Disputatio:Shoa

E Vicipaedia

The Latin word that should be used is "Holocaustus". Shoa is not Latin, as Latin does not have the "sh".

I agree. It would be different if this covered specifically the Hebraic term, which is prefered by many Jews (but not myself), and thus has some interesting background in itself. But judging by the interwiki, this is meant to be the main article on the Holocaust, and it clearly makes more sense to use the Graecanic word for that. It is true that Latin has no sh. If the Romans had transcribed this word in antiquity, they would have written it soa, with a long o. --Iustinus 06:18, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I agree too (with 2 minor amendments).
  1. It may possibly remain useful to have a brief article under this title on Vicipaedia (rather than a redirect), since the naming of the event does itself arouse controversy.
  2. I think the main article should be Holocaustum. That's the noun form that I find in Souter, Later Latin dictionary. But maybe there are other authorities. Andrew Dalby 11:36, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
  1. Yes, that's more-or-less what I was trying to say.
  2. Looking into it, I see that you're right. I could have sworn it was masculine.
--Iustinus
Haec certe, si quod scriptum est, bene consideratis, non est pagina de strage Iudaeorum comprehensiva, sed stipula mera, qua explicare conatus sum, quid illa shoae vox sibi velit. Nexus intervicianos qui addidit hanc paginam excolere voluisse videtur, sed adhuc nihil profecit. Tamen mea quidem sententia shoae vox cum propria tum aptior est ad hoc facinus inauditum designandum quam illa holocausti metaphora. Praeterea auctoritas mihi et vicipaediae Hebraicae et fundi Soatici a Stephano Ludimontio conditi respicienda esse videtur. His rebus adductus Iustini monitis respectis verbo Hebraico conservato paginam ab inscriptione Anglico more translitterata Shoa ad inscriptionem Latino more translitteratam Soa movere hortor.--Irenaeus 12:02, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)