Disputatio:Consociatio Nationum

message: Per errorem creavi paginam novam nomine UNC (Unitarum nationum coetus) significantem eandem rem ac haec pagina. Consociatus Nationum quidem est nomen satis sonorum atque diligenter inventum; ego autem nomen UNC non meo ingenio sed e Vaticani thesauro recentis latinitatis inveni. Utrum nomen aptius est?--Iovis Fulmen 20:34, 24 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make things more complicated: We should not only find a correct name for the United Nations, but also for the :en:League of Nations (its predecessor). --UV 00:22, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: : Surely the Vatican had a Latin term for "League of Nations" while the league was still in existence. Is someone in a position to look it up? Or perhaps:
replies: text: :: League of Nations = Foedus Nationum (= Kant's Foedus Pacificum?)

text: :: United Nations Organization = Consociatus Nationum Coniunctarum

text: :: UN General Assembly = Senatus Generalis Nationum Coniunctarum

text: :: UN Security Council = Concilium Pro Securitate Nationum Coniunctarum IacobusAmor 01:21, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: I think your "Consociatus" is a much better translation for organisation than is the Vatican's "coetus", since the latter to my ears rather denotes the actual meetings.  Concerning the security council, I must admit that I don't like the "pro" in all these expressions, and I don't like "securitas" at all, its meaning in classical Latin being quite different from "security". I prefer using as an example the Roman collegia that are all called things like "collegium sacris faciundis" etc., so it should be more like Concilium periculo avertendo, even if this expresses the matter differently. However, Tuomo Pekkanen on YLE uses Consilium securitatis, so I suggest to stick with this. Anyway, your Foedus Nationum for the Völkerbund is absolutely smashing and should be used forthwith. --Iovis Fulmen 17:23, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: : Now we have: Societas Civitatum. --UV 17:58, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

message: Either Consociatio Nationum or Nationes Consociatae are better names than Unitarum Nationum Societas. Why anyone should ever want to move this page to this new atrocious name is beyond me--Rafaelgarcia 19:58, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What will we have next Uniti Stati?--Rafaelgarcia 20:00, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it in fact a society of "united" nations? In what sense are member nations united into one nation? Isn't the UN merely a political organization joined by various independent countries?--Rafaelgarcia 20:12, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :This name is from formula:LCBF. Also, of the various ones in Morgan, most use unitus as the adjective. I don't know if they are right to do this, though. I like this name because it keeps the abbreviation UN and is from a printed source. Harrissimo.
replies: text: ::None of those sources you cite use Unitarum Nationum Societas per se and further UNS contains the acronym UN in it but is not  the same as UNS. Last but not least Needham is hardly the best latinist as evidenced by a number of gaffs in his Harry Potter translations.

text: ::The latin naming of the UN was discussed at length at one time on this forum, not that long ago, people fighting over it endlessly, with the end result of the UN page diverging into several pages with different contradictory names all over the place, contribuendas, ... a real mess... Then I thought we finally got it into a rational shape earlier this year pared down to a single page. (Because of this paring down much of the debate over the naming has been lost because it was on the disputatios of the other pages.)

text: ::My point is this: I thought it was finally decided to leave it as Consociatio Nationum as the most rational choice; but yet here we are again: the page is messed up: whoever changed the name, again, didn't even bother to change the name on the rest of the page, to keep things consistent,  or even bother to discuss the change first on the page's disputatio.

text: ::I think I am summarizing the old debates here ok when I say: There is no clear precendent in Latin literature for naming the UN. And many choices like Nationes Unitae, while they are close to the modern names (and superior to Unitarum Nationum societas) don't make sense latinwise either, but Consociatio Nationum or Nationes consociatae do.

text: ::--Rafaelgarcia 02:12, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Sorry, I didn't realise that there was another discussion. I don't want to open up a healing wound. I will change the page back etc. now. Harrissimo.
replies: text: ::::Rem suscipitur. Harrissimo.
replies: text: :::::If Consociatio Nationum is the ONU, then how do we call the es:Sociedad de Naciones?--Xaverius 17:13, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::It's the Societas Civitatum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:17, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::I see... Does the societas civitatum have a latin source? Because I don't see why we should use here nationum and in the other one civitatum--Xaverius 17:22, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::I suppose Societas Nationum would be just as good for League of Nations...I don't recall anyone ever fighting over that. I suppose the person who orignated the page was trying to avoid natio since that word had a different meaning in ciceronian times than the way we use it now. Bradley's Arnold says to avoid it in the modern meaning for example. But we all come to the consensus that Natio means nation nowadays too.

text: ::::::::Separately, I think that the Consociatio Nationum page could definitely be improved by having a section regarding the naming of the organization in various recent latin literature. Listing them on the first line would seem too much, as they are so many and contradictory. If we do this then future people can see we have discussed the issue and are aware of the very many terms people have used for it, but just happened to choose Consociatio Nationum at the least objectionable to the consensus.--Rafaelgarcia 17:51, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I believe the nominative plus infinitive construction is inappropriate here : "Ergo homines mox putabant nova societas condi debuisse." because the subject nova societas is not the same as homines. Thus it should read "Ergo homines mox putabant novam societatem condi debuisse."--Rafaelgarcia 20:22, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, that looks right. IacobusAmor 20:50, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively it could be recast using the nominative +infinitive by using putatur predicatively of nova societas as in: "Ergo mox putabatur nova societas condi debuisse." where translating literally "Thus a new organization was soon thought should be founded."--Rafaelgarcia 20:30, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominative with accussative construction inappropriate here?

message: Quoniam in illa die "Sina" fuit Respublica Sinae, non Respublica Populorum Sinae, quae non existavit, modifico conditores.
thread_title: Respublica Sinae