Talk:Livia gens
| WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome | (Rated List-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||
Livy vs. Titus Livius[edit]
First off, the addition of Livy to the first paragraph. I'm a little confused as to what this means, and furthermore, the sentence trails off with a comma and is incomplete ("The" Livius, anglicized Livy, is the first century historian Titus Livius, ...?). Even if the sentence was completed, it seems odd to place it there; the intro is introducing the family as a whole.
As for what Livy's entry should be, even aside from the fact that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) explictly prefers "Livy" over "Titus Livius", we can look elsewhere. If we simply look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), the main requirements are:
- the name that is most generally recognisable
- the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles
Well, I'd never heard of Titus Livius before I stumbled across this article. Every source I've read has always used Livy, Livy, and Livy. I will admit that I am not hardcore into Roman history, but if anything, that drives the point in even more; the casual viewer will recognize Livy, not Titus Livius. The very fact that the article is on the family should clue them in that Livy, in fact, is a Livian. Besides, it's not like his "Roman" name isn't immediately afterward in parenthesees.
As for unambiguous, nobody else has the name Livy to my knowledge.
Even aside from that, Titus Livius is a redirect to the article under "Livy." Why not avoid the redirect?
This is a fairly minor issue, but I think this is also one where the Livy answer is unambiguously dictated by multiple Wikipedia guidelines. If you still think this is incorrect, can I suggest we take this debate over to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)? That way we can get a third or fourth opinion on the matter and avoid a revert war. SnowFire 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. That's all entirely beside the point. How is "'the Livius' is the 1st century historian Titus Livius" not a complete sentence? It means, that when we just mention the family name, we are referring to Titus Livius. Livy is simply the anglicized form of the family name (as Ptolemy is anglicized Ptolemaios, Virgil is anglicized Vergilius, etc.). The recommendation to use Livy for Titus Livius is sensible, but it amounts to calling the most prominent of the Liviuses just by his family name. This will do in any situation where the historian is referred to in a literary context, but here we are discussing him as a member of his family. I am not sure where the misunderstanding lies, so I won't argue any further, but you might try to see if I am making sense before reverting. dab (ᛏ) 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- See, the fact that Livy is actually the family name is not obvious. It sounds like a special name given just to him, like Confucius rather than Kong Fuzi. Thus it seems perfectly distinctive; that corruption of the Latin is his alone. That said, yes, if you see "Livy" and automatically translate it to "Livius" in your head, then I can see the source of the confusion ("Who is this "Livius?"). That said, did Roman sources or other people refer to him simply as "Livius"? Simply saying the Livius is Titus Livius isn't entirely obvious what it means. I'd refer to him as the most prominent of the Livians, except that Livia is probably in excellent competition for that spot.
- The reason it's not a complete sentence is that it ends with a period. I assumed that something had been clipped and the comma was intentional, but I guess it was simply meant to be a period. That said, if he really was referred to simply as Livius, go ahead and add that sentence back. SnowFire 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Livy vs. 'colored'[edit]
Of Livy, I've changed the possibly misleading 'perhaps colored' to 'perhaps not impartial'. Not that there's any 'perhaps' - few ancient historians strove for or even recognized impartiality. Cenedi (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong translation?[edit]
"Ab urbe condita", I think it doesn't really mean "because of the foundation"... I believe that it means " Since the foundation [of Rome]". "Ab" can't mean "because of", it's really a local-temporal preposition. The only problem in the translation could be in the participle, "condita", which can introduce someone to mistake. ( it's true that it concerts with "urbe", but the translation in this case isn't the same, it wouldn't have any sense translating: " Since the city founded". It would be ok too: " Since the city was founded") Please, can someone check and fix it? I'm not an expert in this materia, but I think that the translation posted doesn't mean what it should. Greetings --Brisk 90 (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No comments:
Post a Comment