Disputatio:Scopuli Liancourtenses

message: Bien que le nom donné par Liancourt est "les rochers," c'est une seule île quand même, pas plusiers. Est-il insulae ou insula? Merci. 인간오성론 06:14, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Insulae est le pluriel.

text: Le latin n'est pas tout à fait comme le français! De a un sens différent, par exemple. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dans la source donnée a Nexus externi, on lit: "L’archipel est constitué de 2 îlots rocheux et de 89 récifs". Tous les autres wikis donnent le nom au pluriel: :de:Liancourt-Felsen, :en:Liancourt Rocks, :eo:Liancourt-Rokoj, :es:Rocas de Liancourt, :fr:Rochers Liancourt, :pt:Rochedos de Liancourt et caetera. Il est donc insulae. A propos, n'est-ce pas scopuli le pluriel de scopulus? Capmo 06:16, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Il y a deux questions substantives ici:

text: ::* Est-ce que le nom doit être au singulier ou au pluriel? Ici nous ne pouvons pas faire mieux que les autres. Si presque tout le monde les nomment au pluriel, ce ce qu'il nous faut faire, nous aussi.

text: ::* Est-ce que elles sont en réalité des îles ou une île. Si Capmo et 인간오성론 sont vraiment en désaccord là, il faut à 인간오성론 qu'il cite une source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Je suis d'accord avec insulae. Parce que le coréen n'a pas le pluriel, j'imaginais toujours que c'est une seule île. ^^; 인간오성론 14:58, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulae ou Insula? 

message: Lyencuria:
*Comptes relatifs à la fondation de l'abbaye de Maubuisson, p.553
*Partnerstadt Liancourt (Frankreich)
Nexus de hominibus et de oppidis aliis minime relevant (ut credo). Pro tempore movi ad "Scopula Liancourt". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The links above are relevant because they clarify that the Latin forms of the name Liancourt were "Landulfi curtis" and later "Lyencuria". If the city has a Latin name, why use the modern French one? Capmo 05:53, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's hardly a city, but, anyway, we're not talking about the place in France. There is no one-to-one correspondence between polysemic names across languages. That's one of the things that makes learning languages fun! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No, we're not talking about the French city, but of a homonymous place that was named after a ship, that was named after the city, so... Compare the case of Venezuela, rendered to Latin as Venetiola, a diminutive form of Venetia. If we follow your logic, we should use the form "Venezuela" instead, right?
replies: text: :::If you're not an expert in Latin, you may find you're wasting your time ++ ... but if you really want to pursue it, it isn't a question of my (or everybody else's) logic versus yours, it's a question we settle by authority and by rules. No original research, don't make things up, etc. If you have a problem with the Latin name of Venezuela, by all means raise it there :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::++ I didn't mean to be inhospitable in saying this -- everyone's welcome, expert or not -- but I was guessing that your real interest is in the rock dispute rather than in how places are named in modern Latin. Almost certainly my guess was quite wrong. Do write more! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: ::Also, please answer my question above about scopula versus scopuli. I'm not an expert in Latin, so I'm asking it out of curiosity. Thanks Capmo 22:53, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::You're right, it should have been scopuli. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
thread_title:  Nexus e pagina moti