Talk:Q5517401
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — Gaius (Q5517401)
description: ancient Roman praenomen
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Gaius” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
French Label
[edit]@Ursus, Romulanus: as it is going back and forth over the last months between Gaius and Caius perhaps it would serve to reach some agreement? The discussion could be extended to Gnaeus (Q5574029) as well. As far as I know in French Gaius and Gnaeus are seldom used (with the notable exception of Gaius (Q313439)) but I believe Romulanus was trying to achieve some sort of unicity with the labels of the various tria nomina ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Romulanus, Jahl de Vautban: Sorry for my basic english, i am not very clever with it. Caius and Gnaeus are old manner, and not only for French, it is right latin epigraphic manner. Spanish says Cayo, portugese says Caio. See also Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby of Zurich University : for example CIL 06, 02028 with a list of tria nomina : C(aius) occurs 27 times, Cn(aeus3) 11 times, and zero Gaius/Gnaeus. On so one for many other lists. And I don't understand what objet is "sort of unicity with the labels of the various tria nomina". Tria nomina are sorted by gens nomen, and not by praenomen. More, praenomen is not known for many person of empire period. Ursus (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ursus: c'est ma faute, je n'ai pas été très clair. Je voulais dire par là que je crois que l'un des objectifs de Romulanus était de faire en sorte que tous les labels des divers praenomens, nomens, cognomens et signums soient équivalent au latin, peu importe les pratiques de chaque langue ; les transcriptions particulières de chacune sont rejetées en alias (voir par exemple Sempronius (Q29652475)). Pour en revenir à la graphie, à titre personnel je suis assez convaincu par les arguments de M. Aberson dans cet article (il est court, mais c'est le seul en français que j'ai trouvé) : C. et Cn. sont les abréviations correctes, mais leurs formes développées (ou en tout cas leur prononciation juste) devraient bien être Gaius et Gnaeus (de la même manière qu'on abrège cos. mais qu'on développe consul) ; les Grecs l'avaient bien compris et écrivaient systématiquement Γαῖος, pas Καῖος. Le même avis est exprimé par A. Birley, qui cite aussi E. Fraenkel dans la RE, s. v. "Namenwesen" et O. Salomies, Die römischen Vornamen. Studien zur römischen Namengebung, que je n'ai pas encore consulté. Quoi qu'il en soit, Caius et Cnaeus restent les formes plus usitées en français, ce qui leur donne une certaine légitimité à figurer en tant que label. -- Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
same text as above but in English
- Sorry it is my fault, I wasn't very clear. What I meant is that I believe that Romulanus tries to achieve a common label for all the praenomens, nomens, cognomens and signums based on the Latin one, with the particularities of each languages as aliases (see e. g. Sempronius (Q29652475)). Back to the spelling, I am personally quite convinced by M. Aberson's article (it is quite short, but it's the only one I have found in French): C. and Cn. are the correct abbreviations, but expanded they should be written (or at least pronounced) Gaius and Gnaeus (just as we shorten cos. but we expand consul) ; Greeks understood it well and wrote Γαῖος, not Καῖος. The same opinion is voiced by A. Birley, who cites as well E. Fraenkel, s. v. "Namenwesen" in the RE and O. Salomies, Die römischen Vornamen. Studien zur römischen Namengebung, both of which I didn't yet read. Anyway, Caius and Cnaeus are still the most used spelling in French, so they have some legitimacy to stay as label. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome might be interested also. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)