Disputatio:Res publica popularis Sinarum

"People's Republic" would I believe better be expressed by "Respublica Popularis" -- which would required changing the disambiguation page and links.

Quite right. In Romance languages it's république populaire &c. I'm frankly stumped by the sinarum part -- "Republic of the People of the Chinas"? (Why is it plural?) Tkinias 23:12, 8 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's plural because Sinae, -arum is also, besides being an ethnonym, one of the pretty frequent plural toponyms handed down from classical times [1] (cf. Thebae, Delphi, Gades). Post-Roman use reborrowed singular C(h)ina, -ae though that's one you don't see too often these days. —Myces Tiberinus 11:28, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's supposed to be "Respublica Populi 'of the Chinese'". Why should it be Popularis? People's Republic means a Republic belonging to the people, hence Genitive.

I think whoever came up with this originally was going for Sinae -arum "the Chinese", rather than Sina -ae, "China" (which I don't think is actually attested, but am too lazy to look up). --Iustinus 02:42, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the title is meant to be a calque of the original English "People's Republic of China" ? —Myces Tiberinus 11:28, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original name is not 中华人民共和国? Anyway, my point was to explain why the original author went for Sinarum rather than Sinae. The name is not attested in the singular in Classical Latin, I believe, and it is certainly not uncommon to use plural gentilics metonymically for countries. --Iustinus 16:23, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping into a no-longer-active discussion: Sinae was never an option at all: we don't say urbs romae but urbs roma. This is an English "of" which doesn't really correspond to a Latin genitive, surely. Doops 04:42, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respublica Populorum Sinensium? The nation includes many peoples, including, some would say (and some wouldn't), Tibetans. This point may be controversial. IacobusAmor 02:53, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is whether Sinensium refers to the Respublica or the Populorum. 68.41.174.175 17:03, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

popularis avoids that question, and is better Latin style anyway. --Iustinus 16:23, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populi Respublica Sinae or similar would do, IMO. 68.41.174.175 17:03, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China classica latina lingua redditur cum Serum fines, non Sinarum, ut apparet apud Maronem (Georgica, II, 121), apud Senecam in 90a epistula ad Lucilium, denique apud Pomponium Melam (tertio libro) ubi scripsit : «Ab his in Eoum mare (...) loca beluæ infestant, usque ad montem mari inminentem nomine Tabim. Longe ab eo Taurus adtollitur. Seres intersunt, genus plenum iustitiæ, et commercio quod rebus in solitudine relictis absens peragit notissimum. ». Itaque censeo titulum Respublica Popularis Serum fore debet.--Verbex 18:29, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assentior tibi, Verbex. Tamen et Sinarum voce uti posse videtur, quod nomen ad exemplum Persarum Turcarumque informatum est. Mihi quidem totae paginae nova appellatio esse adsignanda videtur, ut qua non de re publica populari tantum, sed de Sinarum populi terra rebusque gestis inde ab initiis docemur. --Irenaeus 13:54, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters added

Hi there,

I am graduate of Chinese Studies (M.A.) and added a few more of the Chinese Characters in the Province subsection. Some of the provinces are missing such as: Shandong (山东) and Shanxi (山西). I would have added them, but my Latin is rather passive. Yunnan (云南) seems to appear twice. Once as "Yunnanum" and once as "Iunnanum".

Best wishes, Henry

Thanks for the additions and corrections. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quid hoc dicere vult?

ad tempus delevi id: Defero Secui Sinae anno 1949^o regno spoliare. Considerabant Humanitas Revolution, reformationem, et apertionem. --Alex1011 12:06, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Cities and Provinces

Where did the Latin translation for these come from? 99.224.97.45 02:47, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. They are not footnoted ... Our current practice is to use pinyin unless there is evidence for an existing Latin form.

If anyone wants to improve this page, that would be a Good Thing. It is possible to check for existing Latin names of places using VP:FNL and maybe [2]. When found, they can be footnoted; when they don't seem to exist, use pinyin.

When editing, be careful not to break bluelinks to existing articles about cities. Where such articles already exist, the correct form of the name should be discussed (if necessary) on that article's talk page. But there aren't many. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Beijing, a well-attested spelling is Pechinum. The letter H is there, of course, to prevent Vaticanists from mispronouncing the word—something Vicipaedia should, for the same reason, do with similar junctures of C and high vowels (e.g., the present Tocio should beTochio). Or, much better in my opinion, Vicipaedia should at such junctures use the letter K (e.g., Tokio), which in Roman-alphabet-using languages of the world is almost always pronounced "hard," as [k], which the letter C most certainly is not. IacobusAmor 11:55, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, nowadays pronouncing it with the ecclesiastical -chi- is in its own way a mispronunciation, given that the sound in question is in fact pronounced [tɕ] in Mandarin—which -ci- would be much closer to, the Mandarin sound having migrated in the same direction as the Latin one did. (Luckily the established spelling should prevent anyone proposing any such nonsense as 'Pesinum'.) BTW, quite a few Chinese city names are listed in the Lexicon Universale entry also linked to above, for a starter source—it also happens to serve as an example of how foreign words were Latinized back in the day. —Mucius Tever 04:41, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Back in the day" may continue. Our most excellently Latinizing anonymous friend 88.19.13.147 has rendered Majuro (island) as Madzurum. Would the same process give us Beidzin(um) for Pechinum? IacobusAmor 12:08, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon's process would. The LexUniv process I referred to would almost certainly yield Beijingum or Beijinga from Beijing, as the meme insisting foreign words be reduced to phonemic spellings suitable for the Roman era was nowhere near as strong then as it is here. (Even so, Beijing's "B" is pronounced just as Roman "p", and its "j" likewise represents a voiceless sound; 'Beidzinum' would really be the worst of both worlds: the conflicting goals in neologizing are being faithful to the original language, and being faithful to the Roman system, and this 'dz' would be neither.) —Mucius Tever 00:23, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are persuasive views, o Iacobe, but I go back to the main point (as I see it) concerning Chinese names: where there is no existing Latin form, our current practice is to use pinyin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll concede that point, but Pechinum is (probably) the oldest attested Latin spelling, alas, so it should at least appear in the lemma. IacobusAmor 13:59, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I concede that point! Pechinum is the current name of our article on the subject, is attested, and seems secure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative source of Latin names for Chinese cities could be in the Latinized names used in Roman Catholic dioceses. [3]

I updated all the names using either the Hofmann source or using the Roman Catholic diocese names. There exist a few provinces that were created after these sources were written (ie Hainan), and a few cities lacking, but most of them have Latinized names now. They should be more canonical now.--Yuje 17:05, 1 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty thanks for checking all those names. Nice work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:14, 1 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclatura

In historia, Xinjiang in multas partes divisa est. Septiontrionalis trans montes Tianshan, incolae Uighuriae non erant. Mongoliae de gente Iungar erant, sic regio "Iungaria" appellatur (in lingua Anglia, "Dzungaria"). Meridionalis de montibus Tianshan, pars occidentalis "Altisharia" appelatur (signficat "sex urbs") aut "Cashgaria", et sola pars orientalis appelatur "Uighuristan". Appellare tota regio "Uighuristan" est majora moderna nomenclatura.

Diu non scripseram in Latine, sic mea Latina malissima est.

Latin translation of 直辖市

A bit troublesome is the Latin translation of 直辖市. The term in Chinese means "direct-controlled city". In context of the other Chinese terms for cities currently used in administration (prefecture-level city, county-level city), it could also be understood as a "province-level city". The word "city" is used only in the loosest sense (Chongqing is larger than Scotland!), and they have larger populations than many countries (Chongqing has six times the population of Scotland, Shanghai has more than twice the population of Israel). These areas include multiple towns, cities, and districts, along with their surrounding countryside, centered around the central urban area for which it is named (Beijing, Shanghai). The word urbs, denoting a walled city is not a good translation. My suggestions for naming:

Metropolis - Greek denoting "mother city", with connotations of extremely large urban areas with high populations. Also used in Christianity to refer to a religious district centered on the region's primary, largest, or most important city. It's Greek, but the Latin freely borrows from this language anyway. This is the term I chose.
Civitas - Latin word for political body, city, and/or state. These types of regions encompass all three, being centered on large cities and state-level entities. If I'm not mistaken, civitas is the word used for city-states as well, and though not independent, these Chinese cities exert a similar level of control and size over their surrouhding areas.
direct translation - Some kind of Latin coinage that directly translates "direct-controlled city" or "province-level city", but I have not the faintest clue what that would be. Urbes Graduum Provinciarum? Urbes Rectae Centralibus?

--Yuje 02:50, 2 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be describing what might be called a regio metropolitana, as defined at en:Metropolitan area, an article that mentions several other terms, including conurbation & megalopolis, both readily Latinized. It specifically says: "Guangdong Province's Pearl River Delta is a huge megalopolis with a population of 48 million that extends from Hong Kong and Shenzhen to Guangzhou." IacobusAmor 03:06, 2 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With this term, it risks the possibility of confusing two distinct concepts, en:Metropolitan regions of China, referring to certain economic regions, and en:Direct-controlled municipality, a province-sized administrative unit used in governance. They also differ in scale: former are much larger in size and population than the latter. For example, Shanghai has about the population of a middling country, Romania, while the en:Yangtze River Delta, which Shanghai is a part of, has a population larger than Vietnam or Germany.--Yuje 12:50, 3 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin translation of the Analects

I found an entire copy of the Analects of Confucius translated into Latin, at Google books: Confucius sinarum philosophus, sive, Scientia sinensis latine exposita. The opening contains a map of China (as it was then), along with Latin names, and the brief overview at the beginning, along with the translation, gives a bounty of Latinized versions of Chinese terms. Among the many gems contained within, a chronological list of kings and monarchs (along with description and history of each) list of dynasties, and geography guides to rivers, cities, and provinces. I'll start inputting more of them into articles as I have the time. Is there any way to make a template of it, as with existing cite templates, to allow easier citing? --Yuje 14:48, 3 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder, since the book is in the public domain, is it allowed to copy text directly from the book into Wikipedia, for say, articles on the various emperors (since the history is already written out and in Latin)?--Yuje 15:08, 3 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started indexing some of the useful information on my user page: Usor:Yuje/Fontes Scientae Sinarum, in case any other editors are interested in using this resource also. --Yuje 16:38, 3 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain text can be used. Consider whether it is written in an encyclopedic way, however. Some of our articles about Greek and Roman historical figures were filled with 18th century Latin text, and still need rewriting. It may be better to use the Latin text and vocabulary as a prompt, and rewrite or adapt. But it's up to you.

Making a formula for citations is easy. If you decide it's advisable to lift whole text, you can look at the formula {{Viri Illustres}}. If you want simply to cite this book among other books in a bibliography, look at the formula {{Smith-bio}}. These are just examples.

I suggest you go to any appropriate formula page of those types, click "Recensere", copy the whole text, go back out, then in the search box type a name for your new formula e.g. Formula:Confucius, click on "Ire", look for the words "Creare paginam" and click the redlink. Then, in the blank edit box, paste your whole text; and then change whatever needs changing. If anything goes wrong, someone will come along and help! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 3 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be an excellent resource! but bear in mind that genuine attestations of the same word often take different forms, and we don't yet have a reason to privilage this text over all other texts. For example, the map in this book shows an area marked Pekim. If that's Pechinum, we've got differently attested forms right there. Then we have the Reg[num] Cochin China and the Tibet Reg[num], and so on. (Or is Reg. really Regio?) IacobusAmor 20:00, 3 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]