Re: WHAT calendar for the current year 2012
|From:||R A Brown <ray@...>|
|Date:||Friday, February 1, 2008, 19:30|
Philip Newton wrote:
> 2008/1/31 R A Brown <ray@...>:
>> Cf. Το όρο «Μάττερχορν» εν το Ελβετίο.
>> Φωτογραφίο εκ το Άνδρου Βόσσι.
>> 'Matterhorn' names the mountain and I think should come between the
>> article and the noun; therefore, I would write the first part thus:
>> Το «Μάττερχορν» όρο «Μάττερχορν» το εν Ελβετίο.
> I presume you mean Το «Μάττερχορν» όρο το εν Ελβετίο without the
> second "Matterhorn"?
> Are category-name pairs always in the order article-name-category,
> then? "Mount Foo" is the only example that comes to mind immediately,
The Charles River that flows through Boston, MA
English is not entirely consistent.
> but what about, hmm, Lake Powell? "Το Παύελ λίμνο"? (Hm, what about
> capitalisation - is it "lake Powell" or "Lake Powell"?) "Το Ναιάγρα
Good question. on consulting Goodwin's grammar I find:
"The Greeks commonly said _the Euphrates river_, τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν,
etc. rather than _the river Euphrates_. So sometimes with names of
mountains (rarely with those of cities or islands)."
TAKE was designed as an auxlang in WHAT so I guess JP would want to have
a consistent rule. As for capitalization, as you know the custom is to
use a little capitalization as possible in writing ancient Greek and I
have assumed that things would have developed similarly in WHAT.
Therefore it seems to me that only the name should be capitalized and
not the common noun denoting the category.
So _the Euphrates river_ is the TAKE model, thus:
το «Μάττερχορν» όρο
το Παύελ λίμνο
το Ναιάγρα καταρράκτο
το Ευφράτο ποταμό
>> 1. Το όρο «Μάττερχορν» εν το Ελβετίο.
>> Φωτογραφίο εκ το Άνδρου Βόσσι.[σνιπ]
>> Possibly Josephos Peanou (JP) would have derived the TAKE form of Andrew
>> from Greek (because that's where name comes from), in which case we'd
>> have Ανδρέο
> What's the TAKE policy on "nativising" names?
> My guess was that no alteration is made and that names are simply
> transcribed as well as possible -- much as, for example, we write
> Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikhail Gorbachev, not Edward and Michael.
English is not consistent and has changed (and may change again). Older
history books (up to the 19th cent.) gave kings of France the name
'Lewis', now it's invariably 'Louis'. When I was young, Tchaikovsky's
forename was (almost?) always given as 'Peter', now it's usually given
> Mr Bossi, living in Anglophonia (possible the Enou Basileio, possibly
> the Enou Politeio or elsewhere) as he does and speaking Anglish, would
> presumably have been christened Androu and not Andreas.
Andrew, surely. If we use the 'name given in Baptism/Christening'
argument, it poses some interesting points. Up till Vatican II, those
baptized in the Catholic Church were baptized in Latin with, where
appropriate, the Latin form of the name. My eldest son, e.g. was
baptized 'Justinus', but he is registered, as far as the civil
authorities are concerned, as 'Justin' and he is known as 'Justin' in
the anglophone world.
I suspect that baptisms in Greece will use the Koine forms of names and
not the modern. E.g. Γιάννης will have been baptized as Ἰωάννης.
Also, I suspect a Greek with the name Μιχαήλ would have his name
rendered as 'Michael'; so it seems a little illogical to me that just
because the one or two of the letters are written slightly differently
in Cyrillic we then write it as 'Mikhail'.
As for Mr Shevardnadze, his name is written in Georgian letters. I'm
sure a couple of generations back his forename would have been written
> I suppose things might be different for TAKEists in WHAT who might
> consciously adopt a TAKEised form of their name for use when speaking
> that language (much as, say, an Esperantist *here* might adopt an
> Esperantised form of his name for use within the community), but for
> Joe Average -- who might not even speak TAKE -- it would seem odd to
> me to TAKEise the name.
Yep - but TAKE is an auxlang in WHAT, just like Esperanto *here*. Your
observation about Esperanto is IMO very apposite.
> On the other hand, it's possible that TAKE speakers tend to me more
> "aggressive" at nativising names (if an obvious equivalent can be
> found) than English speakers. (Even English speakers do this with some
> names, e.g. Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Binyamin.)
Quite so - English is far from consistent. But English is a natlang;
there would, of course, be natlangs in WHAT, but TAKE ain't one of them.
> If so, though, I
> wonder whether this applies only to cognate names or whether they'd
> also translate names, thus making e.g. a Πήτερ Μύλλερ from Germania
> into a Πέτρο Μυλώνο
Interesting - practice seems to have varied among clerks of the Middle
Ages. While baptismal names were always written in Latin, surnames seem
sometimes to have been Latinized and at other times not, e.g. 'John
Smith' might be recorded as 'Jo(h)annes Smith' or 'Jo(h)annes Faber.'
(Some enterprising Smiths actually adopted the Latin form :)
I think probably surnames should be left - but that will pose problems
with surnames in the Romancelangs as there are n Romancelangs in WHAT!
OK - TAKE does this:
1. If there is an ancient Greek or Koine Greek version of the name, the
TAKE form is derived from that.
2. Else if the name has some sort of international standing it will be
formed from the native name but 'moderately' Hellenized.
3. Else the native name is used (as far as TAKE phonology & orthography
> (as opposed to the
> nativise-cognates-but-don't-translate form Πέτρο Μύλλερ or the plain
> transcribed form, which isn't necessary in this case since Germania
> uses the Greek alphabet already, but which might be an option e.g. for
> someone from India).
He is indeed Πέτρο Μύλλερ in TAKE.
> Perhaps you could ask JP for clarification on his policy on rendering
> names of non-TAKE-speakers.
There are no L1 TAKE speakers in either universe/timeline - it's an
auxlang like 'Latino sine flexione' *here*.
>> I note in Modern Greek it is Παρίσι which I assume is a demotic form of
>> Katharevousa Παρίσιον. Therefore - assuming that a city with a similar
>> name to Paris existed in the Gaul of WHAT (and that some guy called
>> /ajfEl/ built such a structure there) - the TAKE form will be Παρίσιο.
> I also wondered whether it might be Λουτέτιο, from the Latin name
> Lutetia (the things reading Asterix teachers you...).
In full it was 'Lutetia Parisiorum.' The Roman practice for capital town
of a 'civitas' was to attach the genitive plural of noun denoting the
inhabitants of the civitas. Some older books translate 'civitas' as
'tribe' in this context - but this IMO is misleading. While all the
inhabitants of a civitas might be of the same racial group, this was not
always the case. Some were artificially created by the Romans;
essentially they were units of local government.
I'm assuming that the Hellenic Empire would similarly have used some
such form as Λουτετία τῶν Παρισίων. While generally if a modern place
name is derived (often in part) from a Roman name, it is the actual
toponym that's used and not the genitive of the ethnicon. But 'Paris' is
In Britain 'Durovernum Cantiacorum' is now called 'Canterbury' (<-- Old
English 'Cantwaraburg'). The ancient name 'Durovernum' is lost - only
the 'Cant-' part of the ethnicon remains.
I see no reason why similar things did not happen in WHAT, so I think we
can accept Παρίσιο as the TAKE form.
>> 3. Το πύλο εκ το Βράνδενβουργ εν το Βερλίν εν
>> το Γερμανίο. Φωτογραφίο εκ
>> το Ματίας Ζίγμουνδ.
>> Το εκ Βράνδενβουργ πύλο or perhaps have an adjective derived from
>> Brandenburg, e.g. Το Βρανδενβουργικό πύλο
>> (Assuming there is a Brandenburg Gate in WHAT :-)
>> Assuming that there was a Berlin in WHAT and that it was the capital of
>> Germany, I feel sure JP would think the city worthy of having a
>> Hellinized form of its name,i.e. Βερλίνο
> Modern Greek is Beroλίνο, so perhaps I'd take that one. (And Latin is
> apparently Berolinum, at least according to Wikipedia, which would be
> another point in favour of the medial -o-.)
You're right - Βερολίνο it is.
>> But on checking I find that the ancient name of the place
>> as given by Roman authors was _Barcino_ (gen. Barcinonis) and in Greek
>> authors as Βαρκινών (gen. βαρκινῶνος) in Greek. Knowing JP's fondness
>> for using the ancient forms as the basis for TAKE, I fee sure he would
>> give the name as Βαρκινώνο.
>> (The modern Catalonian/Spanish name shows the normal change of Latin
>> short /i/ to /e/. I assume the -lon- is dissimilation to avoid repeated
>> /n/ in -non-)
> That makes much sense. So, the city's name is essentially "Barcinona"
> [would that be the accusative in Latin?] + sound change?
Nope - the Latin acc. was 'Barcinonem'. If the work had developed
'normally' it would have become 'Barcenón' in Spanish and 'Barcenó' in
The final -a at the end of the modern name is by analogy with other
city/town names; possibly it was added a reinforcement at a time with
final -n after stressed vowels started too be dropped in Catalan.
>> 9. Το Γέφυρο εκ το Πύργο εν το Λόνδον εν το
>> Ένου Βασίλειο. Φωτογραφιο εκ
>> το To have Υ. Χ. Λαν.
>> Tut, tut - Βασίλειο would come from βασίλεια (final short -a) "queen."
>> 'Kingdom' was βασιλεία (final long -a).
> Modern Greek misled me here -- it's βασίλειο. Well, according to my
> dictionary, "Königreich" can be either βασίλειο or βασιλείο, but the
> UK, for example, is Το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο.
Strange - it wont do for TAKE!
>> Presumably Βηάτ /be'at/ is his surname (How's it spelled?)
> Exactly the way you did :) His name is "Michael Beat", which I first
> took for Μαίκλ Βίτ, but who is apparently Swiss so I presumed a
> pronunciation of Μίχαελ Βηάτ.
> "Beat" is a typically Swiss-German male given name (though the
> feminine form "Beate" is also used in Germany), though I suppose in
> WHAT the name would not exist, since as far as I can tell, it's from
> Latin "beatus". I imagine the photographer's WHATish _alter ego_ might
> carry the family name Μακάρ or something like that instead, from the
> common Elvetic male given name of the same form.
Indeed, if 'Beat' is from Latin 'beatus' then it won't exist in WHAT.
> I think I shan't make that change in my calendar, though -- I'll treat
> it as the name of someone from a parallel dimension, where a language
> spoken in a backwards part of Italia took over western Europe and gave
> its roots to some people's names. (Plus that'll make it easier to
> comply with the Attribution clause of the Creative Commons licences of
> the images than if I start "sanitising" names with Romance elements
> that "shouldn't" exist, in which case I would presumably also have to
> add the "standard" version of the name anyway.)
Yep - leave 'Βηάτ' - names are strange things and that Swiss surname
might have another origin ;)
>> I hope these observations have been helpful.
> Indeed; thank you!
Good - BTW I've has second thoughts about Λιμενοκαλίο for 'Portugal.'
I'm inclined to think it would be preferable to assume the ancient name
Λουσιτανία (Lusitania) survived; this would give Λουσιτανίο as the TAKE
Entia non sunt multiplicanda