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!