Acadēmīa:Fabrica

Each word should be created as carefully as a mosaic. Purpose: This page is used to discuss new entries that are labeled with suggested by Acadēmīa . Please put this page on your watch list, so that you may not miss any new proposals. How to create a topic: Please look, if your entry already exists. Press "Add topic" above and write down your English word you want in the subject. Set {{Proposal}} at the beginning and then write down your proposal. Set {{Reason}} after that and write down your reasoning behind the proposal. Provide etymology and/or evidence in the Romance languages. You can make your own (counter)proposals with {{Proposal}} that are to be discussed. Click on "Send" and you are done! How to react to a topic: Press "Reply". Set depending on your opinion {{Cōnsentiō}} or {{Dissentiō}} at the beginning of your comment and then write down your reasoning. Please set {{Cōnsentiō}} or {{Dissentiō}} only once. If you change your mind during the debate, you can cross out your comment with <s>[YOUR COMMENT]</s> and express your changed opinion again. For documentation purposes, do not delete any comment! End of debate: Debates are to be debated for at least seven days. They may go longer, until all meaningful arguments have been exchanged or all objections have been resolved. If there is consensus, the entry is entered with the proposed word. If there are several words for which there is consensus, several words can be put in the entry. Archiving: From time to time the closed discussions are archived for the purpose of overview and moved to a subpage. An administrator will provide a short summary of the discussion, if necessary, so that later readers have an overview.

blogger

Proposal: histologista

Reason: As discussed on Talk:blog with @Logodaedalus, histologista seems to be a very good choice. I would suggest, we should also add blogista in analogy to blōx. My only problem with using histologista/histologion would be that most people don't understand this world immediately. Jācōbus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (CET)

Thank you! I think that immediate understanding of a word is a secundary problem. The priority in my opinion is to use words with good roots. Logodaedalus (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2023 (CET)

I am also thinking about blōgista as an alternative. This fits to our suggestion blōx which is in my opinion a bit more intuitive. Any opinion to this? Jācōbus (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2023 (CET)

May I suggest blōgifex? Lūkās (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2023 (CET)

The analogy to words like artifex or opifex is immediately clear. However, I am not sure if it fits. With the suffix -fex (<facere) the craftsmanship is in the foreground, but does the management of a blog fall under craftmanship? Jācōbus (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2023 (CET)

Czechia

Proposal: Bohēmia or Cechia

Reason: That is a matter that I am still not sure how we are going to deal with. Some find "Czechia" problematic as a spelling and prefer Cechia (see the discussion on Reddit). I would also want to suggest taking that as an alternative. However, there are also those who prefer the name Bohēmia, although Bohemia is only a part of today's Czechia and had also included Germans, for example. Therefore, I want to hear your opinion on whether we should list Bohemia as an alternative vocabulary with the indication that it is actually misleading. So what is your opinion on this? Jācōbus (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2023 (CET)

In that regard, Czechia ultimately has the same issues as Bohemia, as it derives from the Czech name for Bohemia, Čechy; it is a pars pro toto either way. So I don’t see any harm in giving Bohemia as an alternative.

Vicipaedia’s main source for Cechia is modern (1997), the older sources given there use Čechia (note that č in Czech orthography replaced earlier cz, which Polish retained) or Czechia. Vicipaedia itself also later gives Czechia as the oldest spelling. So, I don’t really see precedent for Cechia beyond modern innovation.

While Hofmannus (1677) obviously couldn’t refer to the modern country, he supports the spelling Czechia under "Boëmia, vel Bohemia, vel Bœhemia": "Ejectis tandem è Boiohemo etiam Marcomannis Quadisque Sclavini Scythica & Barbara gens duce Czecho, intraverunt, Anno 550. quos ab occupato Boiohemo vulgus Bohemos vocat."

By the way, given the etymology (Boio -> Bo), are you sure it’s Bohēmia and not Bōhēmia or even Bōhemia? Although, as Greek uses Βοημία, Bohēmia does appear correct. Lūkās (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2023 (CET)

According to Wiktionary it is Bohēmia, although the alternative Boihaemum with long diphtongs does exist. It is still a problem for me, because Czechia is undoubtly the nation state of Czechs, whereas Bohemia denotes the feudal state. I think we can list both variants, but push Czechia further up. I also think we should add an option to the templates so that the IPA rendering is correct. Jācōbus (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2023 (CET)

I concur, Czechia should be the main entry, Bohēmia should be given as a secondary option.

Regarding Czechia: I am aware that the pronunciations are auto-generated and cannot, at the moment, be changed or removed individually. Nonetheless, the given pronunciations for Czechia appear to be incorrect (and hardly pronounceable):

(Classical) IPA(key): /ˈkze.kʰi.a/, [ˈkd̪͡z̪ɛkʰiä]

(Ecclesiastical) IPA(key): /ˈkd͡ze.ki.a/, [ˈkd̪͡z̪ɛːkiä]

While any classical pronunciation is obviously hypothetical, <cz> was evidently meant to transcribe a Slavic sound that could not be represented accurately otherwise within the German traditional pronunciation of Latin. Czechia is not an isolated use of that spelling. Other examples I could find at Hofmannus include czar (tsar), Czernobela (Chernobyl) and Czenstochova (Polish Częstochowa, German Czenstochau/Tschenstochau). In the latter two, as well as Czechia, it appears to represent /t͡ʃ/ or /t͡ʂ/, in czar it appears to correspond to /t͡s/.

While common sense makes for a weak argument and I lack hard evidence for this (since ecclesiastical pronunciation isn't well-defined in this regard), I would expect ecclesiastical Latin to, in practice, use /t͡ʃ/ in this case. It is a phoneme that is already used in ecclesiastical Latin and it corresponds to the original intention.

As for classical pronunciation, I am at a loss. Since it is entirely hypothetical, I would suggest to either give none or to opt for a reasonable approximation and append it with an asterisk. Lūkās (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (CET)