Disputatio:Illinoesia

message: Illinois
 Illinoesia, ae, f.
 Est una e Foederatis Civitatibus Ameri
 -cae Sept.
 Nomen, autochthonum proprium, quod
 ad aures Latinas accommodavi, non una
 ratione nobes est traditum. Tribus enim,
 quae ad Lacum Michiganum accolebat,
 illin vel illini similive modo appellabantur
 (Egli, 443)
 Illinoesiani, orum; Illinoesianus, a, um.
 Illinois (flumen)
 Illinoesius, ii, m; cfr. prius nomen (Illi-
 noesia).
Sic Egger. But I have "always" assumed that the Illini were just Illini -orum and "Illinois" was formed with the French -ois suffix, which equates to Latin -ensis. So I have usually called the state Illinensis. I don't know if I my analysis is just based on a bad assumption, or if Egger just missed it. But of course as I keep saying, Egger is the closest to official we have, so I'll only oppose him so far.
I've been assuming that this name represents Illinoēsia (I think that might even be specifically mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia), but there is no indication of this in Egger. He seems to have simply been trying to represent the English pronunciation in Latin orthography (though with the s preserved. THat's unstandard, though it does occur in some Chicago dialects).  --Iustinus 03:35 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it? I had always heard the s-ful pronunciations of Illinois were the most common the further away from Illinois you were, and in Illinois itself it's never heard (at least from locals). But since I've never lived there I can't say. --Angr/loquere 08:41 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)

text: It is Illinoesia with no long vowels in Traupman. But Illinensis does look reasonable as well; incidentally, illinoensis appears in taxonomy.  —Myces Tiberinus 18:20 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Usually when a word ends in -ensis, it is indicating some sort of adjectival quality. -ensis is all over the Catholic Church's website. I wish I could elaborate more (and I might later), but this is off the top of my head.

text: :And as far as that final s in Illinois goes: it's silent when native Illinoians say it. For the time, I'm prone to leave the page with the name Illinoesia.--Sinister Petrus 22:17 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I don't dispute that -ensis is an adjectival ending, but adjectives can be used as substantives... or we can understand the word civitas. I would agree that we shouldn't change this page at the moment, but I did want to register my complaint about it.

text: ::When I think about it, the one person I can definitely remember saying Illinoise is my handyman, who has a stereotypical "superfans" accent (you know, SNL "da bearss!")... but I am not 100% certain of where he's from: it could be a related but not identical accent, I suppose. I'll ask him about it next time he's over. --Iustinus 01:59 oct 12, 2005 (UTC)
Iustinus, since you own Egger (and I don't), would you be so good as to provide how he inidcates the Mississippi River? I've been wanting to write a bit about it, and haven't been able to find anything naming it.  Flumen Mississippianum strikes me as right, since I think I want a neuter for Mississippi (I think). I'm not feeling super confident on this though.--Sinister Petrus 22:17 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)

text: Flumen Mississippianum would in fact be suitable for poetic language, but actually names of rivers are typically masculine, the understood woord being, I suppose, not flumen but fluvius. Here's what Egger says:
 Missisippi (flumen)
 Missisipius, i, m.; cfr Missisippi (Civi-
 tas).

text: ... consistently spelling it with only 3 esses. Oh well. The Mississippi is such a famous and important river that we can probably dredge up numerous references to it in Latin. :En:Mississippi River#History is especially interesting.

text: Also, now thanks to you I have Paula Cole's Mississippi stuck in my head :P --Iustinus 22:26 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago. The history of the river should make for some interesting work in the Latin version, as well as for personal consumption. Oh, thanks for letting me know I got the song in your head. --Sinister Petrus 00:43 oct 12, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ::How does Egger want us to decline Missisippi (Civitas)? or does he make it indeclinable? (Italians & church-Latinists might pronounce that spelling as Missizippi, so I'd double both esses, but that's a different issue.) I ask about declining Mississipi because my main geographic area has lots of placenames that in indigenous languages end in i, and figuring out what to do with them is my most complex declension-related problem. IacobusAmor 05:24, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illinoesia

message: On the main page of the article I've put up some river names. I don't own a copy of Egger to help me out on this, so I kind of had to guess on Chicago River: Sicagonis Fluvius, or would Sicagonensis Fluvius be better? Same goes for the Rock River. I put Petrus Fluvius (after all, who wouldn't want to share a name with a river?). I'm open to better suggestions, but if I don't hear anything, I'll put together a short article on both on Monday or Tuesday.  --Sinister Petrus 03:56 oct 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Iustinus 17:09 oct 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :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.--Sinister Petrus 03:20 oct 18, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago River

message: In Collegii Illinoiensis sigillo quidem Illinoiensis stat adiectivum quod ex Illinoia deductum esse videtur. Neander 16:58, 9 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine iterum