Disputatio:Seoulum
E Vicipaedia
[recensere] Nomen
I moved it back. If you really want to move the page, I suggest discussing it on this talk page first. Meanwhile:
- The reason given (Google hits) seems to be mistaken. I got "55" (reduced to 13) for Seoulum, and "352" (reduced to 110) for Seulum.
- If you actually look at the hits, none of those for "Seoulum" are in Latin, and I'm not sure if more than 1 or 2 of them are meant to be city names at all.
- And anyway, Google isn't king for Latin. Many of the hits for "Seulum" are reflexes of our Vicipaedia pages, so what does that prove? We have to look elsewhere for place names, really. See Fontes nominum locorum for some suggestions. Andrew Dalby 16:13, 30 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I agree Seulum was the established usage in the past. Recently, however, Seoulum has come to use and the usage is much extended now.
- I tried 'Seoulensis' and 'Seulensis', a derivative form, which is frequently used in latin nomenclature of species. While Seulensis gives only 264 results (reduced to 117)[1], I got 22,200 for Seoulensis (reduced to 426) [2]. This result excludes pages from wikipedia.
- There is a copy of a letter in latin from pope John Paul II, on designation of new archbishop of Uijeongbu. You can see what he used, Seoulum. --Nudimmud 10:34, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for doing the work. Both forms are possible, then -- this source gives Dioecesis Seulensis as if from Seulum. Let's wait a day or so in case anyone else has a comment, and then move the page to Seoulum as you prefer. We can keep both spellings in the text of the article, and cite a source for each. Better and better! Andrew Dalby 14:15, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)