Disputatio:Michiganus Lacus
E Vicipaedia
Shouldn't this be Lacus Michigania? And not to put too fine a point on it, but do we want to say Chicagonia or Sicagum? I vote for Sicagum. --Sinister Petrus
- It should be "Michinanus Lacus" actually, and I think I'll move it there. Egger gives "Lacus Michiganus" and he's close to official (even when he's wrong), but I think we can feel justified in reversing the order of the words: I think the Romans usually put lacus, mons, fluvius etc. after the name.
- As for the name of Chicago, I've seen so many Latinizations of it, non of which have any particular prestidge to me, beyond the fact that I personally (and somewhat arbitrarily) use Sicagum. Curiously, our city does not seem to be listed in Egger. So really I don't care what Latin form is used so long as it links to whatever the article title i, e.g. [[Sicagum|Chicagonia]]. Or we could just change it.
- Also "Vertis" should read "Viridis" (curiously Egger does give Green Bay, which makes me wonder if I am looking for Chicago on the wrong page) --Iustinus 17:08 sep 14, 2005 (UTC)
Go for it. Yeah, I do like Sicagum best. It sounds moare Latin-style than Chicagum or Chicagonia. Something about the "ch" combo that doesn't quite sit right with me. --Sinister Petrus
IN MISSALE ROMANUM: CHICAGONIA legi!