Disputatio:Canalis Suesiensis

message: (Copied from: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Suez Canal):</br>
If we may identify Suez with the ancient town of Clysma (as the Coptics do), the Canal could be named Fossa Clysmatena. For Fossa see here and for the adjective Clysmatenus see here. --Fabullus 16:47, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just discovered that we have a page called Canalis Suez which (incorrectly) redirects to Maria Romanis antiquis cognita. I still prefer Fossa Clysmatena however. --Fabullus 09:15, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :The redirects (there was also one at Canale Suez) were pointless: goodness knows why anyone would make them. I have deleted them. You now have a clear field, Fabulle! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Facta est!--Fabullus 12:09, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)</br>
(End of copy)</br>
Hi Pantocrator, I hartily accept your change of "fossa" into "canalis", according to the discussion at Disputatio:Canalis#Canalis non fossa, but why did you not move to Canalis Clysmatenus? Replacing "Clysmatena"/"Clysmatenus" by "Suez" is quite a different matter. Do you not accept the identification of Suez with ancient Clysma? Then we should discuss this at Disputatio:Clysma (urbs). Or is there some other objection? Best wishes, --Fabullus 07:04, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: Fabulle, I am glad that by rereading this page I was guided to that wonderful source of adjectives for Catholic titular sees. But can you quote a reliable source that places Clysma precisely at Suez? I just loooked at "Clysma" in Smith's geographical dictionary, and it doesn't amount to certainty; but admittedly that's a long time ago, and some archaeological or epigraphical proof may well have turned up since then. En:Suez says "near the site of present-day Suez", but gives no reference.  Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The geographic identity of Suez and Clysma is argued by J. J. Hess, 'Suez and Clysma', The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 3/4 (Nov., 1928), pp. 277-279 (JSTOR). --Fabullus 12:57, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thanks, that's great. Vicipaedia aside, I needed to know, as it happens. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: :Google shows only Canalis Suez to be in use and that's what I went on, in the absence of any source for the name.

text: :As far as the name of Clysma, I don't know; perhaps we should add Suez as an alternate name. I don't have any more information than you do on that. Pantocrator 13:17, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: But why Canalis Clysmatenus? I forgot attested forms only count when they go against me. Pantocrator 05:00, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Don't be so defensive, Pantocrator! I just think that, unless someone provides a cogent counter-argument, in Latin too the canal should be named after the town. I just added a reference on Clysma (urbs) concerning the identification of (the sites of) ancient Clysma and modern Suez. I would also like to point out that the identification is a popular one: Googling for "Clysma AND Suez" I found a lot of sites where Clysma is cited as the ancient name for Suez, although none of these sites seems to be authoritative enough to cite here as a source. What is your source for "(Canalis) Suez" as a Latin name? --11:18, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Google est amica hominis! Apus Libros Googles: Canalis Suez (at least 5 of the first 20 are genuine Latin uses), Canalis Clysmatenus (nulla), Fossa Clysmatena (nulla). Pantocrator 01:00, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Then, at the least, the form Canalis Suez must appear in the lemma and can be footnoted. Whether it's the form we eventually choose for the pagename seems to me to be linked to the discussion at Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis/en about whether we translate such names (where possible) or not. If we translate, Clysmatenus is the correct adjective for Suez, there seems no doubt of that. But do we translate? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I must concur with Pantocrator: his choice has good souces, mine hasn't. Before we move the page again I want to submit three other options: Canalis Suesiensis (1, 2), Euripus Suesiensis (1) and Euripus Suetiensis (1, 2, 3). --Fabullus 08:27, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Euripus is beautiful but (I think) too poetic. Canalis Suesiensis has the attraction of being both attested and declinable -- better in Latin text than Canalis Suez, therefore. I like it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Just my point! As for the city it was named after: this source, this one and this one suggest it be latitinized as Suesia which corresponds beautifully with the adjective Suesiensis. The alternative name of Arsinoe mentioned in the same source seems to provide an indirect argument against my earlier identification of Clysma with Suez: both Clysma and Arsinoe where ancient settlements within the area now occupied by Suez, and their names should perhaps be restricted to these ancient settlements and the corresponding archaeological sites. --Fabullus 09:08, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::I have already rejoiced for finding a ship called "Fredericus Rex Suesiae", unfortunately it is just a frequent misspelling of "Fredericus Rex Sueciae". Nevertheless "Canalis Suesiensis" is attested, declinable and most likely factually correct, ergo it should be our choice. --Gabriel Svoboda 09:25, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::But in that case, we should also call the town Suesia instead of Clysma. I do not think, though, that Suesia and Suesiensis are well attested outside of dictionaries. Pantocrator 11:13, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::On your point (1): yes, there's something in that. We might even use Suesia for the modern city and Clysma (urbs) for the ancient one; it can often be useful to have separate articles, especially if there's limited evidence of historical continuity.

text: :::::::::On your point (2): Fabullus's second citation is not from a dictionary but a piece of Latin text (a commentary by Gaisford, a notable classicist of his time). So that supports the dictionaries: they didn't make it up. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Linguistically echt dictionaries, as a rule, never "make things up": they merely record usage. That's why it's hard (and often impossible) to get linguists to agree to the proposition that dictionaries should serve as authorities on "proper" usage. IacobusAmor 13:37, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine huius paginae