Disputatio:Guillelmus de Ockham

Did he spell his name with 2 L's?--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:36, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, here's the first page of hits on WorldCat:

Guillelmi de Ockham Opera politica
Philosophia naturalis Guilielmi Occham ... A M.F. Bonaventura Theulo ... in lucem edita.
Guillelmi de Ockham Opera philosophica et theologica. Opera philosophica.
Venerabilis inceptoris Guillelmi de Ockham Summa logicae
Book Venerabilis inceptoris Guillelmi de Ockham Expositio super libros elenchorum
Venerabilis inceptoris Guillelmi de Ockham Expositionis in libros artis logicae prooemium : et, Expositio in librum porphyrii De praedicabilibus
Venerabilis inceptoris Guillelmi de Ockham Quodlibeta septem /
Venerabilis inceptoris Guillelmi de Ockham Quaestiones in librum secundum Sententiarum : reportatio /

It looks like the spelling used here is fairly standard. --Iustinus 02:54, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annus mortis

Anonymus annum mutavit ab 1349 in 1347. Reperio in wikipedia Anglica 1347?; in Francica et Theodisca 9 aprilis 1347; in Encyclopaedia Britannica 1349? Fontes nescio. Igitur scribo 1347 aut 1349. Si quis melius scit, corrige s.t.p. et adde fontem! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occhamus

Why don't we write "Occhamus"? Wikidata has "Nomen nativum: Guilelmus Occhamus", and - though not the most frequent version - it's attested elsewhere ("Occamus" is not in Wikidata, but a bit more common, and "Ochamus" even more). One of these versions would perhaps be the more "classical" way... Sigur (disputatio) 22:29, 22 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~No reason.~~ If we don't have a reliable source for the way he wrote his name, we would usually choose the one that's either most common, or closest in date to him. Wikidata is "not a reliable source", but very handy if it reminded you that a better Latin name was to be found.

When moving, be sure to footnote a good source that uses the form of name you choose.

Hold on, though. I withdraw and retrospectively erase my statement "no reason". A very good reason is found in the Latin titles of recent editions of his work: see the section "Fontes" on the current page. If those titles are used by modern scholars, they, definitely, are reliable sources -- unlike Wikidata. Choosing a name that they knowingly didn't choose would require a good reason. "de Ockham" is a perfectly normal form for medieval Latin, so it could still be the best for us. The proper way, then, might be to edit Wikidata, not to move our page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 23 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

«doctor singularis et venerabilis inceptor Nominalium.»

If we are using European-style, double angle brackets for quotation marks (which itself seems nonstandard for Latin; here on Wikipedia, in all events), I suspect that the period that ends the sentence should be outside, not inside, the closing '»'. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:27, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddcs: There isn't a European standard for quotation marks. The word Salve can be quoted differently depending on the country:

American English: “Salve”
British English: ‘Salve’
German: „Salve“
Italian, French, and I believe all Latin countries: “Salve” if they are scare quotes, but «Salve» if they are direct speech quotes

I believe Latin does not have a standard either, and the quotation mark used depends on the country that publishes the Latin text. From what I saw Vicipaedia uses the American style implicitly (I think is not mentioned explicitly anywhere that we should). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:20, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. In Italian all three quotation marks can be used (‘’, “” and «», with different functions if they appear in the same book). Curiously the encyclopedia Treccani calls ‘’ the English quotation marks, “” the Italian quotation marks, and «» the French quotation marks ([1]). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:32, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grufo

Thank you for that elaboration! But what about my main point, regarding where the concluding period (that ends the sentence) should appear? ;) Toddcs (disputatio) 17:18, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddcs: That also changes from publisher to publisher :-) Even if the punctuation does not belong to the quotation, some will put it inside. For instance, like the first comma in the following example:

“Don't ever,” she said, “come here again!”

I believe however that Vicipaedia does not follow this practice and in our case would put the punctuation outside (I also think that this practice does not apply to the French quotation marks). --Grufo (disputatio) 17:43, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grufo : Right, I know that American usage wants punctuation to go inside a closing quote mark, even when that contravenes all logic. But I thought that European styles are more discerning. // Thanks again. Toddcs (disputatio) 19:29, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddcs: Usually yes, in Europe punctuation goes where it belongs (so inside only if the original quotation contained it). In any case I believe Vicipaedia should write its quotation rules clearly somewhere. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:53, 27 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. I have started a discussion concerning our quotation style at Vicipaedia:Taberna § Quotation marks --Grufo (disputatio) 01:45, 28 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]