Disputatio:Cechia

Vicipaedia 2 paginas de terra illa habet: Tzekia et Res Publica Cecha? Quale nomen adoptare debemus? Possibile, nomen potium est Cechia sive Czechia? --Alexander Gerascenco 15:55, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzekia appears to be based off of Egger's Tzechoslovakia, Cecha is coined with the Italian-style "Church" pronunciation in mind. I really dislike Egger's overuse of Tz and k, but his book has such authority among Neo-Latinists that I would recomend we go with Tzechia. --Iustinus 19:51, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Won't it be useful to make a clear distinction between the two digraphs: "cz" and "tz", so that one of them would always stand for the sound denoted by "c" (before "e", "i", "y") - in Italian, "cz" - in Polish, "ch" in English, "tsch" - in German and the other for the sound denoted by "ts" - in English, "z" - in German, "c" - in Polish and, before "e", "i", "y", in the traditional variant of Latin pronunciation I was taught at the university. Should we write "Tzar" and "Czechia" (as I would prefer) or "Czar" and "Tzechia"? -- Alexander Gerascenco 16:46, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia mihi melius sonat. Cuchar 21:21, 3 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi etiam! -- Alexander Gerascenco 07:07, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cz" appears nowhere in the Latin-Czech dictionary (as well as "tz" or "k"). There is no reason for writing "z" after "c", because "e" follows. I think that the best forms are "Cechia" and "Res publica Cecha". Write more opinions so we could correct everything. Petr C. 08:25, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "c" before "i", "e", "y" is read according to Italian rules, i.e. like English "ch", only according to the Church pronunciation, which is not followed by everyone. Personally I was taught to read "c" as "ts" in such positions, and the reconstructed classical pronunciation prescribes reading "c" always as "k". So, "Cechia" could be read as "Tsekhia" or even "Kekia"...

"Cz" and "tz" can be used in Latin transliterations of foreign words (esp. proper names) (see, e.g., Graesse. Orbis Latinus, Hofmann. Lexicon Universale, Herberstein. Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, etc.). The problem is their interchangeability (that I'd love to put an end to)...

The Russian-Latin dictionary that I have offers such variant of the country name as "Tsec(h)ia"... -- Alexander Gerascenco 05:04, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem of latin in the modern world - each nation uses its own pronounciation rules. I am taught that "c" before "i", "e", "y", "ae", "oe" is pronounced as "tz" (rules used in the Czech Republic - medieval latin). Example - "Cicero":

Medieval latin [tzitzero] - in Slavic languages c, ц
Germany [kikero]
Italy [tchitchero] - in Slavic languages cz, č, ч
France [sisero]
United kingdom [siserou]

In this angle of view it's really hard to say which form describing the Czech land is correct. Latin came to Bohemia in medieval ages, but "Tzekia" appeared for the first time in history at the beginning of the 20-th century as a part of "Tzekoslovakia" (latin had already been "dead" language). That's why the medieval latin seems to be the best for me. I understand, that "big" nations would like to use their form of latin everywhere, but Tzekia is already being used in many other Vicipaedia articles, so this form seems to be a good compromise. Petr C. 10:26, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tzekia", never "Tzechia"? -- Alexander Gerascenco 12:44, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the poor quality of much of the Latin here, I would not think referring to widespread use of a word here to be any kind of argument for its use. Errors go unchecked and tend to multiply... —Myces Tiberinus 03:08, 31 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quin Bohemia? Bohemia enim non est diffilicis scriptu. Scio quidem hanc regionem non eosdem terminos habuisse ac Tsecia hodierna, sed tamen paene eandem regionem significat. Et - exempli gratia - etiam nomine Italiae utimur quamvis Italia hodierna maior sit quam Italia Romanorum temporis. usor:Bohmhammel 20.31 (UTC) pridie Nonas Martias 2006

Ego quoque Bohemia malo. Also, when it comes to spelling sounds that can't be unproblematically spelled in Latin (such as the 'ch') I would be inclined to use the original/native orthography if possible (thus, from Česko, either Cech- or perhaps Čech-—or do the Czechs have a standard method of reducing diacriticked letters to plain ones?). That said, Hofmann does write Czechus at least once. "-kia" doesn't seem to be supported at all. —Myces Tiberinus 03:08, 31 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should append that the usual treatment I have run aross is that the sounds are spelled according to the underlying native language of the Latinist (so as an English-speaker I might prefer 'Czechia', the English form)—but in a place like this that's somewhat infeasible. —Myces Tiberinus 13:43, 31 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Res Publica Bohemica etc. etc. etc.

Georgius omnibus, qui hanc disputationem participant, salutem. Hodie denique quaestionem de nomine Rei Publicae Bohemicae (sive Tzekae, ut nonnulli dicunt) ad viros feminasque doctos, qui studiis in universitatibus studiorum Bohemicis (sive, sit venia verbo, Tzekicis) operam dant, cursu electronico detuli; equidem nullus dubito, quin duas paginas de eadem re publica habere supervacaneum sit; itaque exspectemus paulisper. --Georgius Laminarius 07:47, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Vicipaedia Latina iam sunt paginae lingua Bohemica et Bohemoslovacia. Possibile, haec pagina etiam renominanda est "Bohemia" (et pagina, nunc Bohemia nominatur, facienda est "Bohemia (terra)")?

P.S. Václav Klaus -> Venceslaus Klaus (fons: Percontatio Venceslai Klaus, praesidentis Bohemiae [1])

-- Alexander Gerascenco 06:14, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sodalis optime, gratias tibi pro interrogatione tua ago; nunc equidem nomen Rei Publicae Bohemicae mihi perplacet (quin etiam in usu diutissime est); nondum autem unum nomen, quo patria mea appelletur, proponere velim, quamvis opinionem meam habeam. Primum res in sessionibus nostris universitariis et in scholis Circuli Latini Prageni tractanda et penitus perscrutanda erit. Deinde omnia, si necesse erit, mutanda nobis erunt. Sed, quod ad vocem Tzekiae exit, parum Latina esse mihi videtur. --Georgius Laminarius 13:11, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adhuc Tzekia - mox Res Publica Bohemica

Nonnullos Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis professores adii, ut sententiam suam de nomine rei publicae, quae ex Bohemia, Moravia, parte Silesiae constat, aperirent; opusculum de hac re proculdubio exarandum nimis longum temporis spatium postulat et bene compertum est lexica Latina (index eorum apud lingua Bohemica operaque in Academia scientiarum Bohemica edita nomen Rei Publicae Bohemicae continere. Intra ergo quattuordecim dies, sodales egregii, huic paginae nomen Rei Publicae Bohemicae impositurus sum. Unum autem nomen terrarum Bohemicarum variis ex causis perdifficile inveniri potest - nondum enim consensus inter incolas Bohemiae, Moraviae, Silesiae exstat. --Georgius Laminarius 16:41, 12 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemomoravia

Sorry, but to call Czechia by a name derived from Bohemia is the same nonsense as to say Brandenburgum instead of Germania. You can't call the whole country by a part of it. Czechia consists not only of Bohemia, but also of Moravia. So what about Bohemomoravia? --212.158.134.242 17:26, 2 Septembris 2007 (UTC) Gabriel Svoboda[reply]

The current article title is really terrible. You call Tzilia by its Neolatin name, not by a name of one of its regions. You even accept Tzadia although this country does have a classical Latin name (Garamantia). But my homeland must has to be called wrongly (just as Anglia would be an incorrect name for Regnum Unitum, or Russia for Unio Sovietica) only because somebody doesn't lïke its Neolatin name: Tzekia. (Well, at the best I'd prefer Tzechia instead of Tzekia, unless you want to write also psykologia, kamaeleo etc.) But Bohemia or any of its derivatives is definitely wrong because it doesn't cover the whole country. --Gabriel Svoboda 14:52, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're proposing to move to Tzechia or Tzekia, Gabriel, I agree with you. (Bohemomoravia is also OK, I guess, but clumsy.) But let's wait and see what one or two others think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Tzadia was to be called Garamantia (which is by no means really modern Chad) then all this would be pointless, for the Classical name for Bohemia is Boiohaemum--Xaverius 17:10, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the /tʃ/ of chocolate is to be transcribed as Latin "s" (as apparently it is), why isn't the /tʃ/ of Czechia also to be transcribed as "s," making the country Sechia? (Not to mention Sile for Tzile and Sadia for Tzadia.) Here's a general principle: proposed transcriptional irregularities must be defensible on grounds of prior usage; and if they can't be, then transcriptions should be created on the basis of previously established phonetic regularities. IacobusAmor 20:40, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off the topic of Czechs, but Nuntii Latini latinised Chechnya as "Tzetznia"! On the topic, they also follow suit later with Tzekia itself. Both of these stories were written by Pekkanen. Harrissimo 22:28, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe we should actually see all the options? I presume we're keeping Respublica at the beginning, so here are some adjectives:

Bohemica (most common across the board, used by Helfer, Ducrue and a Czech themself as sources)
Tzecha (Egger and Pekkanen, looks bad, not a good transcription, not classical)
Cecha (Also Egger, not classical, but like Cechia - very similar to the Czech name and )
Tzek(ic)a (Pekkanen)
Ceca (From Levine's Cecoslovachia)
Bohemomoravia (ficta, but look at this (quite interesting) )

But which is both P.C. and well-made? Harrissimo 22:28, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Forms that spell /tʃe/ as "ce" are unacceptable to those who pronounce Latin in the reconstructed classical manner, for whom Cecha must be pronounced /kekha/. Forms that use /z/ as if it were merely /s/ are likewise nonclassical, since "z" is classically a long consonant, consisting of /d/ + /z/, so Tzecha might become almost a trisyllable: tdz-e-cha. The spelling that may dissatisfy the least is "ts," and it may lead to Tsechia. IacobusAmor 00:09, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The /dz/ is part of the Italian style, I think. Allen's Vox Latina, citing Velius Longus, firmly places the classical Latin value of z at /zz/—still a double consonant, but just a long one, not an affricate of any kind; and, of course, in classical Greek times the zeta was /zd/. The origin of this practice of using tz for /tʃ/ could certainly use some looking into, though; presumably it has some basis backing its relative popularity, which should probably be discovered before some unknown baby is thrown out with the bathwater. —Mucius Tever 03:19, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Allen remarks (boldface added): "Before the adoption of the foreign sound and letter, the Greek ζ had been rendered by its nearest Latin equivalent, viz. by the voiceless s initially and ss medially" (p. 46). ¶ Regarding why European observers used "tz" to transcribe a certain sound in American Indian words (see Vitzliputzli): perhaps those writers heard no difference between "s" and "z" and therefore conceived "ts" and "tz" to be the same sound. Maybe "tz" looked more familiar to them than "ts" would have. IacobusAmor 04:45, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is no need to keep Res publica at the beginning, Latin names of most other republics in the world do fine without it.

Some aspects of the problem are described [2]. As you can read there among others, Bohemia or Res publica Bohemica is definitely wrong; but as far as all other alternatives are concerned, none of them is probably clearly better than all others.

* No alternative offers the original initial sound of the name as Latin just doesn't have it. So, Cechia (from Italian pronunciation) is not more wrong than Tzekia (tz in this function dates back to the 6th century AD [3]), Tsechia (from modern Greek Τσεχία), Czechia (from old Czech, current Polish and from these two also English spelling) or even Sechia.

* For the second consonant sound, ch (_echia) is both traditional and reflects the original pronunciation best - but if Neolatin dislikes it, k or c (_ekia, _ecia) would not be an essential mistake either. --Gabriel Svoboda 09:30, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia, please

"Tzekia" sounds like tzatziki and looks really odd. Czech Humanists writing in Latin sometimes did use "Czechia" or "regnum Czechicum" (when speaking about all lands of Czech kingdom - which could be fitting also for today's situation (Moravia and piece of Silesia), so it is not a new word, as suggested. Concerning "res publica" I would prefer "Res publica Bohemorum".

How to represent in Latin the sound of IPA [tʃ] is a current topic of discussion on my talkpage. Of course if attestations exist, Vicipaedia should recognize them—though IMHO that doesn't mean that Vicipedia should necessarily give them preference in listing the order of alternatives in a lemma. In classical pronunciation, cz comes out as [kzz]] (z is long), a strange sound. IacobusAmor 16:47, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Vatican pronunciation, as being that of a living official language, should always be regarded as normative, whatever local idiosyncracies contributors prefer. According to that [tʃ] is easily represented by 'c' followed by 'i' or 'e'. 'Cechia' would be most appropriate - but what name does the Vatican actually use for the modern state?82.36.94.228 09:20, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone in Czechia - both secular and ecclesiastic Latinists - use the Slavic pronunciation, according to which Cechia is /tsexia/. There is nothing like "the only correct" or "the official" pronunciation of Latin: throughout history, Latin has been used by many more people than just by ancient Romans or by Italian(ised) clergy, ergo neither the formers' nor the latters' pronunciation should prevail. Latin is a language with many pronunciations, try to cope with it, please.
Nevertheles, the traditional Latin pronunciation of that area has no /tʃ/ sound, and its Latinizations in local names vary from case to case: Čáslav became Czaslavia /kzaslavija/, Děčín (German Tetschen) became Dasena /dazena/, Jičín became Gicinum /gitsinum/, and many other proposals on the transliteration of /tʃ/ exist. I don't think we can find any solution that will satisfy everybody. We just have to pick one of the possibilities and stick on it. In this case, most common is Tzechia, and I have no problems with it, just like I'd not be against any other solution, for example Cechia. (But the ch should never be replaced with k, as I have explained it earlier in this discussion.)
The current article title tries to avoid the decision, but the result is worse than what it tries to avoid: Czechia is neither Bohemia nor any derivative of it. Yes, I am sure you will find many sources where Czechia is called Bohemia; but likewise, you will find many sources where Nederlandia is called Hollandia, or where Britanniae are called Anglia, yet Wikipedia doesn't copy such mistakes even if they are common.
The recently created categories Incolae civitatis X have invented another possible solution: we have [Categoria:Incolae Bohemiae et Moraviae]. Bohemia et Moravia, I guess, is also the solution used by the Vatican, because Czechia is divided into just two ecclesiastic provinces: Bohemian and Moravian. --Gabriel Svoboda 12:58, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I suggested that Latin should only be pronounced in one way - it never was, as you rightly say -or gave the impression that I couldn't cope with variety. I merely suggested that Vatican Latin, as the most widely used form, might be thought of as a kind of RP! 82.36.94.228 13:38, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of us who come to Vicipaedia from outside the Vatican regard the reconstructed pronunciation of the time of Augustus (more or less) to be the aptest one for modern pronunciation—which is why "Czechia" begs to be pronounced [kzzeχia]. IacobusAmor 14:26, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, I apologize to 82.36.94.228 for not assuming good faith. Actually, I'd like to know which variety is most common, do we have any statistical data (such as a ballot on Pagina prima :-) )? Anyway, IacobusAmor's response indicates my point - the only agreement Latinists can reach about pronunciation (hence about transcription of foreign sounds) is that there is no agreement. The reconstructed pronunciation has no /tʃ/ sound, it can only try to invent some substitute - and in this respect, cz /kz/ is not more wrong than ts /ts/, tz /tz/ or c /k/. --Gabriel Svoboda 14:52, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...Iacobe, I must take issue on two points. 1st "Most of us". Really? I am not a resident of the Vatican and I am an Anglican. Tergum violinae 20:43, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. :) IacobusAmor 21:51, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among people who actually use Latin much (rather than attempt to teach it to schoolchildren) this tends to be in the realm of church music where 20c Vatican pronunciation holds sway - rightly or wrongly. Tergum violinae 20:43, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly in a small part of Europe. Modern French-, German-, and Spanish-influenced areas may differ, as may the "historical performance" of Latin works by English, French, German, and other non-Italian composers of more than a couple of centuries ago. IacobusAmor 21:51, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the current Vatican form was standardised at the beginning of the 20th century to facilitate interintelligibilty - which is surely not a bad thing. It doen't affet a small part of Europe. Yes, there is a trend in some esoteric places for "historical reconstructions" with Byrd's works sung according to ye olde Englyshe Latin pronunciation, whic is all very interesting for people who like that sort of thing - along with real ale, one would guess - but the only occasion most folks experience Latin which is not written on a page is hearing choral music or seeing the pope on telly.Tergum violinae 22:02, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd"Reconstructed Augustan Latin". Again, really? Do you make sure that you always drop final "m"s except in monosyllables as well? And never, ever, pronounce the letter 'h'? The evidence is rather strong that even by the time of Augustus some modification of 'c' before 'i' and 'e' had already begun and that 'ae' and 'oe' had ceased to be diphthongs. Tergum violinae 20:43, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to W. Sidney Allen's book (p. 60), ae as a diphthong is attested by Quintilian (first century) and Terentius Scaurus (second century), and by later borrowings, including that of Caesar into Old High German (whence it became the modern Kaiser, not *Kehser) and praedium into Welsh as praidd. One doesn't really quite "drop" the ems. Allen says there's no evidence of the "softening' of c before e and i "before the fifth century A.D.; and even today the word for '100' is pronounced kentu in the Logudoro dialect of Sardinia" (p. 15). IacobusAmor 21:51, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia and Tzekia just don't look like any kind of Latin. Cechia could be pronounced 'Kekia', 'Tsekia' or 'Tshekia' depending on how you pronounce your Latin. All would be perfectly acceptable, because the word would at least LOOK like Latin! Tergum violinae 20:43, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the CZ in Czechia looks weird, but surely our familiarity with name of the Greek scholar Ιωάννης Τζέτζης (Ioannes Tzetzes) makes the TZ of Tzekia look unsurprising. IacobusAmor 21:51, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, out of the correct alternatives proposed (Cechia, Czechia, Tsechia, Tzechia), only Cechia contains syllables commonly found in lots of Latin words; all others have some more or less unpleasant consonant cluster. As for Ioannes Tzetzes, he seems to have been of Georgian origin; unfortunately, I didn't manage to Google the original Georgian name, it would be interesting to know whether it was /tʃetʃes/, /tsetses/ or something else. Greek el:τζατζίκι (tzatzici), by the way, comes from Turkish cacık /dʒadʒik/. Nevertheless, modern Greeks transliterate /tʃ/ as ts (which we often adopt from them, for example here): el:Τσεχία (Tsechia), el:Τσετσενία (Tsetsenia), el:Τσελιάμπινσκ (Tseliampinsc), el:Καμτσάτκα (Camtsatca), el:Τσουκότκα (Tsucotca). Do we turn all these into Cechia, Cecenia, Celiabinsc(um), Camciatca, Ciucotca? I'd be happy to do so, but perhaps we still need something like cz/ts/tz for cases when /tʃ/ is not followed by a vowel and c would therefore be /k/ in all pronunciations, such as el:Σλόμπονταν Μιλόσεβιτς (Milosebits). --Gabriel Svoboda 10:53, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latin language is just o hobby for me (although I would welcome its introduction as an international auxiliary language...) but I happen to come from the Czech republic, so this concerns me a little bit... In my opinion, the variant "Czechia" is the best one no matter which pronunciation one is to choose. If we consider the classical restituted variant, it indeed looks weird (is if it were pronounced /kzekxia/ ) which in my opinion is not wrong. Just the opposit! It looks so weird it just can't be pronounced in the classical way ad therefore it is clearly a digraph denoting a non-latin sound (namely /tʃ/). Moreover it is used not only in English and Polish, but it was the ancient variant of Czech orthography before the introduction of the diacritical marks. Of course, this calls for a greater consistency, so one variant should be used fot translitteration of all words. Another possibility is the introduction of diacritics (universal, of course), so it would be "Čechia"... which is kinda weird...

No consensus

Just for curiosity, I tried to count how many participants in this discussion have expressed some kind of preference towards each alternative. (I didn't concentrate on technical details, for example Tzechia stands also for Tzekia, and Bohemia stands also for Res publica Bohemica.)

Cechia (5) - 82.36.94.228, Alexander Gerascenco, Gabriel Svoboda, Petr C., Tergum violinae
Bohemia (4) - Alexander Gerascenco, anonymous founder of Czechia, please, Bohmhammel, Georgius Laminarius
Czechia (4) - Alexander Gerascenco, anonymous founder of Czechia, please, Cuchar, Gabriel Svoboda
Tzechia (4) - Andrew Dalby, Gabriel Svoboda, Iustinus, Petr C.
Sechia (2) - Gabriel Svoboda, IacobusAmor
Tsechia (2) - Gabriel Svoboda, IacobusAmor
Bohemomoravia (1) - Gabriel Svoboda

I interpret the hypothetical result as no consensus. The *echia alternatives seem to be more popular than the current article title, but its four or five internal variants make it impossible to win over single Bohemia. (Or maybe the supporters of Bohemia are just satisfied with the current title and remain silent.) Never mind, this discussion has been founded three years ago, so in 2012 we may arrive to an agreement. :-) --Gabriel Svoboda 11:47, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the standard of some wiki discussions, that's optimistic!! I have meanwhile been using ... Bohemiae et Moraviae as a circumlocution when creating categories. It isn't neat, but it's uncontroversial I hope, till a better answer is agreed on. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:55, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for categories containing people, ... Bohemiae et Moraviae is optimal and should probably remain even if this article is once moved, because it is a purely geographic, nationalistically neutral name. Till 1945, Bohemia and Moravia were no more Czech than they were German, so with the current category titles we don't pretend that the Bohemian Franciscus Kafka and the Moravian Sigismundus Freud were Czechs. (I know, these categories are meant geographically rather than ethnically, but still ...) --Gabriel Svoboda 21:06, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good! Latin names are handy sometimes ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 21 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican has "Respublica Cecha". I think we should run with that. Fons: publicationes Vaticanae fons linguae Latinae vitalis Tergum violinae 22:15, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etiam pro Cechia fontem Vaticanum habemus. Res publica usually penetrates a geographical name only to distinguish two Chinas, Dominicas, Germanies, Irelands, Koreas, Macedonias, or Serbias, which is not the Czechia's need. Otherwise of course I agree: we already know Cechia is supported by Egger+Levine+Vatican, can any other trio of Latin authorities beat this one? --Gabriel Svoboda 17:21, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their spelling is most pertinent within the context of Ecclesiastical Latin. Readers/speakers of a more classically oriented Latin will pronounce Cechia something like [kekia] or [kekhia]. Presumably that's OK with the Cechii (the [kekii])? IacobusAmor 17:35, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the version found in a living official state language. I can't think that the "kekians" would be any more irritated than the "tsekians"!Tergum violinae 20:28, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much other Cechi (themselves pronouncing it /tsexi/ in their Latin) would be irritated by the classical pronunciation, but they would recognise Cechia at least visually. Although there is no official method of reducing letters with diacritics to plain ones, the de facto Czech standard (used in the 1990s Internet etc.) says that any diacritical mark is just removed: Čechia --> Cechia. --Gabriel Svoboda 18:33, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in world's languages

I tried to analyse how the initial sound of this country name was reflected in various languages. I based my analysis on Latin-alphabet languages from [4] and their number of native speakers given by Wikipedia.

ch — about 480 million people, most notably Spanish Chequia. Ch would make no sense in Latin, beause h in Latin doesn't serve as a general modifier, but a specific one. It either marks aspiration, especially in words of Greek origin (psychologia, cholera), or prevents palatalisation of c in foreign words adopted in the Italian way (Slovachia, Chirgisia). Neither nor makes sense for Czechia, /tʃ/ is a palatalised /k/ (ergo the palatalisation should not be prevented, we would actually welcome it), not an aspirated /k/ (ergo no aspiration should be marked). Moreover, it would be extremely confusing to write Chechia, because the same digraph would reflect two different sounds.
cz — about 460 million people, most notably English Czechia and Polish Republika Czeska. Cz was a common placeholder for /tʃ/ in medieval orthographies of Slavic languages until Ioannes Hus invented č. Nevertheless, this digraph remained to be used in Polish, and it managed to enter English and some other languages via it.
tch — about 280 million people, most notably (Brazilian) Portuguese Tchéquia and French Tchéquie. Here /tʃ/ is interpreted as /t/+/ʃ/, with /ʃ/ written as common in these languages.
c — about 210 million people, most notably Javanese Republik Céko, Italian Cechia, Romanian Cehia and Indonesian Ceko. In Javanese and Indonesian c means /tʃ/ always, in Italian/Romanian c before e/i comes from palatalised /k/.
tsch — about 110 million people, most notably German Tschechien. Again /t/+/ʃ/.
s — about 80 million people, most notably Vietnamese Cộng hòa Séc. Vietnamese has two /tʃ/-like sounds (tr /ʈʂ~ʈ/, ch /c~tɕ/), yet for some reason it chose s /ʂ/.
tsj — about 31 million people, most notably Dutch Tsjechië and Afrikaans Tsjeggië. The /tʃ/ again is analysed as t /t/+ sj /ʃ/, where sj /ʃ/ probably comes from s + softening represented by j.
ts — about 31 million people, most notably Malagasy Repoblika Tseky and Tagalog Republika ng Tsek. Tagalog phonology is quite similar to the Greek (which also uses ts) or Latin one, it has no sounds like /ʃ/ or /tʃ/.
tj — about 23 million people, most notably Swedish Tjeckien, Danish Tjekkiet and Afrikaans Tsjeggië. Here /tʃ/ is perceived as a palatalised t.
cs — about 15 million people, Hungarian Csehország. This traditional Hungarian digraph can be analysed as c /ts/ + s /ʃ/.
tx — about 10 million people, most notably Catalan Txèquia. Again /t/+/ʃ/.
tsh — about 6 million people, Finnish Tshekki (standard orthography: Tšekki). Again /t/+/ʃ/.
x (Tetum), t (Icelandic, Maori), k (Faroese), ...
ç, č, tš, ċ, ... (about 160 million people use diacritics)

To sum up, the most common options are ch (480 mil.), cz (460 mil.), variants of /t/+/ʃ/ (420 mil.), c (210 mil.). I don't think the result solves anything, but it may serve as some basis for the future discussion. --Gabriel Svoboda 19:55, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solutio finalis quaestionis Cechicae

Propono hanc paginam ad Cechia moveri. Qua de causa? Ecce quod Google Books dicunt:

Czechiae — 105 proventus
Cechiae — 63 proventus
Tzechiae etc. minus quam decem proventus habet

{Googlem Books vice Googlem ipsam usus sum, quia explorationis proventus in Google ipsa multis linguis non-Latinis atque interrete recente (includens Vicipaedia) deformantur.}
Czechia victor clarus esse videtur. Non debemus autem oblivisci Czechiam partem Czechoslovakiae septuaginta annis fuisse, cuius nomen etiam considerandum est. Si ambo nomina separatim tractaremus, e.g. Czechiam praeter Cechoslovakiam habere potessemus, quod incongruens esset. Ecce Google Books iterim:

Cechoslovakiae — 328 proventus
Cecoslovachiae — 40 proventus
Czechoslovakiae — 38 proventus
Cechoslovachiae — 25 proventus
Cechoslovaciae — 17 proventus
nomina alia minus quam decem proventus habent

Computemus:

Cechia + Cechoslovakia + Cecoslovachia + Cechoslovachia + Cechoslovacia = 63 + 328 + 40 + 25 + 17 = 473 proventus
Czechia + Czechoslovakia = 105 + 38 = 143 proventus

Ergo paginam ad Cechia moturus sum. Gabriel Svoboda 10:33, 2 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sed Cechia enuntianda est /kekhia/. Confer Chilia, Tsilia, etc.? IacobusAmor 14:28, 2 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vero Tsechia, Tzechia vel quin Sechia phonologie classicae melius (non autem accurate) congruunt. Sed hae optiones fere non usurpantur extra Vicipaediam et paucos Latine loquentes recentes (Egger, Pekkanen): Tzechiae duo proventus, Tzekiae unus proventus, Tsechiae nullus proventus etc. Ergo duae optiones solae manent: Cechia /kekhia/ et Czechia /kzzekhia/. Puto /k/ melius quam /kzz/ esse ...
Chilia a nomine Hispanico Chile oritur; hoc modo Čechiam a Česko haberemus. Nonnuli vero hoc nomen utebantur (e.g. Flora Čechica), tamen credo nos diacritica potius effugere. Gabriel Svoboda 15:19, 2 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistula in "Cechoslovaciam" quae dicitur

Georgius A. Laminarius amicis in Vicipaedia salutem dicit.

Diuturni silentii, amici, quo eram his temporibus usus - non ignavia quadam, sed partim studiis, partim negotiis distractus - finem hodiernus diem attulit; itaque, etsi omnes Latinitatis fautores vel maximi aestimo, non possum quin vobis huius paginae, quam condidi, mutationem qua nomen vere Latinum atque usu rei publicae ipsius probatum, ideo usurpandum pessum dedistis, obiciam velut peccatum in Latinitatem vivam commissum. Non nego multos esse hoc in situ viros doctissimos, nihilominus de vocabulis locutionibusque vere Latinis non puto esse suffragia ferenda; nam Latinitas pura et emendata, quam nos omnes iam inde ab initio studiorum sumus secuti, numquam arbitrio vulgi fuit moderanda; isto enim nomine nullam iam esse Latinitatis, quae vinculum inter nos et veteres esse debet, nullam, inquam, Latinitatis esse utilitatem existimarem. Quod sane non sibi vult me velle omnia inter nos amicitiae Latinae vincula diluere, nihilominus hoc nobis omnibus deliberandum censeo quorsum studia nostra dirigi oporteat. At fortasse res non tanti sit momenti, ergo pergamus, amici, eo nomine uti quod unicuique nostrum melius confectum esse videatur:). Valeatis quam optime.--Georgius A. Laminarius 08:53, 28 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dedi ex Urbe a.d. V Kal. Nov., i. e. die festo liberae Bohemoslovaciae dicato, a. MMIX a partu Virginis

Salve! Ego etiam longo tempore de patriae nostrae nomine cogitabam et dubitabam. Partim tecum consentio — lingua Latina vinculum inter nos et veteres sit. Tamen censeo nullum vinculum fingendum esse, ubi nullum est — ut veteres illi non confundantur. Et credo nullum vinculum inter Regnum Bohemiae (ante annum 1918) et Rem publicam Cechoslovacam vel Cecham (post annum 1918) esse. Bohemia erat modo una quinque terrarum Cechoslovaciae estque modo una trium terrarum Cechiae. Si Cechoslovaciae vel Cechiae ulla lingua maior nomen "Bohemia" vel simile daret, fortasse in lingua Latina idem facere possemus (exempli gratia civitas hodierna Hispania sicut provincia Romana antiqua appellatur, etsi fines incolaeque eius non iidem sunt). Ita autem non est, linguae Anglica, Francogallica, Theodisca, Hispanica, Italica, Russica etc. omnes Bohemiam et Cechiam clare dignoscunt. Ergo, mea sententia, valet Cechiam civitatem novam esse, medii aevi nomen capere non potentem. Vox "Cechia" in usu est, non est ficta, et mihi prorsus barbarica non videtur — et "ce" et "chia" syllabae sunt classicae, ad enuntiandum faciles. Fortasse nomine "Res publica Bohemica" utentes honoris maioris sunt, hoc autem nomen nimis Bohemiae simile est, et in encyclopaedia subtilitas claritasque postulatur. Scio te Georgi huius paginae nomen optima fide elegisse et tibi gratias plurimas ago pro hac pagina condenda amplificandaque. Amabo te, hac controversia ne deterrearis. Vale! Gabriel Svoboda 20:50, 28 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgius Gabrieli, mirabili iurisprudentiae studioso, s.p.d.

Litteras quas tam emendate tamque pulchre necnon sine suavitate conscripseras, litteras, inquam, tuas mecum per hunc situm retialem communicatas valde sum miratus, tibique gratulor qui ad tantum perveneris Latinitatis gradum ut satis puro utaris sermone atque integro; praeterea hoc etiam mirandum censeo nos in eadem urbe vitam agere nec, nisi me animus fallit, adhuc inter nos commercium institutum esse quod cum nobis ipsis esset proculdubio suave, tum etiam ad utilitatem quoque communem aliquid afferret emolumenti; nam si volueris, nobiscum qui Latinitatem in Bohemis promovere studemus, vires iungere poteris vel saltem interdum convenire (hoc tempore ipso sessio celebratur Circuli Latini Prageni) necnon plura efficere. Quid censes?

Nunc vero revertar unde deflexi. Argumenta igitur tua etsi ea plane intellego nec dubito quin omnia curiose ac diligenter perpendere, certe rei ipsi prodesse summa ope conatus es, non puto tam esse solida ut mutationem, quam proposuisti, firment neque iis adeo mihi persuasisti ut istis nominibus utar latissime divulgatis; quae etsi a plurimis usurpantur, nequaquam tamen cum Latini sermonis ipsiusque terrae indole videntur mihi congruere; nam, nisi fallor, ipsa res publica voce usa est Bohemoslovaciae, numquam vero Cecho-, Tzeko-, Tseko-, Czecho-slovaciae; quae voces etiam admodum dubitatur quonam modo sint ore proferendae.

Attamen, ut recte admonuisti, probe scio iam humanistas de uno ipsius Coronae Bohemicae nomine valde incertos fuisse, nonnullos nomen Czechiae adhibuisse, plurimos variis modis vitavisse quominus omnes Coronae Bohemicae terras una vocarent voce; neque umquam dubitavi quin item Res publica Bohemica non ex nihilo orta esset, sed potius earum terrarum esset heredem quibus rex quondam Bohemiae praefuerat. At disputationem hanc intricatiorem esse duco quam ut hic tractari possit tota. Hoc tantum dico: me, qui huic situi his temporibus vix operam dare possim, tibi partim concedere, animos eorum qui hoc situ utuntur, perturbare nolle ideoque nihil iam mutaturum esse, nihilominus tibi hac in re non assentiri meque omni in sermone, operibus, scholis recitandis nomine quem terrae nostrae proprium iudico, usurum. Nam, hoc libere confiteor, in Bohemia non tam multi, immo pauci sumus qui Latinam colamus linguam, neque quodvis certamem atque acerrima de lana caprina disputatio nobis prodesse potest.

Magnopere igitur, hac disputatione omissa, te hortor ut accedas, nobiscum Pragae linguam Latinam colentibus crebrius instituas commercium. Interea valeas quam optime.--Georgius A. Laminarius 17:50, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dedi ex Urbe a.d. IV Non. Nov. a. MMIX a salute recuperata

Salve, Georgi!

Primo ipsa res publica nomine „Bohemoslovenia“ utebatur. Mea sententia factum istud probat hoc nomen non ab optimis Latine loquentibus cusum esse — simpliciter český ut Bohem(ic)us verbo verbum reddiderunt, et slovenský ut Sloven(ic)us quidem littera litteram, sine cogitando maiore. Postmodum intellexerunt terram novam coniunctionem Bohemiae et partis Iugoslaviae non esse, nomen ad „Bohemoslovacia“ emendantes. Cur etiam casu partis primae huius vocis errare non possint?

De iure Cechoslovacia vero ex nihilo creata est, nec Regni Bohemiae, nec Marchionatus Moraviae, nec Ducatus Silesiae, nec Austriae vel Hungariae heres fuit. Ut iurisprudens futurus probe autem scio ius non omnia esse, ergo possumus dicere Cechoslovaciam (proprie eius partem occidentalem) heredem Coronae Bohemicae territorii causa esse. Bohemiae autem rex tantum in Bohemia regnabat. Marchionatui Moraviae marchio Moraviae praeerat eodemque modo ducatui Silesiae dux Silesiae. Nec marchio nec dux regi subiecti sunt; dicere „rex Bohemicus sum“ in Moravia nihil significabat sine „quoque marchio Moravicus“ addendo. Vero et rex et marchio et dux saepe homo unus erat, tum autem Corona Bohemica non solum „terrae regi Bohemiae subiectae“, sed etiam „terrae marchioni Moraviae subiectae“ et „terrae duci Silesiae subiectae“ recte appelletur, nominis tribus omnibus eodem modo bonis.

Paulus Strancius (Pavel Stránský) librum Respublica Bojema (O státě českém) anno 1634 scripsit, qui modo Regnum Bohemiae tractat. Hoc nomen ab Res publica Bohemica in orthographia ac suffixo uno tantum distat. Veteres Bohemi vero Moraviam, Silesiam etc. ut regiones peregrinas videbant, et vice versa; hoc hodie in Cechia unica mente concipere vix scimus. Ea de causa censeo factum hodiernum non vocibus mediaevalibus exprimeri posse.

Denique, gratias tibi ago pro Latinitatis meae praedicatione tua. Revera non tam bona est — ut sententiam scribam minuta plurima mihi necessa sunt, quia voces paene omnes in dictionario quaerere debeo. Ita linguas pluras scribere (non loqui) posse soleo — fortasse satis de grammatica, minima de vocabulario sciens. Etiam sum „homo interretialis“ et vita virtuali ampla vivo — in vita rudi voluptates suas exercere nec cum aliis hominibus extra interretem convenire soleo. Linguae Latinae fautor sum ac maneam et invitatione tua gavisus sum, sed quae nunc facio mihi sufficiunt. Gabriel Svoboda 22:11, 6 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgius Gabrieli, iurisprudentiae magnae spei studioso, s.p.d.

Litteras, quas scripsisti cum legerem, non multum aberat quin timere inciperem ne responso suo prolixiorem excitarem disputationem quam decorum et re ipsa, quae tractatur, dignum esset; nam ipsam hanc quaestionem, ut ipse dixi, non tam magni facio.

Hoc tantum velim dicere me omnia quae attulisti non ignorare, immo huius ipsius aetatis, id est historiae rerum gestarum Bohemorum studia nuperrime in Facultate philosophiae Universitatis nostrae Pragensis perfecisse atque operibus Bohuslai Balbini, Thomae Pešina a Čechorod, Pauli Strancii, Ioannis Amos Comenii, cet. indagandis operam dare; neque me fugit Bohemoslovaciam primum haudquaquam recte Bohemosloveniam esse appellatam (quae res cum eam comperi risum movit aeque meum atque tuum, etsi res quae prima facie ridicula videtur, causam suam habet neque puto fuisse errorem verum atque irridendum) et nunc in Academia scientiarum Rem publicam Bohemorum appellari. Etiam quod ad terras Coronae Bohemicae spectat, tecum totus sto nec plerosque subditos nec plerosque nobiles putavisse se esse Bohemos, cum vix tam stricte definita gentis notio exstaret vinculaque inter terras illas, Regnum scilicet Bohemiae et reliquas Coronae Bohemicae terras sive eiusdem coronae, quam rex Bohemiae gerebat, feuda in annos laxiora fiebant (si umquam fuerint satis firma). Sed longum est ire per singula, itaque hoc tantum dicam exstare linguam Bohemicam, exstare gentem eodem nomine appellatam in omnibus Rei publicae Bohemicae terris neque ullam esse causam cur inusitatis utamur nominibus cum praesto sint antiqua et usu probata, etsi sane non nego etiam Czechiam esse vocem iam multis anne annis formatam, nihilominus parum Latinam. Praeterea etiam in Germania tunc temporis omnes se potius Saxones, Suebos, Bavaros, Borussos censebant quos omnes tantum peregrini velut Bohemi, Poloni, Galli Germanos nuncupabant atque unam gentem esse arbitrabantur; nunc vero est Germania, sunt Germani. Item, si inspicias, nonnullas chartas geographicas Europae praeteritis saeculis confectas, omnes terras quamquam tantum corona (et eius qui coronam gerit) coniunctas uno nomine Bohemiae videbis appellatas. At infitias non ibo – erraverunt viri docti qui nomen Bohemosloveniae finxerunt, forsitan erraverint etiam ii qui Bohemoslovaciae nomen excogitaverunt, forsitan etiam ego, forsitan etiam ii qui patriam noctram Cechiam appellandam autumaverint...: errare humanum est; humani nihil a nobis alienum putemus. Sed, ut dixi, nihil ipse hoc tempore ipso mutaturus opinionem meam servabo tibique idem ius concedo. Ipse, nisi quid re vera grave dicatur, disputare de hac ipsa re non pergam.

Quod vero ad laudem eloquentiae tuae adtinet, valde ipse gaudeo tales apud nos esse et fore iurisperitos (item discipulus meus, qui Latine loquitur, nunc in eadem facultate studet atque tu), at hoc tantum doleo quod in rete omnium gentium vitam degere mavis; nam ego ipse hoc praefero ut coram loquar cum amicis amicitiasque veras, si fieri potest (interdum propter magnum locorum intervallum non licet), colam. Ergo si quando sententiam mutaveris, libenter tecum post reditum meum in patriam medio mense Decembri praesenti sermone colloquar. Itaque cum rediero scribam;). Interea cura ut quam optime valeas.

Dedi ex Urbe a.d. VI Id. Nov. a. MMIX a mundo redempto --Georgius A. Laminarius 23:32, 7 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragium pro Bohemia!

Valde gaudeo quod omnes hac in pagina Latine scripserunt ac laudo illos splendidissimo sermone praeditos (Gabrielem et maxime Georgium). Suffragiis (quod plane est omnino absurdum neque decet ad nomen Latinum inveniendum) vestris percipitis constitui suffragium meum Bohemiae dare. Id est: Georgio consentio. Gratias vobis. Artaynte (disputatio) 21:38, 13 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consentio! --Packare (disputatio) 20:47, 13 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Res publica Cecha? Res publica Bohemica!

The diploma of Prague's Charles University issued in 2018: "Summis auspiciis Rei publicae Bohemicae..."

I was very surprised when I read the first sentence of this article after a long time: "Cechia (Bohemice Česko), rite res publica Cecha, est..." Why? Because it is not true!

The officially used Latin name of the Czech Republic is without any doubt Res publica Bohemica (used regularly and consistently by the Czech Ministery of Education, Czech Academy of Sciences and public universities on issued diplomas etc.). The name "Res publica Ceca" is used only very rarily on few webpages outside Czechia as a result of the ignorance of the correct term. It is just derived form Italian. There is no reason to prefer this rare (and false) variant. The current version of this article is thus absurd and doesn't reflect the real language use (in this case, Latin really lives in the Czech Republic). No Czech state, scientific or academic institution would change their Latin usage. Why to create a contradiction between Wikipedia and the real life? Should not Wikipedia rather reflect the real usage than try to promote its newly created? Cui bono?

There is also another issue. Maybe you don't like the fact that the official name "Res publica Bohemica" differs from the short name "Cechia" used by the Latin Wikipedia... Me neither but this doesn't justify anybody to change the official name of the country. Rather the unofficial newly made-up name used in Latin Wikipedia only (i. e. "Cechia") should be changed instead...

Some people would protest: If you rename the article to the traditional variant Bohemia, what about Moravia and Silesia, which together with the historical Bohemia comprise the today's Czech Republic? Isn't it discriminating? Ok... Let's start the discussion about Bohemia versus "Cechia" again...

Although we can find the name "Czechia" in original Latin sources since the 18th century, this name has always been used just as a poetic synonym for Bohemia with exactly the same meaning (= Bohemia without Moravia, Silesia... or all the Bohemian lands together; in Czech the equivalet Čechie was used). Probably similar to Albion and Britannia or Etruria and Tuscia... Etymologicaly the name Czechia comes from the Czech name for Bohemia (Čechy), again without Moravia and Silesia... The original Latin meaning of Czechia is not better than Bohemia in any aspect (just a poetic synonym) and its usage is rather controversial because it has never been really used widely (unlike Bohemia).

Similar situation can be seen in Austria. The historical region named Austria is just the area around the river Danube (i. e. Upper and Lower Austria = Ober- and Niederösterreich) but the whole country including Tirol, Styria, Salzburg (which are not parts of the historical Austria) is called Austria simply because Austria became the politically strongest region ruled by the same monarch. The same case. It was similar also in France. The original France was just the Ile-de-France.

I personally prefer the solution of the Polish Wikipedia (not the only one, see also Hungarian...). Polish, similar to Czech, Hungarian or Latin doesn't have the difference between "Czech" and "Bohemian" (both "český" in Czech, both "Bohemicus" in Latin, except some neolatinist attempts). "Czechy" = Bohemia, is the short name of the current republic (Česko) and "Czechy (kraina)" = Bohemia (terra), is the name of the historical land in the stricter sense...n

I consider Latin to be an independent language and there is no reason why this language should be influenced by the current usage in modern English, Italian or German more than by the current usage in modern Czech, Polish or Hungarian. We don't have to adjust Latin vocabulary to fit the modern vocabulary of English or Italian. Why actually? This is quite arrogant to "smaller" languages whose usage is not reflected then. Latin has also a strong and very long tradition (at leat 1.000 years) in these countries, why should be their Latin heritage ignored? --Packare (disputatio) 21:09, 13 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citing those sources. As far as the long name is concerned, you were right to change the first sentence: we should additionally cite one of those sources in a footnote. [I have done that now.] We shouldn't give two Latin lemmas in a first sentence unless there are sources for both, and certainly we shouldn't ever make up a Latin name and claim that it is "rite" in use. If that's what we did here, we were telling fibs, and we were forgetting the Master's dictum: "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day." I feel strongly about this and have been correcting and deleting some of the extra, invented, "rite" names, but as it happens I hadn't noted this one.

As far as the simple short name is concerned, I agree with you strongly that Latin is an independent language. We must of course be influenced by current usage in Latin, but not in any other particular language -- except, when there is good reason, by current usage in the native language of the place in question. On exactly those grounds, I thought Cechia was a reasonable choice, and I don't think we found good modern support in Czech official sources for Bohemia as the modern short name. If that's still true, there's no problem. The two Latin names in a first sentence don't have to resemble one another -- in many cases they don't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer and thank you for adding the footnote. I just wanted to correct the mistake with the official Latin name. Although the long name is used officially on public documents issued in Latin even today (mainly university diplomas), as far as I know, there is no offical usage of the short name. It is only clear that the adjective "český" (in English both Czech and Bohemian) has always been translated as "Bohemicus" into Latin since the Middle Ages, and is used until today by the public institutions (if they don't use the variant with the full name of the republic). E. g. Academia Scientiarum Bohemica or Camera Medica Bohemica. I understand that it is easier and more practical to use the name Cechia but I still feel that this is something new and not very natural for Czech Latinists. The languague is officially called "lingua Bohemica", the Czech studies are called "bohemistika" in Czech, the country "res publica Bohemica", the adjective Czech is translated as "Bohemicus" into Latin, then it looks quite weird when the country's name in Latin Wikipedia is "Cechia". But I know that these are very difficult decisions and here in Latin Wikipedia the decision has already been taken and it would be very hard to change it everywhere. I agree that the usage of Cechia can solve many potential problems with the destinction between differrent terms. Why not. But we should be careful not to replace the still living Latin usage by neologisms or calques from modern languages. --Packare (disputatio) 14:41, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The reason for preferring infoboxes drawn from Wikidata is that on smaller wikis like Vicipaedia local infoboxes -- especially single-use infoboxes like the one that was substituted in the article -- are hard to maintain and they do not, in practice, get maintained. If there's something wrong with the Vicidata infobox, let's fix it. What was wrong? I've put it back again so that we can discuss. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry for removing before discussing. The reason for the removal was that the Vicidata infobox is not used in the case of many other countries (e. g. Austria, Germania, Italia, Francia, Regnum Britanniarum, Hispania, Croatia, Russia, USA, Nederlandia, Suecia etc.). Why should it be used in the article about Cechia and not in the other cases? The question of the maintenence is a good point but it is not that big thing. The name of the current president and prime minister (once in 4 or 5 years) and the number of inhabitants (the official census is once in 10 years) should be updated. Nothing more. The Vicidata infobox brought no improvement (except the maintenence), there is even not the location of the country in the map. Some of the fields are written in English, not in Latin, but this can probably be changed somewhere... --Packare (disputatio) 14:59, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People in the past put a lot of work into the great big infoboxes, and that's why I have not been eager to remove them: I do it when I notice there is something out of date or never-to-be-finished or some unbearably bad Latin in them. But the other big problem with them is that they occupy far too much of the screen on mobile view, and more than half our readers now use mobile view, and more still every year. Ten years ago, people hardly foresaw that ... I guess I was just waiting for someone to make the point you have made. OK, I'll do it more quickly now. Honestly, the only reason people come to Vicipaedia is if they want to use/read Latin, at least briefly -- they won't come for infoboxes that would be easier to read in their mother tongues.

There are two ways to eliminate the English from our Wikidata boxes. English is automatically supplied as a substitute when Wikidata has no Latin. So the best way in each case is to write the missing article in Latin, but there isn't always time to do that! The second best way is to supply a Latin "label" at Wikidata without adding an article. This is very easily done (I just did it with the Czech parliament, to verify that it works) -- and would be much quicker, at least, than designing a new infobox! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:11, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the box before going to Wikidata, but I think I have solved the map problem. If there are two images under the same heading at Wikidata, our box does not know how to choose. The rule at Wikidata is that one datum should be marked "preferred", but people add images over there without knowing that. So, you mark one suitable image as "preferred", and then the box chooses it. I did that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]