Talk:Academia Mexicana de la Lengua

English translation of spanish name

A nice start to this article. Just one quibble, although it's the closest in a literal translation sense, the selected title "Mexican Academy of the Language" does not really scan grammatically in english (the definite article is not required in such constructions). I'll move it and related ones to the more usual form, omitting "the".--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You could be right but, respectfully, I don't think you are. Academia de las ciencias == ok, no argument, "Academy of Sciences" (or even "...of Science", thinking about it). With these language academies it could go either way, but it seems to me the inclusion of the definite article hinges on what this Academy's jurisdiction is: language in general (in which case 'academy of language') or one language in specific (Spanish, obviously), in which case it would take the article. I think it's the latter, and the big evidence for that is the fact it's a correspondent academy of the Real Academia Española, the remit of which is clear. Deep down, this is really the "Mexican Academy of the (Spanish) Language" (the qualifier 'Spanish' is taken as read and omitted). Convinced? Not convinced? Of course, we could sidestep the issue by taking the cue of the Academia Chilena de la Lengua and moving it to the native form. Aille (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch with the Mexican Academy of Letters, by the way. Hadn't occurred to me. Aille (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aille. I don't disagree with your reasoning, and I think now I was wrong to characterise as a grammatical concern; perhaps more a question of parlance, and of context. In a spanish-speaking context it would presumably be implied/understood what "la lengua" is particularly referring to. Out of that context, such as from the POV of a general english-speaking reader, I suggest it would not be clear that they need to mentally supply the qualifier missing in those parentheses, leaving an odd reading. In any case, I went with what seemed to be the most common translation encountered in a search of reference works in googlebooks and g-scholar.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing these articles (and other institutional and governmental ones, btw) put under their spanish names. As often as not english-language sources that talk about them do this, and it's not as if they pop up so frequently in english discourse that they've acquired rusted-on english names. It at least would have the advantage of being less ambiguous. Maybe it's just me, but I often do a double-take before connecting something like "National Institute of Anthropology and History" with INAH... I know the naming conventions generally want the "most common name in english". But when the name is only sometimes translated, sometimes not, or translated variously, or the translation distances it from the acronym by which it is probably most commonly referred to (in both languages), or when the entity is not commonly known to the english-speaking world...in those circumstances the orig. lang. name is preferable, IMO anyways. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First comment: after Googling, I was surprised at just how many hits there were for the version without the article. Just that I'd never parsed it that way... probably on account of its being the Academia de la Lengua and not the Academia del Lenguaje. There's definitely a case for using the orig-lang name, particularly when the translation is problematic (and even when not: astonishing how many Mexican university articles out there use the native name, but maybe that's an artifact of academic branding). I've certainly created a couple of articles in breach of WP:UE, simply because I couldn't find a convincing English version of a name (and incoming links already using a variety of versions). The Real Academia Española and the Académie française are at those locations, which might be a pointer. Regards, Aille (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that those two are very often left untranslated in english-language works, and not only those of an academic bent. If it's good enough for those cases, it may well be best to follow suit here. Given that the two translation options (with/without the) can have different literal interpretations, resolving ambiguity may be another point in favour.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So much for being bold: Redirect with history; Admin powers needed. But I'll have a go at rewording the introduction to reflect a possible future move to the native name. (Ditto the Dominican Academy.) Aille (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems, and with a few keystrokes on the magical sysop keyboard, 'tis done and both these are now under their untranslated names. I guess the associated 'Members of..' categories should likewise be renamed, to match the articles and following precedent eg Category:Members of the Académie française. Will look to it shortly. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Foundation

The article claims the Academy was founded on September 11, 1875; whereas the Academy's own website states that it was founded on March 23, 1835 out of a government initiative and ratified by a presidential decree on 1854. The idea behind it's creation was to establish a Mexican academy of language with the intent to establish a cultural emancipation from Spain in order to express a uniquely Mexican literary expression while also preserving the Spanish language so as to not let it fall into anarchical use. The website also links to a PDF file of that original initiative with the date set at March 23, 1835: [1]. According to the History of the Academy that is given in the Academy's own website it was not until 1871 when it became linked to the Academy of Spain. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academia Mexicana de la Lengua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229001817/http://www.academia.org.mx:80/historia.php to http://www.academia.org.mx/historia.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)