Talk:Latin exonyms

Page move

Maybe this page should be moved to "Latin exonyms for places in Europe"?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

question

Can the term 'exonym' be reasonably applied: 1)to toponyms first attested in Latin; 2) to toponyms historically recorded within the Roman Empire?----Clive sweeting 26 January 2015

Which Latin exonyms?

This line is confusing: "Below is list of Latin exonyms for places outside of the core of the Roman empire during the time Latin was spoken." It does not seem to differentiate between actual time when Latin survived as a spoken language and the time when its incfluence has diminished to the language of the elite circles. I think it should either omit any time references entirely, or at least be split into two sections. Otherwise, it has to be contraversial content. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You are the only person finding it controversial because you have an axe to grind. You could even add Lviv to the list and it would be entirely acceptable, for the city was known in far-away countries by its Latin name, Leopolis, for a long, long time (in fact, Leopolis is still used in Spanish as the name for Lviv). Latin was widely employed in court, science, commerce, culture, diplomacy, among educated people in general, and as a lingua franca in Europe. Many Romance languages derive their names for some of these places (and others) from their Latin names. If you stop your hatred for all things Russian for 5 minutes and look at the list, you'll find that it makes perfect sense, and that you're vandalising a useful article (that could use additions) out of spite. I'll give you time to think things through and self-revert, otherwise I'll do it myself. Ostalgia (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You and your attitude are becoming really annoying. Stop referencing my non-existent "hatred for all things Russian" or my "axe to grind." Otherwise, this time it will be ME who will take it up with admins. Got that?

Furthermore, there is a useful suggestion here: "during the time Latin was spoken" should be omitted for the goals of preserving constitensy.

It makes no difference to me whether to expand the article by including Lviv and other important places in Europe not mentioned, or to make it shorter by deleting any references to Moscow, Gothenburg, or any other place that has nothing to do with Latin contemporary to the time it was a spoken language. My point is that this article right now is an inconsistent mess. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You can take whatever you want to whoever you want if you deem it appropriate. It's entirely up to you, and I do not care. Secondly, your edit history is there to see, as are the tendencies in it. The fact that you single out specific parts of specific articles is suspicious, to say the very least, especially when your justifications are either flimsy or should lead you to make much broader changes, but you refuse to introduce them because you're focused on removing very specific references.

Now, if you are indeed interested in improving this article, which is one to which I have not contributed much, but which I have always quite liked (lots of placenames in Romance languages are derived from Latin and have zero relation to the native names, which leads to somewhat amusing interactions!), I'm all for it. The logic is quite simple, I believe, and has always been transparent to me - which cities or places have an established Latin name by which they were referred more or less extensively at the time Latin was in relatively widespread usage? I believe user:Tamfang suggested removing "at the time Latin was spoken" altogether, but while I understand and agree with the logic behind it, that could leave us open to a never-ending list to the discretion of users, for there are Latin exonyms for virtually every place on Earth (in no small way due to the Catholic Church, which still uses Latin to an extent). At this point the current wording also leaves us at the discretion of the user, perhaps with the proviso that Wikipedia's article for Latin says it was in use from 7th century BCE to 18th CE, so it definitely needs an improvement. For starters, how about removing "spoken" in favour of "in common use", so that everyone is happy, and we can discuss the wording in the meantime?

As for the lists themselves, there is lots of potential for expansion. We need to be judicious and add placenames that had actual currency at the time, but there are still lots of opportunities for expansion. I added Leopolis because its use was widespread in both time and space, to the point that it's in use even in modern times in some languages, but I think there are many places in Northern Africa even that could be included (think of St. Augustine of Hippo - Hippo being Hippo Regius, today part of Annaba). Ostalgia (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Your cognitive capacity diminishes astonishingly when it comes to admitting your own shorcomings, I see.

Firstly, neither my edit history nor its tendencies suggest that I am intent on making edits purely because I am supposedly "anti-Russian." It is nothing more than a figment of your imagination, and I do not care what you find suspicious or not.

Secondly, my own personal feelings towards Russia have nothing to do with my issue with this article, which I have profoundly explained to you. You may think I am anti-Russian, I could not care less. However, you keep bringing it up in reference to my allegedly clouded judgment, using it as an argument in your case. If you are stupid enough to not see what I mean, here, I have it for you simplified.

Furthermore, replacing it with "common use" clears it up a bit; and yes, there are many more Latin exonyms that are not yet in this article. It is an interesting topic. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please remember no personal attacks and remain civil towards each other. "Your cognitive capacity diminishes astonishingly when it comes to admitting your own shorcomings [sic]" Sound like a borderline personal attack. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It may have been a personal attack. However, so is the casual habit of the other editor to label my reasoning as invalid because of my suddosedly anti-Russian position being the reason I make edits. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of you need to try and be civil. Just cause someone else uses a personal attack towards you does not mean you can use personal attacks back. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that and I do try to be civil. Unfortunately, it is kinda hard when someone else just cannot let go. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I get it. However I think it may just be time to just drop it and walk away. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a personal attack, but as long as he doesn't keep blanking parts of the article or forcemoving stuff, he can call me whatever he wants and make "yo momma" jokes while he's at it. Ostalgia (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a single one of my justistications was "flimsy." Again, stop using your imagination as an argument in a dialogue. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, nobody here needs or wants a lecture on Latin, thank you very much.

The whole paragraph can be shortened basically to "the language of the elite circles" which I did in the original message. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that "during the time Latin was spoken" could be harmlessly omitted. —Tamfang (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It would have been better for general consistensy, all I am saying. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)