Jump to content

Talk:Rivers of classical antiquity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Korkoras? When did Latin use the letter "K"? -- Zoe

The elementary Latin dictionary here (my partner actually knows the language) has a grand boldfaced capital K section heading, with exactly one entry: Kalendae, -arum (kalends). There might be a couple of others in a more thorough dictionary, but I am suspicious too.Vicki Rosenzweig
Mine also shows an alternate spelling of Carthago, and a couple of derivative adjectives of those two words, but that ain't saying much. A google search turns up a couple of example of "Korkoras", and a few more of "Corcoras", so who knows... I don't know what kind of authoratative source to look this kind of thing up in. --Brion
Some philologists here (and in Russia) claim that Latin used K at the beginning of loanwords from Slavic language that were beginning with K. In particular, Kalendae ;)

Unrelated to this, could anyone add Latin name of Morava (all or any of them)? Nikola 19:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pretty much done, I think? The linked page lists zapadna and juzna. --Joy [shallot] 09:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

transwiki?

[edit]

User:Miraclepine, anyone else: I just removed the {{copy to Wiktionary}} template on the article, for discussion here. I and maybe others have been developing the article a bit now, so it may no longer be a candidate for transwiki-ing, especially because i am not sure how "transwiki" works. Was the idea to create a page like this in Wiktionary, or was it just intended to make sure each Wiktionary entry for each river covered should be edited to include the Latin name? --Doncram (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to transwiki is probably not going to go anywhere, or even be discussed substantially here. User:Johnbod, at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of rivers, noted that the proposer has been banned, and I see at the proposer's Talk page stuff that indicates it is likely they will be out for 6 months or more. So I think there's no one to discuss this. However, if anyone is informed about transwiki-ing and could comment definitively, e.g. perhaps to put a wooden stake into it, or the opposite, that would be appreciated by me. --Doncram (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think dead for now. Let's just let it rest. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and include Greek?

[edit]

Hey, P Aculeius, Andrew Dalby, T8612, Phil Bridger, Johnbod, anyone else... at the ongoing AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of rivers, there is discussion this should be renamed, perhaps to Rivers of Classical Antiquity, and to have scope clarified. I think the AFD might eventually be closed with result "Keep, but consider renaming and refining scope", and I personally think it is better to establish consensus for a new name and scope of article here.

If "Classical Antiquity" is to be in the name, should the scope include Greek names for rivers, too? Or should there be a parallel list for Greek names of rivers known in ancient Greece?

  • Hmm, the scope of Greek empire or at least travel and Macedonian empire, and hence naming of rivers in Greek, is different from the later scope of Roman empire and travel and naming of rivers in Latin. Alexander the Great went into India, and I think Greek names appeared for major rivers there which probably never got Roman names. Even taking into account fact that Latin names were created/added/coined later, after Roman empire collapsed.
  • Many rivers may have prominence in one but not the other language. And Latin language may have adopted Greek names in many cases. The Wikipedia article for Büyük Menderes River, in Turkey, (known as Meander in Greek), does not mention a Latin name. But presumably Greek antiquarians did not name rivers in Gallia or Britannia, either. Even if a Greek or Latin name has been coined in modern times, perhaps it is better to have the scope be places known in antiquity alone?
  • The recently created linked OpenSourceMap which has been growing to show the Roman world's perspective about rivers of importance and their Latin names, seems a good thing IMHO. Introducing a map created and put directly into the article would be good too. Having separate mapping about Greek names of rivers known to ancient Greeks, could be built more easily in a new separate article, perhaps.

Comments welcome. --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should include Greek names, even if not all rivers have a Latin/Greek name. The main reference should be the Barrington Atlas, but editors can also use this. The Latin name of Büyük Menderes River is Meandrum. T8612 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Rivers of Classical Antiquity" unless someone has a better idea, and include Greek names since they may be different from Latin—not in Greek letters, but as normally transliterated in scholarly sources (there could be more than one version for some). I would expect to see both Maeandrus and Maeandros, since both are shown in my Latin dictionary (but not Maeandrum, which is accusative; note that the vast majority of rivers are masculine in Greek and Latin, and have river gods; Styx, Lethe, Tyche, and Neda are the only river goddesses I know of), although I suspect in the majority of instances Greek names will be transliterated with -us in all older and many modern sources. Although the Barrington Atlas is probably the best possible source, we also have access to both volumes of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography at Archive.org, providing supplemental information about individual rivers, as well as a second source. P Aculeius (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just amending my previous statement: I'm not opposed to having the Greek names in Greek, just that the standard transliterations into Latin/English need to be there alongside the modern names. Having the Greek versions as well would be a plus, as long as it's done logically. I have a couple of ideas: 1) we could expand the table with English, Greek, and Roman names in separate columns, and either a notes column or footnotes where needed, or Greek and Roman names together and sortable, with whichever form is most common in English-language classical sources coming first, and both labeled Greek or Latin if they're distinct. 2) arrange as an alphabetical list without a table, with entries that can be expanded with important information describing the location and any notes, including special historical significance. I think this might be the better option, as it would be more readable and allow for more information to be included with each entry. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposed renaming to "Rivers of Classical Antiquity".
Doncram says "Many rivers may have prominence in one but not the other language". Actually that's not so much of a problem as it might seem. Geographical sources in Greek, notably works of Strabo and Ptolemy, cover the whole Roman Empire as well as the Eastern conquests of Alexander. Sources in Latin, including Mela and Pliny the Elder alongside various historical texts, also reach widely across the ancient world. Thus names in both Greek and Latin can usually be found, and both languages are often given in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography cited above by P Aculeius. Andrew Dalby 14:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which doesn't, I think, include all geographical names, but is a highly reliable source for those that it does have. It gives "Maeander" as the normal Latin nominative form, with "-drus" and "-dros" as alternatives. Andrew Dalby 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's interesting. And it demonstrates part of the usefulness of this article! P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, to all of you! This is going beyond what i know. I do wonder if someone could, in a section here, create a few rows of combo article of multiple columns to consider as an example. Based on my experience building many large list-articles' tables, i am a bit skeptical in advance about how practical a super-table-that-provides-everything-and-is-hoped-to-be-wonderful will turn out in practice. Note also, "classical antiquity" seems like better term than capitalized, so Rivers of classical antiquity would be better IMO for a combo article. See classical antiquity article. --Doncram (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Roman era regions?

[edit]
Map per 117 A.D., but without region borders

Hey, P Aculeius, Andrew Dalby, T8612, article has been developed to include coordinates for most, so the linked OSM map is looking pretty good. About including Greek or not, above, i didn't/don't want to be too negative about difficulty of developing that way. If I get some direction which I can see how to follow, i am willing to develop more. In the meantime, it does seem to me that adding a sortable "Location" column would be an improvement, to hold the region name(s) and the coordinates for each river. The regions should be Brittania, Hispania, Italia, etc., I guess. But where is the division between Aquitania and Gallia, say? Is there a good map partitioning the Roman empire and adjacent areas into region names like these? The column could be explained/footnoted to be the regions as of a certain date. Some rivers will run through multiple regions, and I would like to try to list those from the mouth of river going up, so will be sortable by region of mouth. --Doncram (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Aquitania is usually regarded as being part of Gallia. Andrew Dalby 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roman provinces under Trajan
Scythia-Parthia 100 BC, from Parthia article
Here's a map at Quora.com, without source, not in sufficient detail, labelled as being at time of Gesu (Jesus). The "Roman provinces Trajan" map at right is at least in Commons, and might possibly be useful. It has no Gallia; instead it differentiates Narbonensis, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica. Could I merge Germania superior and inferior, and merge Pannonia superior and inferior, and merge Moesia superior and inferior? There are some names totally unfamiliar to me. --Doncram (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try wikilinks for possible regions:
Fixed some of your links. I think generally it's good to be as specific as possible with regard to location, but if a river spans more than one region, or the borders were redrawn over time, it may make sense to use the larger area as a description—western Gaul, for example. As you can see, however, many of the provinces that shared a name aren't compact regions—on the map at right, it would make no sense to combine the Germanias or the Mosesias. Remember that many of these divisions represent only limited spans of time: in Republican times, Spain was divided into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior. And we wouldn't want to use the Augustan regions to describe parts of Italy, IMO, instead of using the historical divisions: Cisalpine Gaul, Etruria, Umbria, Picenum, Sabinum, Latium, Campania, Samnium, Apulia, Calabria, Bruttium.
I don't see having the Greek names of rivers as a serious problem—most rivers known to the Greeks are already within the scope of this article, and in many cases, certainly in Greece and the east, these names will have been adopted by the Romans, perhaps with minor spelling variations. I just think it's a good idea to make it explicit that both Greek and Latin names should be included if and when they differ—usually the Greek name will have a regular Latinisation, which will appear in Roman sources, so this may not be a frequent problem. P Aculeius (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asia Minor in 2nd century AD - Roman provinces under Trajan
Thanks! It is interesting to me to browse to those provinces, e.g. Bithynia and Pontus with interesting history i knew nothing about, but involving Sulla and Caesar and Pompey. The map at right, found in the Cilicia article, shows enough detail to see where rivers run in Asia Minor, which should help, too. A table might possibly be ordered by big region then by sub-region within that (i.e. Italia-Umbria, vs. Italia-Apulia, etc.), and have 4 sortable columns: for region (so sort by Italia vs. Hibernia etc.), for Latin name of river, for Greek name of river, for English name of river, plus a Notes column. Will see if that is too much or if that is workable. --Doncram (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My limited experience with large sortable tables suggests that notes might be better limited to footnotes of the {{efn-lr|}} persuasion, unless they can be kept relatively short, because otherwise this column risks becoming quite wide, or numerous entries will require multiple lines—which would probably make the table unsightly and more confusing. I think that we might want a column entitled "Modern/local name" following "English name". For instance: Latin Tiberis, no Greek equivalent necessary (although you could include it), English Tiber, Italian Tevere. This might be rather important in the case of rivers in Anatolia, where most English-language sources will use a Greek or Latin name, or an English name based on it, but Wikipedia's article on the river might be under a modern Turkish name. The location column wouldn't need to be especially detailed. P Aculeius (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope: fluvii listed

[edit]

Okay the current list now has coordinates for all but a few lacking articles or lacking coordinates in their articles (and after I fixed up some that way). Looking at the linked OSM map, it is clear this is a very incomplete list. If you drill in anywhere, you'll find another unlisted fluvius, e.g. Charente River (Latin name not given in its article) in France. Or even anywhere in Italia you will see there are more. None of Sicilia's are listed. The current list includes only two fluvii in modern-day Turkey, while the included, very large-scale and non-detailed map of Roman Empire in Trajan's time, at 117 AD, shows about ten. I just made sure all the fluvii explicitly labelled on that Trajan map are included, by adding: Liger (Loire), Tigris, Euphrates, Araxes (Aras). It currently seems a bit random to me, and it would be nice to be able to describe the scope better than, say, "selected rivers in the Roman Empire or known to the Romans". --Doncram (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now all but a few fluvii are assigned by me to regions. Review/completions/corrections would be welcomed. --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and questions

[edit]

I wonder what is the actual source of the original list of rivers and their Latin names. And what can actually be used now, by me and/or others, to verify/source various Latin names? The DARE (Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire) source is not detailed enough to answer very many questions, and consulting raises other questions. Help? --Doncram (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ister vs. Danubius?

[edit]

Ister = per this article, is apparently Lower Danube; Danubius = Upper Danube. Where did the river change name, in Roman times? Currently in list-article i used "Ister" repeatedly explaining various rivers being tributaries. But maybe Ister only refers to a very low portion, perhaps just the delta of the Danube on the Black Sea. ??? --Doncram (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DARE source doesn't show "Ister" anywhere along it, AFAICT. Help! --Doncram (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aufentis vs. Aufidus

[edit]

About the Ufente, this list-article says its Latin name is "Aufentis". But Strabo, as referenced in its article (new, with link to Strabe text kindly provided by Evvekk, thanks!), calls it "Aufidus". This list-article says "Aufidus" is the name of the Ofanto, a completely different river. The DARE source is not detailed enough to give a Latin name for either, AFAICT, even tho the Ofanto is quite a major river. Help! --Doncram (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

The page looked better here. The table is unreadable now. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, you have a point about the previous version, which simply had Roman name in one column and English name in another, i have to agree. It now has a great linked map of locations corresponding to a location column, and the beginnings of some description or other info for a few items in a sensible "description/other" column, but I agree the formatting is not nice. I put the Roman and English names in 2 lines for each entry in the first column, I think because I was expecting for Greek names to be added also, and maybe local names (e.g. Italian for many). I was worried that it would have too many columns.
Adding Greek could require 3 or more new columns, or rows in each item. E.g. for the Achelous there is (Greek: Αχελώος, Ancient Greek: Ἀχελῷος, and Akhelôios. And multiple alternatives for every one of these (Latin, English, modern local language, ancient Greek in Greek characters, English rendition of ancient Greek name, could also be required. I despaired of having a separate column for each.
The consensus on this page seems to be that Greek should be included, but no one has replied to my request "show me an example few rows" to prove it can work. Srnec, do you have any idea on how to accommodate Greek? --Doncram (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't four columns work? English – Latin – Greek – Location. Only one name per cell, use a footnote to indicate variants. Greek has ancient Greek spelling and a transcription, all else in a footnote as needed. Wikilink for English only. Location only coordinates, no province or region. That is my suggestion. Srnec (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rivers_of_classical_antiquity&oldid=1209445518"