Talk:Praenomen

Caracalla

This article suggests that the emperor Marcus Aurelius was nicknamed "Caracalla." That was NOT the case- the epithet was applied to a tyrannical later emperor, Lucius Septimius Bassianus, who adopted the name after his accession to power, and it referred to his preference for a sort of tunic favored by Germanic tribes in this period. The original Marcus Aurelius was considered as probably the last emperor(and one of the greatest) of the Roman Empire before the beginning of its decline (see Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)

This article would be much more useful and less confusing to average readers if that distinction were made clear.

216.64.29.62 (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tunic

The information regarding the "sort of tunic favored" by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is included in the original article by me, from which much of the information for this Wiki article was taken. http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-naming-practices.php NepheleUNRV (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)NepheleUNRV

Tiberius

>However, it still may be that the Romans knew the river by this name when the praenomen came into existence.

Wouldn't Tiber + -ius be equally plausible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.185 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that differs materially from what the article already says; could you be more specific? P Aculeius (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Language classification

The first paragraph of the "Background" section contradicts information in the relevant articles. I intend to check it against a more recent edition of the only source cited (the 1970 Oxford Classical Dictionary) when I have time. - Cal Engime (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Currently the only disputed material seems to be the classification of the Hernici with the Latin branch of the Italic language family. The Article Hernici formerly stated that the Hernician language was not clearly distinguishable from Latin, except for minor peculiarities, amongst which the termination of the name "Hernici" more closely resembled the pattern of peoples such as the Volsci. On May 21, 2012, JamesBWatson changed that paragraph to say that the inscriptions showed that the language was Oscan, citing as his source a user web page at Swarthmore, which ironically redirects back to the article Oscan on Wikipedia as its source! That article made no mention of the Hernici until August 21, 2010, when Botteville added SIL International classifications to the article, including the classification of Hernician as an Oscan language. The Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc. is a religious organization devoted to translating scriptures into local languages, and has no interest in Hernician, which it identifies as ancient and extinct. Its classification system has since been deleted from Oscan but the assertion that the Hernici belong to that language family remains.

SIL's source appears to be The Linguist List, hosted by Eastern Michigan University. Their "MultiTree" project lists Hernician as an Oscan language, citing a single source, Philip Baldi's The Foundations of Latin (2002), and two inscriptions. And when you actually search The Foundations of Latin on Google Books, here is what it says: "[t]he Latini are the most important cultural group in central Italy. They dominate Latium, especially the area of the Alban Hills, where they live with the neighboring tribes the Rutuli, Labici, Praenestini, Hernici, and Romani, about whom nothing will be said beyond providing their names. The Latini are closely akin to the Falisci and the Hernici, Latian neighbors who spoke dialects very close to Latin."

In other words, MultiTree's source does not support its content; in fact, it plainly contradicts it, and agrees with this article in classifying Latin, Faliscan, and Hernician together. As The Linguist List's classification is the source cited by SIL, and SIL is the source originally cited by Oscan (although no source for the contention that Hernician is an Oscan language is currently found in that article, and the one source cited by Hernici simply loops back to Oscan), there is no reliable source contradicting the statement that Hernician belongs to the Latin branch of Italic. In fact, the only reliable source cited by any of the alleged sources agrees with that conclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm convinced about Hernician, but what about the Sabine language? Both Sabines and Umbrian languages say that it belonged to the Umbrian family rather than the Oscan family. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a novel change, as the Sabine language has always been classified as Oscan in the past. They've never been classified as Umbrian speakers. The article Sabines doesn't provide any source for this contention, and Umbrian languages simply redirects to Osco-Umbrian languages, and claims that there is no justification for distinguishing between Oscan and Umbrian. Only one source is cited by the article, and it's so recent that it's not generally available to browse over the internet. Since the debate about the classification of Italic languages is well over a century old, it's unlikely that novel new evidence has been uncovered; at best this is the latest published opinion, and in a couple of years there'll be another one (at least) disagreeing with it. But the article still doesn't classify Sabine as an Umbrian language; it just places it somewhere in a continuum of Osco-Umbrian languages. If, however, you read the Britannica article mentioned at the bottom, you'll see that the Sabines have traditionally been regarded as Oscans, and more closely related to the peoples of southern Italy than to the Umbrians, Picentes, and Volsci. Yes, it's an old article. But there was an enormous amount of classical scholarship in the decades leading up to it, much more than there is now, and I'm not aware of any startling new discoveries over the last century. P Aculeius (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just checked with both the 3rd and 4th Edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which defines Sabelli as the Roman name for speakers of Oscan. Here it seems to be using the word Oscan in its modern sense, meaning the central and south-Italic branch of the Italic language family, as opposed to the Latin branch or the Umbrian branch. This was the classification from Strabo to Niebuhr, as well (I note that Strabo places the Picentes in the same family, while more recent references point to an affinity with the Umbrians, and some simply lump all of the Oscan and Umbrian languages together, asserting a lack of clear differentiation; but this is a minor point and not really a major factual dispute in this article). So there seems to be no significant factual dispute regarding the accuracy of the language classification in this article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: Lars

Lars used nowadays is a form of Lawrence, not of Etruscan Larth, see e.g. here. 46.186.34.99 (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's dubious at all. Lawrence itself is derived from the Latin Laurentius. What's a stretch is insisting that the use of Lars has nothing to do with the existence of an identical name familiar to all Romans and anyone who had a formal education up through the early 20th Century, when the stories of the early Roman Republic were a standard part of the curriculum. Lars Porsena was a larger-than-life figure in those stories, and saying that people who knew of the name and its illustrious history somehow chose it because of a totally different association with an unrelated name... well, that's improbable. And not everybody named "Lars" is Scandinavian. Maybe "Lars" could be legitimately derived from "Lawrence," but that doesn't mean it isn't just as likely to have been given because it was already a well-known name from history. P Aculeius (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

While Larry is a diminutive of Lawrence, it is only in English. Lars is even less frequent in any other languages than Nordic ones. When ancient names have survived, it is usually in most European languages. Hence it is extremely doubtful that modern Lars has anything to do with Etruscan origins. At least it requires serious proof, not just "it is likely". Examples of coincidental similarities do exist in linguistics (e.g. "dog"). Furthermore, only a very small portion of the population had a classical education; let alone any education at all. Doubtful the people would have remembered this Porsenna. And Porsenna was definitely presented as the arch-enemy. A bit like calling a child "Adolf" today. Netchaïeff (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lars Porsenna was never portrayed as a villain in Roman literature. Even though he was a conqueror, he was greatly admired for his magnanimity and the respect he showed to the heroes of the Republic. Napoleon had lots of admirers in countries that he'd fought against or conquered, and George Washington was greatly admired in Britain. There were also several other Roman historical figures named "Lars," including Lars Tolumnius, the King of Veii, and Lars Herminius, a Roman consul.

But more importantly, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew names were transmitted throughout Europe through the educated (clerical) establishment. Ecclesiastics, lawyers, and the nobility were educated in Greek and Latin, learnt the classics, and absorbed Roman legend, particularly during and after the renaissance. That's how "Lawrence" came to northern Europe in the first place. But anyone who knew the classics also knew the name "Lars." Throughout the middle ages, names like "Horatius" and "Brutus" were remembered from the legends of Rome's founding. Anyone who knew those legends knew that "Lars" was the name of a great king. The idea that people who knew the name "Lars" as distinct from "Laurentius" would somehow forget that it was a separate name, and just happen to come up with it independently as a derivative of the latter... that's what stretches credulity. P Aculeius (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should Scandinavians alone of all peoples have named their sons after a heathen king from a relatively obscure part of preclassical Roman history in an era when everybody else, including the Scandinavians for all their other sons, named them after saints or their own superiors or ancestors? Unfortunately I am not in the mood for searching sources, and of course sometimes even common knowledge needs to be questioned, but this Etruscan etymology is a stretch. 83.253.1.17 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, everyone with a bit of knowledge in Germanic phonetics should be able to see the regularity in the development Laurentius > Lars. Cf. Benedictus > Bengt, Nicolaus > Nils, German Colonia > Köln etc. etc. It's no conclusive evidence, of course, but it shows that it's a possible development contrary to what a Germanistic layman may think. 83.253.1.17 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, what unscientific Internet sites there are seem to agree on "Lars < Laurentius"; I wonder if Lars < Etruscan Lars might even be classified original research. 83.253.1.17 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A rapid-fire series of posts over a period of twenty-three minutes, basing its argument on what "everyone with a bit of knowledge in Germanic phonetics should be able to see" and a quick browse of random, unnamed internet sites about baby names does not constitute creating consensus, although ironically it's the perfect example of "original research." This issue should have been put to bed ages ago. Lars Porsena was hardly more obscure a figure in Roman history than Brutus was. They belong to the very same period and series of events (in fact Brutus occurs first). Dismissing the events of the foundation of the Roman Republic "a relatively obscure part of preclassical Roman history" is bizarre and inexplicable by any standard.

Dismissing Porsena as "a heathen king" introduces a complete red herring into the argument; nobody describes Caesar or Cincinnatus or Hannibal as "heathen generals" or Horatius as "a heathen soldier." And yet well into modern times and throughout all of western civilization we have people with names like Junius Brutus Booth, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, and Hannibal Hamlin; Cesare Borgia, Cesar Chavez, and Cesar Romero; Camilla is a well-known name in Sweden, notwithstanding that Marcus Furius Camillus comes from a much more obscure period of Roman history than Lars Porsena. Lots of Roman names survived into modern Swedish without having to refer to a single great historical figure (who remembers Pope Linus? Are children still named after Clement of Alexandria? Which Caecilius are all those Cecilies named after?). So you can't build an argument out of Lars Porsena being obscure or being from an obscure time, nor for being an enemy of Rome (Hannibal, Theodoric, anyone?).

The simple fact remains that Lars was a name well known to the Romans and found throughout Roman literature. He's the king against whom Horatius held the bridge (Horatio Nelson, Horatio Alger; was Porsena's opponent so obscure?), the king who spared the life of Scaevola because he was so brave, the king who allowed Cloelia to free the Roman hostages after she swam the Tiber. Modern scholars think he actually defeated the Romans and occupied Rome for a period; he left such an impression on the Romans that despite being an "enemy" Roman literature always treated him as much a legendary figure as the English did King Arthur (who fought against the ancestors of the English, after all). It's hardly surprising that the name survived into modern times, and what strains credulity is to claim that any Scandinavian who would think of naming a child "Laurentius" or "Clement" would be unaware of the fact that "Lars" was already a name, and a royal name at that. P Aculeius (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit, not mine, is the one that introduces an usupported claim.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not speaking about our time or some neutral environment here. We are speaking about medieval Europe, before the Renaissance. And we are talking about Scandinavia, not Britain, Italy or Spain.

From the fact that two sequences of letters from different times and cultures are identical does not automatically follow that they are the same word. Language doesn't function that way. See Sound change for one of the mechanisms you must take into account. They might be the same word, but that's no foregone conclusion. Identical sequence of letters is not evidence enough. If it were, the English and Persian words for "bad" would be etymologically the same, to name one well-known example.

And it becomes less likely when everywhere you look it says that one of these identical-sounding words is derived from quite another word and when it can be shown that the idea that it's the same word contradicts a number of known facts about other similar words (names) in one of the cultures in question, like I have pointed out above.

As long as no one can come up with an authoritative source, the mainstream view should have precedence over an unsupported one. And I am still not convinced yours isn't your own brainchild, i.e. original research. 83.253.1.17 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Latin pronunciation

As for the pronunciation of latin in general and prænomen in particular, a couple of Wikipedia articles:

• Latin spelling and pronunciation#Diphthongs
• New Latin#Pronunciation
• Latin_regional_pronunciation

– 83.253.1.17 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Title

Given the actual contents of this page, should it perhaps be called "The Ancient Italic Praenomen"? It's one thing to say that other peoples besides the Romans used the praenomen and that some of these names were shared/borrowed by the Romans, but quite another to have separate sections for those other peoples in which the praenomina are listed. Thoughts? Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've written and then erased three responses to this question by now, and every time I get confused. You're not saying that the article should be titled "Italic" because it only treats the Roman use of the word, rather than the use of the word by Egyptologists or in modern languages such as French or German. You're saying that the article title is misleading because it doesn't tell readers that the scope of the article goes beyond "Romans" in the sense of "ancient Latin praenomina excluding those of the Oscans and Etruscans." I think.

I'm not convinced that the typical reader encountering this subject for the first time will expect a sharp distinction between the various peoples of Italy; to the average reader they were all "Romans," and by the time of Augustus this was true, although regional praenomina were beginning to disappear as well. But the article title doesn't say "Roman Praenomina" or "Latin Praenomina." It's already a broad title. There's not really enough material to split the article in three, I think, and have comprehensive but not duplicative material on Oscan or Etruscan praenomina. And other scholarly literature tends to consider all three under the heading of "Roman personal names" or similar titles. At least this title is neutral on that point, although it begins with Latin praenomina, which are those most likely to be encountered by readers, before discussing those used by other Italic peoples.

So I'm not sure what the advantage of changing "Praenomen" to "The ancient Italic praenomen" would be. I doubt anyone will type that into the search bar. Maybe people would type "Italic praenomina," but probably only if they were already fairly familiar with the concept. And the contents of the article would be the same as they are now. So I don't see a compelling reason for moving this article. Perhaps if you could elaborate on your reasoning? P Aculeius (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)