Disputatio:Lacus Ilinorum

message: ==="Lake Michigan"===
Shouldn't this be Lacus Michigania?  And not to put too fine a point on it, but do we want to say Chicagonia or Sicagum? I vote for Sicagum.  --Sinister Petrus
replies: text: It should be "Michinanus Lacus" actually, --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Revera? Michinanus Lacus? Tibi sunt fontes? IacobusAmor 13:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sphalma. --Iustinus 00:54, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

text: and I think I'll move it there. Egger gives "Lacus Michiganus" and he's close to official (even when he's wrong), but I think we can feel justified in reversing the order of the words: I think the Romans usually put lacus, mons, fluvius etc. after the name. --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :If "Michigan" (state) is Michigania, why is "Michigan" (lake) not also Michigania ? Was Egger conceiving the lacustrine "Michigan" as being an adjective in agreement with "lake"? If so, is that the best approach? IacobusAmor 13:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::A good question. Egger generally gives the names of regions in -ia -iae even when it doesn't make sense, so either he takes "Michigan" to be an adjective, or possibly (likely even) he takes the stae of Michigan to mean "The region of Lake Michigan."

text: ::As for the word order, it was a practice of mine for a long time to phrase the title of the article so that the distinctive word came first (e.g. Scaccorum ludus, rather than Ludus scaccorum). Given the nature of an encyclopedia, and of Latin word order, this made a lot of sense to me. But the practice never really caught on, so it's not surprising this got moved to Lacus Michiganus. That said, it seems to me words like lacus and mons usually follow the proper name. --Iustinus 00:54, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
==="Chicago"===
As for the name of Chicago, I've seen so many Latinizations of it, non of which have any particular prestidge to me, beyond the fact that I personally (and somewhat arbitrarily) use Sicagum. Curiously, our city does not seem to be listed in Egger. So really I don't care what Latin form is used so long as it links to whatever the article title i, e.g. Chicagonia. Or we could just change it.

text: Also "Vertis" should read "Viridis" (curiously Egger does give Green Bay, which makes me wonder if I am looking for Chicago on the wrong page) --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Go for it.  Yeah, I do like Sicagum best. It sounds moare Latin-style than Chicagum or Chicagonia. Something about the "ch" combo that doesn't quite sit right with me. --Sinister Petrus
replies: text: ::IN MISSALE ROMANUM: CHICAGONIA legi!
replies: text: :::Quis es? IacobusAmor 13:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::UC calls itself "Universitas Chicaginiensis," which seems to imply *Chicaginia --Iustinus 02:18, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Shouldn't this be Lacus Michigania?  And not to put too fine a point on it, but do we want to say Chicagonia or Sicagum? I vote for Sicagum.  --Sinister Petrus
replies: text: It should be "Michinanus Lacus" actually, --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Revera? Michinanus Lacus? Tibi sunt fontes? IacobusAmor 13:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sphalma. --Iustinus 00:54, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

text: and I think I'll move it there. Egger gives "Lacus Michiganus" and he's close to official (even when he's wrong), but I think we can feel justified in reversing the order of the words: I think the Romans usually put lacus, mons, fluvius etc. after the name. --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :If "Michigan" (state) is Michigania, why is "Michigan" (lake) not also Michigania ? Was Egger conceiving the lacustrine "Michigan" as being an adjective in agreement with "lake"? If so, is that the best approach? IacobusAmor 13:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::A good question. Egger generally gives the names of regions in -ia -iae even when it doesn't make sense, so either he takes "Michigan" to be an adjective, or possibly (likely even) he takes the stae of Michigan to mean "The region of Lake Michigan."

text: ::As for the word order, it was a practice of mine for a long time to phrase the title of the article so that the distinctive word came first (e.g. Scaccorum ludus, rather than Ludus scaccorum). Given the nature of an encyclopedia, and of Latin word order, this made a lot of sense to me. But the practice never really caught on, so it's not surprising this got moved to Lacus Michiganus. That said, it seems to me words like lacus and mons usually follow the proper name. --Iustinus 00:54, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lake Michigan"

message: As for the name of Chicago, I've seen so many Latinizations of it, non of which have any particular prestidge to me, beyond the fact that I personally (and somewhat arbitrarily) use Sicagum. Curiously, our city does not seem to be listed in Egger. So really I don't care what Latin form is used so long as it links to whatever the article title i, e.g. Chicagonia. Or we could just change it. 
replies: text: Also "Vertis" should read "Viridis" (curiously Egger does give Green Bay, which makes me wonder if I am looking for Chicago on the wrong page) --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Go for it.  Yeah, I do like Sicagum best. It sounds moare Latin-style than Chicagum or Chicagonia. Something about the "ch" combo that doesn't quite sit right with me. --Sinister Petrus
replies: text: ::IN MISSALE ROMANUM: CHICAGONIA legi!
replies: text: :::Quis es? IacobusAmor 13:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::UC calls itself "Universitas Chicaginiensis," which seems to imply *Chicaginia --Iustinus 02:18, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Chicago"