Disputatio:Russia

message: Alexander I Nevskus Imperator(1220-1263)
Ioannes I "Terribilis" [Ivan] Imperator (1530-1584)
Boris I (1551-1605) Imperator ex Dynastia Godunoviense
Michaël II (1596-1645) Imperator ex Dynatia Romanoviense
Petrus II Magnus (1672-1725) Imperator ex Dynatia Romanoviense
Catharina II Magna (1729-1796) Imperator ex Dynatia Romanoviense
Nicolaus II (1868-1918) Imperator ex Dynatia Romanoviense
Michaël IV (1868-1918) Imperator ex Dynatia Romanoviense
Maria praesens Magna Ductrix, ad quem hereditas Imperii pertinet.
Vladimirus Leninus [Lenin]
Michaël Gorbachevius
Boris Ieltsinus
Haec tabula corrigenda est - this list should be corrected. First, I want to know where the "numbers" of monarchs given in it are taken from, e.g. "Ioannes Terribilis" is generally considered to be "Ioannes IV", not "Ioannes I". Then I wonder, why the Russian monarchs living before Peter the Great are called "Imperator"s. The third question concerns surnames. "Gorbachevius" is an example of quite a disputable way of rendering a surname. Which variant of latinising surname endings is better? Should "-ов" be "-ov" or "-ovius" and "-ин" - "-in" or "-inus"? And I'd better call "Alexander Nevskus" "Alexander Nevanus" (after River Neva)...
After making the necessary corrections, the information from this list of "Homines" can be used for creating, e.g., lists of famous Russians or rulers of Moscovia, Unio Sovietica, etc. (Who can inform me, which is the best Latin variant for general notion "ruler"?) -- Alexander Gerascenco 05:42, 14 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dux, princeps...dux.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:45, 14 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[HOMINES]]

message: My book that teaches Latin gives a list of country names, and for Russia it says "Samartia". What do you think about changing the title? If you guys say yes, I will sign up and begin editing on this wikipedia because then I love to see antique and original names used, but if not, then I guess this belongs on conservapedia.org :) . Gratias maximas. --88.149.120.201 23:18, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would most likely be "Sarmatia". Some sources will recommend either but for geopolitical correctness, we are using Russia. If you look at w:en:Sarmatia, you will see that it extended into Eastern Europe as well and the people may have been of a different genetic make-up. Russia and Ruthenia are encouraged by modern authors because they suit the modern country better - I don't know their coverage by classical authors - but there is nothing wrong with writing on the first line of the article
replies: text: :Russia, seu Rossia, auctoribus classicis Sarmatia (Russice: Россия, Rossija), sive Foederatio Russica vel Rossica (Russice: Российская Федерация, Rossijskaja Federacija) est res publica in Europa et Asia, maxima terra mundi.

text: Sorry if I've been too redneck, Harrissimo 00:26, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: ::The reason why many textbooks suggest names like this is that when you're learning to write Latin it's good to use ancient terms whenever available. It's a bit different when you're writing an encyclopaedia: then you have to reflect that (as Harrissimo says) ancient "Sarmatia" and modern "Russia" are not identical. We need articles on both, therefore. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes I see. It is similar to like having "FYROM" and "Republic of Macedonia". :) So as you see, I signed up (this is that Icelandic IP :)) because I am intensely studying spoken conversational latin, some day I want to have my future children have Latin as a native language and speak it at home, the world's first native latin speaker since the 1600's, haha. So I need to improve it here. And Harrissimo, I didnt take anyhting you said as redneck, and even so, nothing wrong with them. :) Nice people here, :) bunch of nerds like me, I´d fit in perfectly. :) So yah, thanks for helping me understand this better. Gratias maximas! --Girdi 23:11, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Euge! Harrissimo 23:13, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

text: :::Well, I certainly applaud you Girdi, and have the same intentions when/if I ever have children, but sadly, neither of us will be the first... There exist a few "native" speakers of Latin already. I don't have the bookmarks on this computer, but I will provide you with some when I get home. Regards.--Ioscius (disp) 15:49, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

text: :::And, Harri... look at the message I have on the English section of my babel template... what's wrong with rednecks?! =] And yes, Girdi, I'm sure you'll fit in fine. Welcome aboard!--Ioscius (disp) 15:50, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Hello to all, it seems I am a little bit late, but about the name some dictionaries put "Russia" as "Ruthenia", remarking that the name comes from medieval Latin, so, is it Russia, Sarmatia or Ruthenia? PD,  Can you tell me about the "native" speakers of Latin (where do they live?!! Vatican?, but by definition nobody can be born there, :) Herr Thor Hdz
thread_title:  Nomen 

message: Following our naming rules the longer more specific name should be used as the page name: ie. Foederatio Russica.--Rafaelgarcia 21:47, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rule? I would rather we had the shorter better known name and then had the full official one after it (like so):

text: X, plenius Respublica maxima optima X, est civitas...

text: (The above is mirroring what en.wiki does and IMO having shorter lemmata like Russia makes things easier.) Harrissimo 21:57, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: :Yes, which rule? The shorter the better, for headings, I think. It makes it easier to type them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::From Disputatio:Ecclesia Catholica Romana:"Mos Vicipaedianus est primum adhibere nomen plenum et tunc nomen breve, sicut commentarius de Caligula, qui incipit: "Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus Caligula . . . sive Gaius Caesar, dictus Caligula." IacobusAmor 01:45, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)". THere the page name is Caligula but the lemma is the longer name. Admittedly however I cannot find this among our leges.--Rafaelgarcia 11:33, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Apparently we have different impressions as to what the custom is! Therefore, we should probably wait a while before taking action on Foederatio Russica and similar cases, until the "regulars" weigh in. (It could be that we'd want to have one policy for persons and a different one for nonpersons.) Right now in America, we're nearing the end of academic semesters, and final examinations loom, so don't expect everyone's undivided attention here for a few weeks. IacobusAmor 11:49, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Right. Yes, I remember hearing this said before in some form, but only about the names of people (Caligula being an example). Even then, I must admit I never obey it! If starting a biographical article I head it with the person's usual or everyday name (or the Latin form of it), not the fullest possible name ... I don't think I'm the only one.

text: ::::To get back to countries, I think it's maybe useful to Vicipaedia that countries don't usually have an official name in Latin, so we don't have to worry too much about official names in choosing our page headings! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:08, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::For a good example of your method (most commonly used form first, then the amplifications), see Samoa! IacobusAmor 12:19, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page should be moved to [[Foederatio Russica]]

message: Civitas Russica certe longe ante 1991 exsistebat, in formis variis. 
862 aestimatur ut annus 'officialis' creationis "primi civitatis Russicae" - principatus Rurici Novgardiensis, anno 882 in Rutheniam Kioviensem transformatae, ducatus Moscoviae ab annum 1263 continenter exsistebat, gradatim (officiale ab anno 1547) in Regno Russico transformata, Imperium Russicum anno 1721 declarata est (nomen ipse in textibus Latinis iam ante videtur), res publica Russica ab anno 1917 exsistit, eodem anno 'Sovietica' facta, et ab anno 1918 nominata RSFSR, quae ab anno 1922 maxima rerum publicarum Unionis Sovieticae fuit. Anno 1991 Russia (cum aliis civitatibus post-Sovieticis) non condita officiale est, sed, cum declaratione sua de 'soverenitate' anno 1990 accepto, finem Unionis Sovieticae agnoscit,  nomen breve Russicae Sovieticae Foederativae Socialisticae Rei Publicae, i.e. 'Foederatio Russica', ut officiale accipiens. 1991 prius est non civitatis initium, sed periodi novi, 'post-sovietici', in historia Russiae ut civitatis iam exsistentis.
Anno 1998 Duma Publica Foederationis Russicae regnum Russicum, rem publicam Russicam, RSFSR, URSS et Foederationem Russicam participem idem relationum internationalium atque subiectum idem iuris internationalis, exsistentiam incessabilem habentem, officiale declaravit ("...Российское   государство,   Российская республика,  РСФСР,  СССР  и  Российская  Федерация - один и тот же участник  межгосударственных  отношений,  один  и  тот  же  субъект международного   права,   не   прекращавший  своего  существования..." ).
Quia haec pagina non solum de Foederatione Russica post annum 1991 narrat, et problema "anni conditionis" civitatis disputabile est, censeo aut categoriam "Condita 1991" e pagina "Russia" delendam, aut categorias "Condita 862", "Condita 1917" etc. addendas esse.
-- Alexander Geraščenko (disputatio) 14:41, 7 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Adde, igitur, mi Alexander. De Germania usque adhuc scripsi "Condita 1918" et "Condita 1991", sed possumus etiam "Condita 843" addere. Sicut vides, non est certamen antiquitatis. Quando paginas de gubernationes singulas historicas creabimus, hae categoriae e paginis nationis generalibus delendae erunt, quia re vera non de creatione nationis loquuntur -- sed in his rebus usque adhuc pauperi sumus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 7 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Condita 1991?