Talk:List of Latinised names

Rivetus

Mr. Rivet, eh? Until I googled him, I thought this was a joke! --Slashme 10:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hellenised names

As far as I can check there isn't any "List of hellenised names" in WP, and some of the names included in this article are actually hellenised rather than latinised. Here are some:
Moses Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon) (the suffix -ides means "son of" and is typical Greek names suffix)
ANASTASIUS - Anstis (Anastasis = Resurrection)
APOTECARIUS -Lespicer; Spicer (Apotheke = stores). The suffix -us is simply the latin equivalent of the Gr. -os.
ARCHIDIACONUS - Archdeacon; Arcedeckne ("diaconus" means "helper")
ARCHIS; ARCIS
de AULA - Hall (See also de HAULA), Ad AULAM - atte Halle; Hall
de CHRISTI ECCLESIA, DRACO, ECCLESIENSIS - Churche ELISEUS
ELYOTA - Elliott (the suffix -otes, -ote means "from + toponym"). In Italian is frequently transcribed as -ota or -oti and in modern Greek as -otis.
FANTASMA - Fantosme, ROBERTIADES - Roberts (the same as -ides), Hieronymus Bosch (Jeroen Bosch), Desiderius Erasmus (Erasmios = beloved), Thomas Erastus (about the same as Erasmus), Eustachius ("well standing"?), Gersonides (Levi ben Gershom) (son of Gerson), Martinus Hylacomylus or Ilacomilus (Martin Waldseemüller) (yle = forest, mylos = mill), Johannes Rhodius (Hinne Rode) (from Rhodes island), Johannes Stadius (Jan Van Ostaeyen or Jean Stade), Tycho Brahe (Gr. name Tychon, from tyche=fate).
Some other names are re-latinised or re-hellenised, i.e. they originate from latin or greek, they had been vulgarised in some european language and re-latinised (e.g. de BONA VILLA - Bonville, de Castro etc).
Seems that we need a List of hellenized names--Euzen (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

William Harvey

I'm sure that

• HERNUEUS – Harvey

is not correct, and that it should be

• Haruæus (Harvaeus) = Harvey

cf. the marginal note here. And also in the latin Wikipedia Gulielmus Harvaeus. --2.247.247.77 (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The section "Coined by Anglo-Norman scribes"

This section was copied verbatim from pages 429–450 of The record interpreter : a collection of abbreviations, Latin words and names used in English historical manuscripts and records by Charles Trice Martin, published in 1910 (via the currently expired website http://coxresearcher.com/definitions/latin/surname.htm, archived here). The book can be read on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/recordinterprete00martuoft/page/n7.

In the book (and the website) the chapter title is "Latin Forms of English Surnames": there is no mention there or in the book's preface of the names being coined by Anglo-Norman scribes as is claimed by our article's section header.

Further, this list was compiled over a hundred years ago and we should not be advancing such ancient material as fact. And lastly the list is a straight copy of content that's already freely available online – if it belongs anywhere in the Wikiverse, it should be in Wiksource, not here. For all these reasons I've removed the entire section and added a link to the book under Further Reading.  —SMALLJIM  15:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lobsterthermidor: you have added back the section that I removed, with an edit summary explanation that does not cover any of the relevant points – it's nothing to do with copyright. Where is the evidence that this is an accurate list of Latinised names coined by Anglo-SaxonNorman scribes? Or even, considering its age, an accurate list of Latinised names at all? – note the unanswered concerns raised above in 2012 by User:Euzen, for example.

Incidentally '"The Record Interpreter" at Winchester Public Library' is a really crappy reference: you reverted the correct details of the book and the helpful link to the copy on archive.org that I added under "Further reading". And looking beyond this concern, the rest of the content looks very dubious too, with only three other references, two of which are to de.wikipedia, not allowable per WP:CIRC.

Anyone else care to give an opinion on any of this?  —SMALLJIM  19:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There's been no response after a week so I've undone Lobsterthermidor's last revert.  —SMALLJIM  20:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And I've been quickly reverted again :( I've raised the issue of the source's reliability at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, here.  —SMALLJIM  20:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: the response from RS/N is that the list in question certainly doesn't belong in this article - see the link above. I'll remove it again.  —SMALLJIM  19:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Another day, another reconsideration. I now think that it would be OK to retain the list (for now, at least), but its explanation must reflect what it really is. So I've done that. I hope this will be deemed acceptable.  —SMALLJIM  16:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Tables

I feel like these would work well as a table, with columns for their name, their latinised name, and possibly the source. Do others feel this is a good idea? I am willing to convert al of this to a table, but I want to make sure it won't just get reverted. I can do stuff! (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Medieval latin's inconsistent spelling

So, a lot of the names I've found recently seem to be spelled multiple ways. Even within Historia Brittonum Vortigern is spelled "Guorthigirnus" and "Guorthegirnus". I have put both. How do you feel about that? Should they be listed seperately? I believe bede's spelling is something like "Vortigernus", which wouldn't be anywhere nearby alphabetically. Where should we split up variant spellings of the same name? Self-described Sophist (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)