 3rd declension?  The city name is a singular, 3rd declension genitive, which would be with the 'i' not the 'e'.  My latin is quite a bit rusty, but I think my spelling is correct and would just like to get a clear verification.Nivek1385 05:46, 3 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -ensis, -ense is usually the ending of an adjective, which would of course have to be accorded with the appropriate form of turbo. My dictionary (Stowasser) gives turbo, -inis m., so I think the proper form should be Turbines Cincinnatenses. Anybody who finds an attested form for the city or its adjective? Maybe it is contained in ? --UV 18:03, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: : I originally had it -ensis because that's what I recall from my class days, but that's been years and the memory isn't what it should be.  I chose Turbones because the dictionary I originally looked it up had turbo, turbonis.  I just looked through my two usual dictionaries (now that they're not 300 miles away) and both have it as you have, turbo, -inis.  I propose we move the page accordingly.  Also, since hockey was not invented during Roman times, I had to come up with a latin term and compared it to the romance languages among wiki and latinized it following Pompey\Pompeius as an examble.  Was this a good decision on my part?Nivek1385 19:27, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Probably not. I also think that Turbines might not be the best either. This is a matter of VP:TNP, a proper name, and I'm not sure we should call them  anything but Cyclones. Should we call the Redskins "Cutes rubrae"? The Broncos the "Equi saevi"? The Cubs the "Catuli"? I think that is silly. As for hockey, "hockeius" is not really acceptable. Pompey<=Pompeius, not Pompey=>Pompeius. I wonder if Egger has anything. I'll ask around.--Ioscius (disp) 20:08, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Eishockey => pilamalleus super glaciem, m. --Rolandus (disp.) 20:15, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

text: ::Gratias, Rolande.--Ioscius (disp) 20:16, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Okay, so, the first paragraph, "Turbones Cincinnatensis sunt peritus hockeius legio athleticus Cincinnatensi, Ohii qui intra ECHL et Societas Hockeianus Inter Gentes luserunt. 1990 instruxerunt, legio sui ludi in Cincinnati Gardens primum luserunt et iam in U.S. Bank Arena." should thus be "Cincinnati Cyclones sunt peritus pilamalleus super glaciem legio athleticus Cincinnatensi, Ohii qui intra ECHL et International Hockey League luserunt. 1990 instruxerunt, legio sui ludi in Cincinnati Gardens primum luserunt et iam in U.S. Bank Arena."?  I'm trying to (slowly) add more to latin wiki, starting with the Cincinnati area and with the enlish WikiProject:IceHockey pages and am using this article to begin the effort.Nivek1385 21:18, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
I think: ...sunt perita (legio femina) pilamallei (genetivus) super glaciem legio athletica Cincinnatensis.--Alex1011 21:46, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, legio is indeed feminine, but shouldn't Cincinnati be in the locative case here and thus either Cincinnatensi or Cincinnatense?Nivek1385 22:18, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Well, Cincinnati athletic legion would mean legio athletica Cincinnatensis, whereas athletic legion in Cincinnati, Ohio I would translate by legio athletica in urbe Cincinnati in Ohio. It depends on which Latin name we take for Cincinnati. Cincinnatus was a Roman, so may be the person who chose that name for a city wanted to say urbs Cincinnati -> in urbe Cincinnati. Or indeed urbs Cincinnatensis -> in urbe Cincinnatensi in Ohio. 
I would also put in some vulgo or Anglice for the not translated English terms. --Alex1011 22:36, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Cincinnatus was a Roman, but the Cincinnati are the people for whom the city was named—it's not a genitive, but a plural: Cincinnati, -orum.  Traupman, by the way, has "Cincinnatopolis" for the city name, but I think that might be going a bit too far. —Myces Tiberinus 11:45, 6 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
===Cubs===
Josh wrote:

text: "[should we call] The Cubs the "Catuli?""
Answer: Yes. Absolutely. See here (if that article hasn't been merged yet). --Iustinus 15:06, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: Also here. --Iustinus 15:15, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I sit corrected, astounded, and humbled...--Ioscius (disp) 15:27, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: :Ack, they say "anno catuli" is "in the year of our cub(s)!". Odd, they can master a hortatory subjunctive, but not a genitive plural...--Ioscius (disp) 15:37, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Most fans read that as "Anno Cubs" anyway. WHich form a point of view is actually better. But really "In the Year of the Cub" isn't that wrong. --Iustinus 15:42, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::In the year of the cub is fine, but they say it's in the year of our cubS (sorry, meant to bold or capitalize that s, not put it in parentheses).--Ioscius (disp) 15:45, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Edit Cincinnatensis => Cincinnatenses

message: Josh wrote: 
replies: text: "[should we call] The Cubs the "Catuli?""
Answer: Yes. Absolutely. See here (if that article hasn't been merged yet). --Iustinus 15:06, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: Also here. --Iustinus 15:15, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I sit corrected, astounded, and humbled...--Ioscius (disp) 15:27, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: :Ack, they say "anno catuli" is "in the year of our cub(s)!". Odd, they can master a hortatory subjunctive, but not a genitive plural...--Ioscius (disp) 15:37, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Most fans read that as "Anno Cubs" anyway. WHich form a point of view is actually better. But really "In the Year of the Cub" isn't that wrong. --Iustinus 15:42, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::In the year of the cub is fine, but they say it's in the year of our cubS (sorry, meant to bold or capitalize that s, not put it in parentheses).--Ioscius (disp) 15:45, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cubs