Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2022 January 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11

Moni as given name

Moni is a somewhat common Hebrew given name. Judging by some poor research, my understanding is that it's a shorter/affectionate form of Shlomo (שְׁלֹמֹה‎, related to Solomon). I found some more questionable/possibly unrelated connection with Simon/Simeon (also of Hebrew/biblical origin, wiktionary gives a connection to the supercifially phonetically and semantically close shamá', שָׁמַע, "to hear, listen") and Monica (wiktionary says of Latin origin, but likely Punic, also a Semitic language). There is a disambiguation page for Moni (disambiguation) and one for Shlomo, for the purposes of the encyclopedia the main question is if the connection Moni-Shlomo is solid and if "Moni" is common enough to warrant a link to Shlomo in the disambiguation page. Clarifications about the other names are mostly a bonus (also sorry for eventual gross mistakes). 176.247.133.109 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It is the nickname of Shlomo Moshonov and Shlomo Nitzani, but it is not exclusive to Shlomo. It is also the nickname of Shimon Fanan and Shimon Naor.^[1]  --Lambiam 12:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A form of Latin?

Please see File:Tino di camaino, lunetta centrale del duomo di napoli, con santi e cardinale di antonio baboccio, 01.JPG.

According to Wikipedia the sculpture is by Antonio Bamboccio, so I presume the inscription at the bottom is from the early 15th century. Several words or word endings make me think it's in a form of Latin, but it contains a variety of letterforms not used in classical Latin or in modern usage.

For example, just look at the second line in the left-hand column. In that line alone:

• There are two different shapes that look like an A, one (just after the second S) with an angled crossbar and what looks like a double serif on the top; and one (in QUODAM) that looks more normal, but has a single top serif.
• There are two different shapes that might be a T (one between the two Ses, and one in the word that looks like MUNUTULU).
• Also in MUNUTULU, there is what looks like a UL ligature, but in the next word U and L appear as separate letters.
• And what's that thing after MUNUTULU that looks like a dotless ? mark?

Also in the text there are marks that look like macrons with serifs on them, but some of them aren't placed over vowels or even over single letters, and in the word below MUNUTULU there's one with an extra kink in it: maybe some sort of diacritical. And (in the first line) some symbols that resemble snakes more than any classical or modern letters.

Is there an article where this sort of writing is explained? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

At commons there are two other images (lower quality, but with the 4th/last line of text). I am not that familiar with Latin and I'm not that sure that the carver was either. The two different "A"'s may be purely graphical, a sign for a long vowel comes to mind, but I have no idea if it was used with a similar meaning at that time, a "T" between "mæius" and "sacræ" doesn't make any sense (not sure if "æ" is a correct translitteration here, but I am quite sure that in that position there isn't a simple "t"), ligature use can be inconsistent, expecially when space matters (e.g. carving in stone). For the dotless ? mark I would bet on some kind of abbreviation sign, it's used also in the first line before some surprisingly greek-like letters. Some parts can actually get clearer only once you get the general meaning, but I hope you will find some better answer. --176.247.176.107 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I found the following complete transcription and translation by Nicolas Block from his "Neapolitan bishops as patrons of art from Anjou to Aragon" - The inscription reads: "NULLIU(s) I(n) LO(n)GU(m) (et) SIN(e) SCEMAT(e) TE(m) PU(s) HONORIS / PO(r)TA FUI RUTILA(n)S SUM IANUA PLENA DECORIS / ME MEUS (et) SACRE QUO(n)DAM MUNUTULU(s) AULE / EXCOLUIT P(r)OP(r)I(i)S HENRICUS SUMPTIBUS HUIUS / PRESUL APOSTOLICE NU(n)C CO(n)STA(n)S CA(r)DO COLUMNE / CUI P(re)COR I(n)COLUMEM VITA(m) POST FATA PERHE(n)NEM / HOC OPUS EXACTUM MILLE CURRENTIB(us) ANNIS / QUO QUATER (et) CE[n]TU(m) SEPTE(m) VERBU(m) CARO FACTU(m).

For a long time I have been only a small door without any sign of dignity, now I am a portal full of ornaments and shining in splendour. Henricus Minutulus, who had once been the bishop of this holy church and now a trustworthy hinge of the apostolic pillar, decorated me at his own expense. For him I pray for a safe and sound eternal life after his death. This work has been executed when 1407 years have passed by since the word has become flesh." Mikenorton (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The reading quater & centum can also be found elsewhere,^[2], but does not make sense. Without a word between quater and centum we have mille ... quater centum septem = "thousand four times hundred seven", presumably meaning 1000 + 4×100 + 7 = 1407. Some sources even spell this as one word, quatercentum,^[3][4] although this is not standard Latin for "four hundred". The insertion of et  gives an incomprehensible "thousand four times and hundred seven".  --Lambiam 12:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Just some quick notes: the text is to be read line by line (no separate columns), the question mark-like sign is indeed for shortening desinences, some signs in the first line still look out of place and my earlier use of "æ" for "e" was indeed inappropriate, similar final vertical lines are practical and used for "c" and possibly other letters too. Also thanks to Mikenorton. --176.247.176.107 (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The overbars (which here stand for the letter ⟨N⟩) and other additions are sigla. These were commonly used in older epigraphs and manuscripts written in Latin to economize on space.  --Lambiam 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article where the significant signs are explained: Scribal abbreviation. The “thing [...] that looks like a dotless ? mark” and the character you identify as one of the “shapes that might be a T” are shown there in the image labelled “Examples of independent marks”. ◅ Sebastian 11:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike for the transliteration and Sebastian for the link. I would never have guessed about the use of "final vertical lines" turning a C into backwards D shape, and an E into the same with an extra stroke; I was sure that latter one was some sort of ligature. Thanks again.

--184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved