Talk:Aqueduct of Segovia

Aqueduct of Segovia vs. Segovia Aqueduct

okay, I'll ask. why not ... Segovia Aqueduct?

Blondlieut 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No deep reason. As you probably know, English can go either way on this, but to the best of my recollection I've usually heard it called "the Aqueduct of Segovia". Segovia Aqueduct should probably be there as a redirect, though. I'll add it if no one's beaten me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, really? "Bridge of Brooklyn" sounds pretty foreign to me. So does "Bridge of London." English might theoretically go that way, but it doesn't often. "Aqueduct of Segovia" strikes me simply as a "gloss" from the Spanish, not a translation, and it doesn't strike me, as a native speaker of English, as having any resonance with actual usage. Blondlieut 01:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)blondlieut@aol.com (who takes the "Highway of Shirley" (also known as the Shirley Highway) across the Bridge of the 14th Street (also known as the 14th Street Bridge) into work every day, where I work at the Building of 1600 Massachusetts (also known as the 1600 Massachusetts Building ...I'll leave it to any other native speaker to tell me which of the "of" constructions actually sounds natural).

Off the top of my head: Colossus of Rhodes, Sea of Japan, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Great Wall of China. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you trace the link aqueduct, you'll be hard-pressed to find many (or any) other examples of aqueducts that do not follow the "X Aqueduct" naming pattern. The careful reader will note that I did not say that English never follows the "X of X" pattern, I said it does not often do so. The fact that my examples are from modern ones from my everyday life, and yours are unusual ones from places far away and (often) times along ago, wouldn't seem to indicate demonstrate that this is the more common or natural way English works. Blondlieut 02:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a funny thing. It's indeed listed under "Segovia Aqueduct" in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and not "Aqueduct of Segovia." www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066604?hook=633946 Is that a good enough reason to change it? (That's a real question, not a rhetorical "HA! I got you now!) 199.196.144.16 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)blondlieut@aol.com

FWIW, the Google test gives "Segovia aqueduct" 713, "aqueduct of Segovia" 805. It really looks like both uses are equally common. First hit on the latter is UNESCO, which ought to carry about as much weight as Britannica. I don't see much to choose between the quality of sites using each name. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Convento jurídico

"… convento jurídico (which translates into 'judicial covenant') of Clunia." I don't think so. I had left the phrase untranslated because I wasn't sure of an English-language equivalent, but "convento" is not "covenant" (it can be "convent" or "monastery"). I believe that convento jurídico is a monastery with legal proprietorship of a territory, but I don't know an English term. - Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, convento in this context is not a religious term. "provincial court," approximately. Blondlieut 01:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ummm....About the "Convento" <-> "Covenant" translation, I also had my doubts... when I first translated it I used "convent", but I did some research and it turns out that the Spaniards used "Convento" as a referral to an arbitration of boundaries. It was, therefore, and agrement mediated by the Church, thus I decided to use the most similar-sounding word that reached that meaning, and went for "Covenant". Feel free to correct me on that if you find a better way to translate it.

I like the term "Provincial Court", but it just loses the elegance of "Convento Jurídico", don't you think? I'll let you fellas decide. I'm still a newbie to the wikipedia community (this is the first artcile I've translated or even modified) and will defer to people's superior experience. # Ianfe 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/biblio/Data/A/0053.pdf

See the above link. Apparently, as it turns out, Roman Hispania had 14-some-odd jurisdictions; they were called conventus iuridici (the plural, at any rate), as, well, they didn't speak Spanish then, and in many of those same places now, of course, they still don't speak Spanish (or they speak it along with Basque, Catalan, Portuguese, etc.). So using the Spanish expression for a Roman Hispania idea seems a bit off, in English (make it makes sense in Spanish, where Hispanizing the Latin is a lot easier, and the cultural continuum between Roman Hispania and modern Spain, and thus between Latin and Spanish is, well ... continuous). At any rate, my first (pseudo)translation, provincial court, is only right in the sense that convento juridico can apply both to the jurisdiction of the court and the court itself. So this should probably be something like. ... "the area fell with the jurisdiction of the Roman provincial court (conventus iuridici [we'll have to find the singular], Spanish convento jurídico) located in Clunia. That way the term is explained without over-translating it (and over-translating here ... doesn't provide much explanation for what we're talking about).

Does that make sense?Blondlieut 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Go with it. =D #Ianfe 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe conventus iuridici is a mix of singular noun and plural adjective. My Latin is weak, but I'd expect conventus iuridicus singular and conventi iuridici plural. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you're right. A google search of the term brings it up being used in precisely the way under discussion-- a Roman "conventus iuridicus;" see http://libro.uca.edu/stanislawski/Chap8.htm

I'll add it. Blondlieut 21:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"conventus iuridici" is normal Latin. The word "conventus" belongs to the fourth declension, which ends in nominative -us, genitive -us, dative -ui, accusative -um, and ablative and -u. Cf. this guide: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caseusage/qt/Latin4thdecl.htm "conventus iuridici" is nominative plural, meaning literally "meeting places for court." It refers to an institution of Roman provincial administration, whereby the center of a region's court system would be located in an important provincial city. It was there, in the conventus, that the governor dispensed justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.27.150.73 (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

Thanks! I said my Latin was weak! So what is the singular (a meeting place for court), since convento jurídico is singular? - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Matron

"Catholic Matron of the city": really "matron"? Despite its etymology, I thought a "patron saint" was a "patron saint" regardless of gender. In Spanish, the term is patrona. (And just a bit later, we refer to Saint Barbara as (patron saint of artillerymen). But I'm not Catholic. Does anyone confidently know the correct English-language term? - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I had my doubts about this term, too. Like you, I'm not Catholic so I hesitated in changing it. But I'm fairly sure al saints are refered to as patrons regardless of their gender, but there might be an exception for the Virgen Mary. GringoInChile 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Catholic Matron" is right, just weird in English (such that it might require rethinking about how to explain or present this). It seems to me that ... the Virgin Mary keeps reappearing to Catholics (she's sort of like the Buddha that way ... but I guess it's the same Mary though). So there's the Virgin of Guadalupe, whose a ... "matron" of a particular place, where Mary showed up in some particular guise. So this is ... Mary again, but with yet another name, visage, and complicated history. Seems to me patron saints (patron here I think means "pattern" or "model") are (supposedly, at least) real people (and with modern saints were really real people), but a Catholic Matron can be an apparition of sorts (not a person that comes back as the reincarnation of Mary ... I don't think there's a doctrine on the second coming of Mary .. but I could be wrong). But I'm just a dumb Protestant. Blondlieut 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly, "Catholic Matron" is a term I've heard often enough in English, and I went to a Catholic boarding school in Wisconsin (I'll admit, though, I was 12 at the time), but I guess it's as simple as going to your local Catholic church (if you currently live in a English-speaking country) and asking the Priest what the correct terminology is. # Ianfe 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• ... and no, there is no Catholic doctrine about the second coming of Mary. Hehehe # Ianfe 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, I wonder... does the term "patroness" exist? I don't think so, but if so it would be an excellent compromise.... Just checked "patroness" at thefreedictionary.com and it states "3. A patron saint. See Usage Note at -ess." (which then goes on to denote that "ess" refers to the term being applied to a female). I guess that's the word to use, then!. If nobody minds, I'll go ahead and change that. #Ianfe 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think female patron saints can be ... patron saints in English. There's a movement in English away from separate endings (waitress, stewardess); some are degrading (poetess), some are insulting (Jewess). So I wouldn't recommend it. This ... manifestation of Mary makes her the patron saint of the city, in English, I think. A google check reveals that any use of matron saint is .. jocular at best (and .. non-religious), and at the "Matron" in a religious context refers to ... St. Anne, who (despite no historic or biblical evidence) is construed by Catholics as the mother (hence matron) of Mary (and "matron saint" does not occur in New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia). I'm pretty sure, going back to the Virgin of Guadalupe model, that the Black Virgin (as she is known) is called a "patron saint" of the Americas (leaving aside that from a metaphysical perspective, she is not separate and apart from Mary herself (who is also a saint, St. Mary)-- the weirdness I cannot seem to get past in describing this, so bear with me). All that to say, "Catholic" in the translation seems unnecessary; this Virgin Mary of the Whatever-whatever is simply the (a) patron saint of the city.Blondlieut 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Patroness

Well, I'm wrong (or at least half-way wrong). The Virgin of Guadalupe, an apparition of the "true Mother of God," is the "Patroness of the Americas." See below. But when it's more than an apparition, and it's and actual person (not just Mary reappearing), then it's patron saint (see the New Advent Encyclopedia on that). So St. Barbara is a ... patron saint (I made her the patron saint of artillery (as opposed to artillerymen) as the wikipedia article supports this, and it eliminates the sexism in the phrase (the wikipedia article on her also states that she is the patron saint of artillery gunners, but that seems not to follow as naturally in the text).

http://www.sancta.org/

Anyway, I made the text "Patroness of Segovia," paralleling "Patroness of the Americas" (Patroness of the city .. didn't seem to cut it) and I took out "Catholic" as redundant (I mean, she ain't the Presbyterian Patroness of Segovia, now is she?) Blondlieut 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Legend

OOoooookay, maybe this is just too obvious, but perhaps something needs to be added to the "Legend" section regarding the manifest import of the story, which is to say the roll that it played in Christianizing the foundational story of the aqueduct, and thus of Segovia itself? I mean, if the the pagan Hercules had been founder of the city, and had sat a top the structure, very convenient indeed that a new story comes along, with a wonderful excuse to topple the image of a pagan deity and install the statute of a virgin and the Catholic saint, and the lads from the local Francoist military hotbed for decades got to hoot and holler under their beautific, shining faces on the patron saint for barbarism day. Lovely, and I'm sure quite a site. Or does the legend does kind of ... sit there, with no explication at all of the function it served in the cultural and religious transition of Segovia?Blondlieut 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"spraying the arches with holy water"

I'm thinking holy water is "sprinkled." thoughts? I mean, did they have garden hoses back then? And did they use them for holy water? Blondlieut 21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably "sprinkled" is better, you're right. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Monarchs

Is that a common enough designation in English for Ferdinand & Isabel to pass without further comment? I can't judge, to me they are the Reyes Católicos, no sense of how common in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the first time I've seen them refered to as the Catholic Monarchs in an English text: They are usually named individually. Still, there is an article about them under "Catholic Monarchs" so if someone reading the article is in any doubt who they are, they can simply click on the link. GringoInChile 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah... I was surprised to find an article for Catholic Monarchs as well. When I first translated it I looked for "Catholic Kings" or something similar... then I retraced it to Felipe de Aragon and found out about the article... I'll check some History books and see if they're called that way in English outside Wikipedia. If not, we might suggest changing the title of "Monarchs" article? Ianfe 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, I checked and "Catholic Monarchs" is the correct English term. #Ianfe 02:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember in history class, in English, calling these folks the Reyes Católicos, untranslated. Seems to me people know the names Ferdinand and Isabelle; I'd used those names and link to "Catholic Monarchs" (which borders on being .. imcomprehensible, I'm afraid), using the Spanish term parenthetically.

Jerónimos

A pretty major order in Spain. Do we have an article somewhere to link to? - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC

Why in Segovia?

Segovia was not an important city during Roman times. Why such a big, beautiful and technically perfect aqueduct was built there? I have wondered it in my blog (in Spanish)

We will probably never know for sure, but my best guess is that some rich people (or the leaders of a big and rich organisation like the church or a government organ) chose for whatever reason Segovia as their home base and decided they could afford to provide for a reliable water source, both for their own direct benefit and possibly also to win public support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

until recently?

Until when? When was it finally shut down? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Amount of arches

Someone has to check whether there are actually 75 single arches and 44 double arches (88 when counted seperately) and another 4 single arches. If that is the case, the total of 166 arches is incorrect and should be 167. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.208.61 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Aqueduct of Segovia 08.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Aqueduct of Segovia 08.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Aqueduct of Segovia is a Roman aqueduct located in Segovia, Spain that transports water from the Rio Frio. It is thought to have been constructed during the 1st century CE. One of the most significant and best-preserved ancient monuments left on the Iberian Peninsula, the aqueduct is considered a symbol of Segovia and is present on the city's coat of arms.Photograph: Bernard Gagnon

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aqueduct of Segovia. 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/20110516181723/http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_article/pg_38-41_Segovia.pdf to http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_article/pg_38-41_Segovia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516171422/http://www.wmf.org/content/acueducto-de-segovia to http://www.wmf.org/content/acueducto-de-segovia

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Legend ?

I came to this article to read about the legend of the Aqueduct of Segovia, which was mentioned in the news recently due to a controversial statue that is being proposed. I found no mention of it in the article, but here on the Talk page I see where there used to be a section dedicated to it. What happened to it? It's totally gone, and no mention on the Talk page as to why.165.225.38.232 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not the Virgen de la Fuencisla

There are two niches in the upper part, on the past, one of them contained a sculpture of Hercules, later removed. Nowadays, only one of them is occupied by a sculpture of the Virgin Mary, which is not the "Virgen de la Fuencisla", in the Spanish article it is said to be Our Lady of Mount Carmel, however, the official website of the monument doesn't specify a particular advocation of the sculpture. Traditionally was the subjetc of an offering by the graduates of the military academy of artillery of Segovia celebrating Saint Barbara.

The sculpture has been removed for restoration and a copy has taken her place in the niche.

http://acueducto.turismodesegovia.com/es/noticias/destacados/472-procedimiento-para-la-restauracion-de-la-virgen-del-acueducto

Also, the mentioned Saint Stephen sculpture used to be on the other niche, but is no longer present.