Talk:House of Nemanjić
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
House of Nemanjić is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
House of Nemanjić is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Ninam wrote: google is not authority, it often returns typo. errors
- Sure, but look at what you're saying. There's not only 542 hits for "Nemanjid", but there's also precedent in Premyslid. Stop being stubborn and examine the situation normally. This simply wasn't a typo. --Joy [shallot] 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Joy. What's up? Google normally, asks <Did you mean: Nemanjic >, no reverse. Than, there is only 101 – 109 pages with wrong spelling <…id>, and the rest are duplications in the same article; i.e.<In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 109 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.>. On contrary, there are almost 10.000 pages with correct spelling Nemanjić on different languagese and wrritings. --Ninam 00:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Try repeating searches... I now got 81 hits in one attempt, and 532 in another. I then tried just the English pages, and got "518 English pages". --Joy [shallot] 12:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here it is: English pages search - 6250, Serbian Latin <...ć> 2160, Cyrillic 536; English and non English pages search with <...c> - 7,840 , Wrong spelling search <d> 536 (101-109 unic pages). It is obvious, isn't it? --Ninam 22:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's only obvious that the term "rarely" applies. I don't see much reason to believe that these are all typos. (It's also somewhat hard to believe that someone would mistake a "ć" for a "d", or at least harder to believe that this explanation is more viable than them using the -id form purposely.) --Joy [shallot] 00:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A few other examples - Seleucid dynasty, Attalid dynasty. --Joy [shallot] 09:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Joy, not agreed, your examples are not adequate, as same as the first one with Premyslid??? . Nemanjic or Nemanjić is not dynasty of Asia Minor BC. There is only one proper spelling, and Wikipedia's mission is not, as I understand, to spread typos, or ignorance.
- Look, it's an English practice. It's not common, but it definitely exists, and it fits a profile. Encyclopedias document existing practice, they do not prescribe, let alone proscribe anything. --Joy [shallot] 01:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It may be worth pointing out that in English, the suffix -ić means absolutely nothing, and one has to know that it's a Slavic patronymic to understand that it means those who descend from Nemanja. The suffix -id, on the other hand, seems to carry this meaning implicitly. --Joy [shallot]
Hm, who is stubborn now? There is no Nemanid dynasty, not in history not for now. Correct spelling / transcription for ć is c or ch, never d, that could be typo, or a poor will. --Ninam 02:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Do you not comprehend that the "d" is not a transcription? --Joy [shallot] 10:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Joy, please do not loose your temper. --Ninam 04:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not losing my temper, I'm just appalled that you seem to be completely ignoring the rationale I laid out. Can you find an actual error in my logic? Your last reply seems to have amounted to "no, that's not true. full-stop.". No, perhaps there were no Nemanjids. But in that same vein, there were also no Arpads (only Árpádok), no Romanovs (only Рома́нов), no Jagiellons (only Jagiellonów)... that's simply Anglicization. --Joy [shallot]
Your examples are not correct. In all examples: root of the word (name) remains same (except, pls. correct your Polish spelling), in Nemanjic you try to change root of the name, and that is linguistically wrong. --Ninam 05:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Samo toga smo ochekivali...Pa, dobro, pogledat cu...mozda ja cu moci vam pomoci... --VKokielov 06:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, dragi moji. ;) Nino, let me pose the question like this: if the article is named "Nemanjic," why exclude the alternate spelling? It may be wrong in Serbian - no one's denying that - but it's one English form of the word. Check my edit to see if it suits you better. --VKokielov 16:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
VK, let us stay like this. --Ninam 05:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Today I'v been able to check out a couple of the older academic books on the History of Yugoslavia. Both, Stephen Clissold and J Buchan use Njemanid. Anglisized forms hav rather gone out of fasion as of late which explains why Joy got only 500 hits. So Joy is clearly right. Dejvid 21:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
