Disputatio:Unio Rerum Publicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum

message: Copied from the taberna. --Roland2 15:33, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Could anybody move the article Unio Rerum Publicarum Socialisticarum Sovieticarum to this location: Foederatae Civitates Socialisticae Conciliaris? The former is inproper!--213.234.195.243 12:18, 17 Novembris 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...I would think Unio Republics Sovieticarum Socialisticarum would be more proper... the russian is: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик.  Literally the union of socialist soviet republics. But sovetskih socialisticheskih is definitely genitive plural, and should be reflected in the Latin. As for sovietica to conciliaris...I'm very unconvinced...  We don't change it in English for example to the United Friendly Socialist Republic.  Soviet is both an improper noun, approximate, but not at all the same as conciliaris (there is more of a sense of comradery and patriotism in cоветский, than in conciliaris), and also a proper noun.  The Russians were soviets, not conciliares.  I vote keep it Unio Rerum Publicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum or the reasons above.  For the sake of user 213.234.195.243, I will paste this post to the taberna.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:10, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, in most Soviet languages and some foreign languages the word "Soviet" was translated, like "Radyansky" in Ukrainian, "Radziecki" in Polish, "Padomju" in Lettish and so on.85.21.125.10 13:54, 13 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I doubt that the word "Soviet" was "translated" (i.e., not borrowed, but replaced by a native word) "in most Soviet languages". I looked through the native names of soviet socialistic republics in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia and found out that only in those of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia the word "Soviet" was treated in such a way. In native names of the rest 7 non-Russian republics of the USSR, as well as in those of most autonomous SSR, the word denoting "Soviet" was borrowed from Russian (e.g. Abkhaz "sovette", Armenian "sovetakan", Buryat "sovet", Moldavian "sovetike", Tajik "sovetii", Tatar "sovet", etc.).

text: :Ecce certa exempla traductionis verbi "советский" (Anglice "Soviet" in notione adiectivi) in linguam Latinam:

text: :Подосинов, Белов. Lingua Latina. Русско-латинкий словарь (Dictionarium Russico-Latinum, Moscuae anno 2000 editum): "советский soveticus, -a, -um; ~ Союз Unio Sovetica"

text: :Poliachev. Lexicon Russico-Latinum: "советский sov(i)eticus [a, um]; + флора Советского Союза flora Unionis Rerumpublicarum Sov(i)eticarum Socialisticarum;"

text: :Kalegin. Rossia aut Russia: "Sed post revolutionem anni MCMXVII pristimen vocamen in RSFSR (Rossicam Soveticam Foederativam Socialisticam Rem publicam) mutatum est. RSFSR, item ut aliae res publicae, pars Unionis (sive Foederationis) Soveticae erat, sed post huius casum Rossiani terram suam nominaverunt vetere vocabulo."

text: :Gluszak. De pugna Stalingradensi: "...ubi plus quam millionem ducenta milia captivorum captati sunt ) magna parte terrarum Unionis Sovieticae occupata usque ad suburbia Moscovae..."

text: :-- Alexander Gerascenco 15:49, 13 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Union re vera Latine est incorrectum; propono Coetus loco Union ut habeamus Coetus Rerum Publicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum. Soviet iam appellatur forma  legiferi coetus specialis in usu apud URSS, ut non necesse est novum nomen comminiscere; et Foederatae Civitates melius describit Russia hodie, nec URSS, quod URSS erat coetus multae rerum publicarum.--Rafaelgarcia 03:00, 6 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Union=Consociatio in contextu civitatum, secundum words et multis aliis lexicis. Rerum Publicarum Socialisticarum Sovieticarum Consociatio--Rafaelgarcia 02:53, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Unio Anglice est 'onion'. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 02:58, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::This is true, though it doesn't get into every dictionary! One might guess it was originally a variety of onion, named for a resemblance to a pearl. Eventually, as the history of French oignon and English onion demonstrate, Latin speakers in Gallia used it as the name for all onions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:35, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

text: :::::Nice play on sounds. Really, though, all dictionaries say that in Latin Unio translates to 'Pearl' not 'union'. I found unio in some vatican documents, including some by the current pope, and apparently the word was first used in this sense Unio=Union by some people in Romania in the 1600's. But we have a perfectly good latin word for 'union', namely Consociatio. Every time I see this unio I have to roll my eyes. --Rafaelgarcia 03:16, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Well, not all dictionaries; see  (which same dictionary marks  as "several times in Cic.; elsewhere rare").   Unio in unity-related senses is considerably earlier than the 1600s; it is so used in the 4th / early 5th century (the Vulgate at Ezek. 37.17, and Sulpicius Severus mentions Sabellius' belief in a 'trionyma solitarii Dei unio'), so it is certainly Roman Latin, if not Ciceronian (but apparently 'unio' in all its senses is post-classical).  —Mucius Tever 21:58, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::De: "Sabellius' belief in a 'trionyma solitarii Dei unio'"—But surely Sabellius meant something like 'oneness, singularity', rather than 'union'? In fact, wouldn't the idea of a 'union' (of disparate parts) have been exactly the doctrine that Sabellius was rejecting? IacobusAmor 22:32, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::The difference is between unity in the abstract ('one', 'oneness', 'unity') and unity in the concrete ('a union').  Of course Sabellius refers to a oneness abstractly in a thing with only one part (hence 'Dei unio' unity of God not 'Deorum unio' union of Gods).  —Mucius Tever 03:51, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Here below is the text for Ezek. 37.17 that Myces refers to above, together with the english New American Bible translation: "et adiunge illa unum ad alterum tibi in lignum unum et erunt in unionem in manu tua" = "Then join the two sticks together, so that they form one stick in your hand."--Rafaelgarcia 23:21, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

text: ::::::::For ease of reference here are the entries for unio:
 ūnĭo, ōnis, f. and m. id..
 I Fem
   A The number one, oneness, unity (eccl Lat.): decas decimā unione completur, Hier. in Amos, 2, 5, 5; Tert. Monog. 4; id Res. Carn. 2 fin. —
   B A unity, union (late Lat.): Maria Dei unione fecunda, Hier. Ep 22, 19; 18, 14. —
 II Transf., concr.
   A Masc., a single large pearl (cf. margarita), Plin. 9, 35, 56, § 112; 9, 35, 59, § 122; Sen. Ben. 7, 9, 4; Mart. 8, 81, 4; 12, 49, 13. — Fem.: Cleopatranae, Treb. XXX. Tyrann. 32 fin. —
   B Fem., a kind of single onion caepam, quam vocant unionem rustici. Col. 12, 10, 1.

text: ::::::::From what I gather in late latin it means 'unity/union' (f) in the sense of spiritual or religious onesss, or large pearl (m), or large union (f). From this, it is not to much of a stretch to imagine it to mean also union, in the sense of "union of states" or "union of men". However, the entry provided for consociatio says:
 consŏcĭātĭo, ōnis, f. id.,
 I a union, association (several times in Cic.; elsewhere rare): consociatio hominum atque communitas, Cic. Off. 1, 44, 157; cf. id. ib. 1, 28, 100; 1, 41, 149: gentis, Liv. 40, 5, 10: sinistra siderum, Firm. 6, 12 fin.

text: ::::::::Clearly, comparing the two entries, consociatio more pricisely means union in the sense of "union of states" or "union of soviets".--Rafaelgarcia 22:26, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Still, I only have three occurrences of 'consociatio' in one book of Cicero (with 'hominum' in all cases), and one in Livy (with 'gentis').  Probably better, if an alternative to 'unio' be needed, would be 'coniunctio'. —Mucius Tever 03:51, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::The fact that it only occurred three times is important to consider, but also is the root verb for each concept:
replies: text: :::::::::::adiungo=attach, tie on; coniugoconiungo=tie together; associo=join or unite with a person or thing; socio=to join or unite together, share; consocio= to make common, to share with one, to associate, join, unite, connect;

text: ::::::::::Comparing the relavent entries, what stands out to me is that the root difference between iugo and socio is that iugoiungo involves the thing united being united by something external, ie. a union forced from without, by god by nature etc.; whereas socio involves people being united sui iuris (compare societas). In particular, the verb consocio brings in the idea of "linking" parties together. By contrast, unio is given as a post Aug. synonym for coniugoconiungo, perhaps emphasizing the oness or unity of the thing being united and implying therefore, not an association of separates, but a seamless melding, more like the Borg in startrek (though it is not necessarily the case).--Rafaelgarcia 16:21, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::: (Mind that  [→ coniunctio] and  [→ coniugatio] are different words!) The recommendation of 'coniunctio' was only based on a search on 'union' in texts at Perseus and a brief comparison of a few with the Latin originals.  As for the idea of "linking", I expect that would appear in general when the 'con-' prefix is added to any of this class of words.   —Mucius Tever 21:44, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::Sorry, my bad, I meant only iungo, and coniungo above. I fixed the instances above by crossing out the mispecllings.--Rafaelgarcia 23:57, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

text: ::::::I changed this page and the Soviet communist party page. THe latinitas on this page continues to need improving.--Rafaelgarcia 04:25, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::After making the change, I read more and meditated a bit about the issues involved. As a result, I'm not sure I did the right thing. Cartesius apparently also used "unio" to describe the union/unity of the mind and body.; "unio sovietica" = "soviet unity" although not an exact translation is perhaps not as objectionable as I imagined and does have the advantage of looking like the name in other languages. Furthermore, I found that the lexicon latintatis recentis lists unio europea for European union. I don't think it would be wise for Vicipaedia to go against such attested sources, given that it is not such a stretch to write Unio Sovietica for Soviet Union.--Rafaelgarcia 03:22, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::I moved it back, although if other people agree that it should be moved to Consociatio I wouldn't mind.--Rafaelgarcia 00:21, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

message: This is a bit picky, but do we have a reason to prefer URSS to URPSS? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:52, 5 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can't use URPSS unless someone has used it before us (noli fingere). So the question, surely, is whether we use URSS or no abbreviation at all: we can use URSS because it is used in several languages, from which we are entitled to borrow. And, after all, it matches our name fairly closely: it is a mere detail of Latin orthography whether "res publica" counts as one word or two, and it is quite common generally for the number of letters in abbreviations not to correspond precisely with the number of words! Consider US [of] A. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Speaking of which, UV (I think it was) told us to link to Civitates Foederatae, not to link to CFA (as in Americanus), on the grounds (if I'm remembering rightly) that CFA can be an acronym for all sorts of things, and potential confusion is best avoided. Also, as a matter of clarity (and one might even say elegance), the use of CFA in texts may be inadvisable. Likewise, it might be appropriate to suggest, the use of URSS and URPSS. An abundance of such acronyms gives prose a tabloid feel. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, I agree with that. Latin abbreviations for modern entities -- even if they have sometimes been used elsewhere -- are often not easy for readers to interpret.

text: ::I wasn't aware of the suggestion about links that you attribute to UV, but it strikes me as a good rule, and I will try to obey it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::It could have been one of the others whose activity is similar, but I think it was UV. ¶ Regarding abbreviations in general, has the world agreed on a set of Latin abbreviations for months of the year and U.S. states? Especially in places that nobody reads (like bibliographies), abbreviations for September and Carolina Septentrionalis and such might be useful. Not knowing of any such list, I resolutely spell them out. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  URPSS