Disputatio:Partes Regni Hungariae Transylvaniae annexae

message: Si "Partium" est gen. pl., nonne melius "Partes Regni Hungariae"? Vide Google sub hac locutione. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Forsitan, sed sunt "partes regni Hungariae superiores" (~ Slovacia), "partes regni Hungariae inferiores" (?), "partes regni Hungariae adnexae" (~ Lugos), "partes regni Hungariae applicatae" = Partium? - All the other Vicis have "Partium", and so also the historic map on :de:Partium.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:56, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, the other Wikis do, but they are not the authority on Latin. We are, and we know that "partium" is a genitive plural. Both the maps used at de:wiki, the complex one giving "Partium Regni Hungariae" and the simple one giving "Partium Regni Hungaria", were made by Wikipedians: we cannot take them as reliable. (One of them seems old, but it is "own work" of 2010 by a Wikipedian: you can see that the fonts used are modern.)

text: :If I search for "Partes Regni Hungariae" on Google I find (a 2012 book) Regnum Hungariae, territorially referred either to Hungary proper (like in partes regni Hungariae); also (an abstract of a dissertation) Urkunden zur Rumänischen Unierten (Griechisch-Katholischen) Kirche aus Siebenbürgen (und den Partes Regni Hungariae) im 17.-19. Jhdt. Do these not help?

text: :I don't think any other of our 93,000 pages is headed by a word in the genitive plural. The nearest parallel place name I can think of is "Amazonum flumen", but there we do not call it "Amazonum", we add the nominative noun on which the genitive depends.

text: :The Latin phrase that we have attested on the existing page is "princeps [Transsilvaniae et] partium Regni Hungariae", proving -- if we needed to prove it -- that this is a genitive. Can we find any other Latin texts in which this phrase is used? They might suggest a noun on which the genitive could depend. Otherwise I think we really ought to say "Partes Regni Hungariae". Does anyone else want to comment? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:22, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::There ist a book called "Approbatae Constitutiones Regni Transylvaniae et Partium Hungariae eidem annexarum" (1653), a collection of Transylvanian laws (Hungarian / Latin mixed). The point is: These aren't just "partes regni Hungariae" (of which there are several), but "partes .... Transylvaniae annexae"! If we decide to change the title: Maybe we should substitute "Partium" for "Partes Regni Hungariae Transylvaniae annexae"?--Utilo (disputatio) 09:45, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, that's fine. I recognise that "Partes Regni Hungariae" is vague and is used in other senses too. I believe the phrase that you have now found will solve the problem.

text: :::Of course we would retain a redirect from "Partium", because it's clear that many people believe this is a proper name in itself. Is that OK, then?

text: :::I find this very interesting, because I never previously encountered a general name for these regions (now mainly belonging to Romania) that surround Transylvania on the east and north. This page of yours, which I had not read before, gives us a historical name for exactly those regions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::O.k. Then I'll change the name and revise the page as far as necessary.--Utilo (disputatio) 10:02, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus