Talk:Komnenos

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Komnenoi. There was overwhelming support for a move, but as participants failed to express a preference, I just removed the disagreeing redundancy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komnenoi dynasty → Komnenian dynasty or Komnenos dynasty — The Greek plural looks awkward and is very rarely used [1]. Either stick to the singular form of the surname, or use the adjectival form, both of which are far more commonly used [2] & [3] Constantine ✍ 13:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why is that always Wikipedia go for the most common naming but not the correct naming? It's the same situation with Tsarevitch and Tsesarevich. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the proposed form incorrect? Quite the contrary, I'd say. And the situation is nothing like the Tsarevich example: the almost universal way to refer to a dynasty is either the plural of their family name, or the singular form + dynasty/family. That is why we have the "Wittelsbach/Romanov/Windsor/etc dynasty" and the "Wittelsbachs/Romanovs/Windsors/etc". This is a similar case. It is either "the Komnenoi" or the "dynasty of the Komnenoi/Komnenian dynasty" or "Komnenos dynasty". The form "Komnenoi dynasty" is decidedly the odd one. Constantine ✍ 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We should go with what reliable sources say, not with what some random person on a website considers "correct". The proposed title appears to be in far more common use, and many of the Google Books results for "Komnenoi dynasty" are in fact index entries saying something like "Komnenoi, dynasty of". Ucucha 02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Komnenoi dynasty" is nonsensical. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support if it was to move to "Komnenos" as it is widely known. --Lecen (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Komnenian. "Komnenoi dynasty" makes as much sense as "Carolingians dynasty". Srnec (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moving to Komnenos, since that clearly seems to be preferred to the current title, without prejudice to any further proposals regarding the title of this or the "Byzantium under..." article. Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komnenoi → Komnenian dynasty — Relisted Jafeluv (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Per previous request ignored by the closing admin who imposed his own solution: Greek plural is awkward and hardly ever used. Constantine ✍ 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Byzantium under the Komnenoi → Byzantium under the Komnenian dynasty
• Amend The predominant English adjective is Comnenian; some 13,000 books use it, to 3000 for Komnenian. This is only sensible; Latin suffixes should be on Latinate stems. Komnenoi is a transliteration, not a translation, not English; just as the English name of their capital is Constantinople, not Konstandinoupolis. Therefore support Comnenian dynasty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose amendment, since then we would have to go around and move all the Komnenos pages for consistency. "Comneni" or "Comnenus" are also "not a translation, not English". Neither are they transliterations, they are merely traditional latinized forms, no more "correct" or "proper" than "Komnenos". And either way, for the most recent publications (since 1990), the difference is much smaller (3,660 vs 3,000). Constantine ✍ 11:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we don't have to move everything; the same logic may eventually urge us to restore English usage on the Comneni in general, but there's no rush to use the more common and more recognizable forms. But I oppose the move without amendment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Will people be happy if we move it back to Komnenos dynasty instead. No one had a problem with it for a while until I changed it. I know Komnenoi sounds ackward, but I was just trying to keep the title unisexual. I would Oppose Komnenian or Comnenian or anything with a C.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem to move it to "Komnenos dynasty" or simply "Komnenos" in accordance with the other Byzantine family/dynasty names. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Komnenos" or "Komnenos dynasty" are ok by me as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable. The most common English spelling of the plural (one Comnenus, several Comneni ) is Comneni, which has 7000 hits; as compared to Komnenoi, with less than 2000 (it is, by the way, a specifically masculine plural; Anna Comnena would only have used it of herself if she were including the rest of her family); or the mangled Komneni with 200; these figures are since 1990. The singular, likewise, is Comnenus in English. We need not move everything; but we may well begin here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I was surprised by the results of Septentrionalis' strictly post-1990 Google Books search. Without checking myself, I would not have expected it to have been so lopsided, or necessarily even in that direction. I think that this is good evidence of the preponderant and normal usage, so I will endorse the suggestion Comneni. Wareh (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It suprised me too; it depends, I think, on whether a subject is well-known outside the community of Byzantinists; they used to use the traditional Anglo-Latin forms, so other scholars still do. The Byzantinists are now divided about evenly among several systems, but here the traditionalists and the Latinizers agree on Comneni, the demoticists (Komninos, I think) differ from the classicizers (the people who would use Aiskhulos for Aeschylus), and the outsiders tip the beam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is surprising. It is also to a large extent misleading. If you look at the results a bit more closely, it is noticeable that "Komnenos"/"Komnenoi" etc is almost exclusively used by publications that are indeed new and relevant to the field of Byzantine studies. Many of the "Comnenus"/"Comneni" results include books that are scarcely new (reprints of Gibbon, anyone?), tourist or otherwise tangentially related books, or simply citations of older specialist literature that used the latinate forms. Now, the issue of usage has certainly not been settled in any conclusive manner, but it is simply not true that the non-latinate forms are not used or have been falling out of use, as Pmanderson argued before on a similar issue. They are both equally valid, and, in Byzantinist literature, about equally used. For consistency with the dozens of related articles alone (and in keeping with the de facto usage of the ODB forms in almost all Byzantine-related articles), it would make sense to use "Komnenos". However, in addition to that, it is a form that is increasingly being used by the standard reference works like the ODB, the Cambridge Medieval History, prosopographic studies, etc. Constantine ✍ 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my surprise was that the results didn't seem to be explained as simply as you suggest. Prominent results such as Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261 and Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy C.300-1450 seem to be "new and relevant to the field of Byzantine studies." Some are reprints, etc., but I think they can only bear so much of the burden of explaining a 7:2 ratio. And reprints of more popular titles such as the 1969 Penguin Alexiad do still show prevalence of a kind also worth considering. Wareh (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check better: Hendy's book (Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy) was first published in 1985. From the first couple of dozen or so pages for "Comneni" I checked, about three to five results in each page (out of 10) actually fall under the topics I mentioned above, and the further one gets, the less relevant the results become compared to "Komnenoi". That's a lot. The point is, prior to 1990, the latinate forms were the overwhelming majority, after that the "ODB" forms have gradually but inexorably risen to occupy about half the literature. The trend is unmistakeable. For instance, Paul Magdalino, who is one of the foremost authorities on the Komnenoi/Comneni, used the latinate forms in the early 1990s, but his seminal work on Manuel I in 2002 was written in ODB forms. The same applies to many if not most of the big names in Byzantine studies. Constantine ✍ 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm getting old enough that, if the issue is really, "there was an 'overwhelming majority' norm in English all the way up to the early 1990s, but it has since shifted noticeably," then to me that constitutes a positive reason to choose the pre-early-1990s form. It seems appropriate, when the options are equally correct as here, not to chase recent shifts of style, and this seems recent to me, especially when you consider the length of time over which the Comneni/Komnenoi have been the topic of discussion in English. I realize that this carries some risk of being left behind by eventually authoritative & not faddish shifts; and that it's a matter of perspective to some degree, which is why I want to contribute mine. Wareh (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komnenos has 19,200 hits, many more than "Comneni" under the same criteria. It has also the advantage of being standard ODB onomatology. Therefore it is a preferable form to "Comneni". Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where I come down on Comnenus/Komnenos dynasty as opposed to Comneni/Komnenoi, but Comnenus/Comneni seems to be the historically-correct English form. It's the only form I've regularly encountered. Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, I agree that the English/Latinate spellings should be preferred, except to the extent that alternative spellings are necessary to make the article complete. P Aculeius (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium is an English publication and its spelling is widely accepted as the standard. It uses the "Komnenos" form. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonably useful reference work; it is intended for use by those to whom all these forms are translucent, with the Greek showing through. But we are not intended for that audience, who already have reference works; and its forms are not standard, even for its own publisher. The Oxford Classical Dictionary was reprinted and updated in 2006, and uses the traditional spellings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is it any surprise that a "Classical" dictionary would favour the usual latinate forms? "Andronikos" would look odd next to "Stratonice" for instance. But the usage is not confined to the ODB, which is indeed obscure. Most general histories seem to have adopted "ODB" forms as well. Byzantine history being either way a relatively obscure field, I have grave doubts whether the average English-speaking reader even has heard the name "Comnenus" so that he/she would be confused if Wikipedia used "Komnenos" instead. Constantine ✍ 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But both ODB and the traditional forms are classicizing; and we have the testimony of an expert, backed up by search engine results and by Penguin Books sales judgment) that Comnenus/Comnena/Comneni are the most familiar forms. Indeed, the only justification for "Komnenos" with an e is the pronounciation which had ceased to exist a millennium before the family is attested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, contemporary writers who were fluent in both Latin and Greek are the best judges of how to transliterate Greek into the Latin alphabet, which is the one used to write English, and nearly all other languages of western Europe. I think that the opinions of contemporary writers who were fluent in both languages and English are also entitled to some consideration, insofar as the forms used until quite recently by the majority of English language sources were the product of a similar transliteration.

The new spellings seem to be essentially unhistorical, and the fact that they conflict with centuries of written scholarship is not inconsequential, however much importance people tend to place on new and novel interpretations. One might even say that revising established transcriptions of Greek names into Latin and English is best described as the current fashion. It could reasonably be argued that this system is little short of pedantic, insofar as it seems to require that kappa be transliterated as "k" instead of "c", amongst other conventions, and this would be difficult to reconcile with Wikipedia's policy calling for a neutral point of view.

What this debate boils down to is that Wikipedia is meant for a general readership. However detailed articles eventually become, I believe it would be a mistake to adopt new forms and spellings merely because it has recently become fashionable in specialist publications. The traditional Latin and English spellings are still quite common, to the near exclusion of any others in all but the most recent publications. For this reason, I believe they should be preferred to the new transliterations, which could still be noted quite properly in the introductory paragraphs of affected articles. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Treadgold listed four forms of transliteration in the introduction to A History of the Byzantine State and Society (1997), as being mainly in use (the quotations and examples are his, the labels mine):

1. Demoticizing: Dhioklitianos, Constandinos XI. "closest approximation to how the Byzantines pronounced Greek."
2. Classicizing: Dioklētianos, Kōnstantinos XI. "Closest equivalent to the ancient Greek pronunciation, which no-one used in Byzantine times"
3. Latinizing: Diocletianus, Constantinus. "What the Byzantines themselves used in writing Latin".
4. Traditional: Diocletian, Constantine. "Anglicize where possible, and Latinize elsewhere"; "the most familiar". Treadgold also notes that it is appropriate for subjects known both in Greek and Latin, like John Italus, Syracuse, Scholae.

Although writing some years after ODB, he does not mention it as a main, much less "standard", system.

5. ODB a mixture of (4) and (2); it anglicizes a limited number of proper names (including Diocletian and Constantine, but not Diokles, Diokleia, or Diokletianoupolis), but uses (2) for the rest - dropping the macrons which show whether the Greek is omega or omicron, epsilon or eta. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good summary. However, no one claimed that the ODB form was an undisputed "standard" system, merely that its use by what is arguably the standard reference work for Byzantinists has led to its widespread and apparently increasing adoption. Treadgold is one of the few major historians who still adhere to the "traditional" system, some others like Angold use some idiosyncratic mixed forms, alternating between ODB and latinizinations. "Indeed, the only justification for "Komnenos" with an e is the pronounciation which had ceased to exist a millennium before the family is attested." No, the ODB system relies, as it says in the introduction, on a strict transliteration, the phonetic values are irrelevant. How can you argue that "Komnenos" is "inaccurate" because it is actually pronounced "Komninos", and then go on to support "Comnenus"? Every transliteration system is problematic, neither is more correct than the other except for purely aesthetic reasons. And the fact is, the ODB system is used. It is not our role to put it on trial here. Constantine ✍ 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All five systems are used. I think, from Treadgold's summary of the facts and my own experience, that ODB is used least frequently; less frequently than either (2) or (4) by themselves - and in the whole corpus of English writing, (2) is used less frequently than (4). (The evidence above shows, in any event, that this is true for the Comneni.)

How can I support Comnenus? Just as I support Aeschylus; once one decides to represent the Greek alphabet by appealling to the Attic pronunciation (as (2), (4), and (5) all do), there is a standard (most common, most familiar, most widely understood) way of presenting it in English. It is not transparent; it will not provide the Greek to a Greekless reader; but none of the five methods do that; only (2) even gives the eta in Κομνηνός - and ODB doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to decide on the efficacy of the various transliteration methods and how they render the Greek alphabet. Any such analysis is not relevant and is purely subjective. The trend may be soft but it is clear. As a system, the latinate form for Byzantine onomatology may still be in use but the evidence points toward a growing acceptance of the ODB-based transliterations. As it stands now these are roughly equivalent with the ODB having the larger growth potential. There is no valid reason why its use should be abandoned in favour of a form which is on its way out. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treadgold's analysis is a red herring, because I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for his choices 1-3. Why not? Because they are not practical choices for an English-speaking reference work. Unless I'm much mistaken he put them in his book simply in order to justify his preference for 4, and I think, Septentrionalis, that you've put them here for the same reason!

In the past we would have had to choose "traditional": encyclopedias, unless intended purely for specialists, always should make that choice, as long as "traditional" retains widespread approval. In this case it doesn't retain such widespread approval today. By western Europeans and Americans Greek (even Byzantine Greek) was nearly always accessed through Latin in the past: hence Migne's PG and the Bonn series offered Latin translations; hence "English traditional, extended by Latinate" was the obvious choice. We're writing now for all readers of English, and even in the traditional heartland of classical scholarship it's no longer the case that medieval Greek is accessed through Latin. Hence the trend in academic writing is changing; we decided to reflact that change, and we were right. It is more accessible, and will be even more accessible year by year, to use a spelling that is closer to the Greek spelling: call it "English traditional, extended by transliteration". We are lucky that another encyclopedia has gone ahead of us and set us an example. Personal note: I now work more on Vicipaedia, which uses the Latinate system: it is not only "What the Byzantines themselves used in writing Latin" (Treadgold) but also "what Latin writers use in writing Greek names". But I don't see either of those considerations as significant for the English Wikipedia. In any case, older discussion of this issue bore on what spelling Wikipedia should adopt for the post-Heraclius Byzantine Empire. After Heraclius the Byzantines rarely used Latin; scarcely at all by the time of the Komnenoi. Andrew Dalby 10:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This last is a half-truth: the Byzantines did not use Latin among themselves; but Treadgold is speaking of Byzantines writing to Westerners, which did happen not infrquently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've seen (1) used myself, although entirely by Byzantinists whose modern language is Demotic; and (3) is attested by several hits here (it may be chiefly by numismatists), I find it difficult to believe that Treadgold simply made them up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Constantine Pladikas argues that we should use ODB, because, although it is not the most common forms in English, it represents Greek most accurately; Dr. K and Andrew Dalby argue that it doesn't matter how accurate it is, it is most common. Gnetlemen, you refute each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. I didn't claim that Treadgold made those systems up; I haven't argued that it doesn't matter how accurate our system is; and I haven't said it's the most common. Andrew Dalby 15:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then Treadgold's analysis is a red herring, because I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for his choices 1-3 is an extremely limited claim. It may be that nobody has written a paper making the case for 1-3 - although I doubt it; but they have certainly been used in reliable sources on more or less the grounds he asserts - which is what I cite him for.

And if (5) is neither most accurate nor most common (and it is certainly much less common than Comneni), why should we use it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in an endless loop.

Incidentally, the pages of Google Books hits that you cite above "(here)" don't seem very apposite; except the egregious Treadgold all the authors cited in the initial swathes have been dead for many years or are quoting a text in Latin. I would argue (and I think some others would too) that usage is shifting now, and we are right to have shifted with it.

Anyway, that's me done. Good luck to all :) Andrew Dalby 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Constantine Pladikas argues that we should use ODB, because, although it is not the most common forms in English, it represents Greek most accurately;" Really? Where did I write that? I merely support remaining at ODB which is both de facto the system used in most Byzantine-related Wikipedia articles and widely and ever-increasingly used by the Byzantinists themselves. I never said it was more accurate or more appropriate, indeed, I have repeatedly made the point that no system is perfect in rendering Greek into Latin alphabets. The ODB system however is widely used, and if people like Magdalino, Haldon, Mango and dozens of others have no problem with it, I don't see why we should. Constantine ✍ 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I only support a move to Komnenos in keeping with the convention for other Byzantine imperial families: Doukas, Palaiologos, Angelos, Phokas (Byzantine family), etc. The only exceptions being those not named after a family name, i.e. Isaurian dynasty (currently a bad redirect) and Macedonian dynasty, etc. My personal preference is for Latinisation/traditionalism, but I'd prefer not to see a foolish inconsistency between article titles. Srnec (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see inconsistency than consistent unintelligibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To recap: so far we have four support (QE's Little Spy, mine, Dr.K's, and Srnec's) for reverting to Komnenos, and one oppose (by Pmanderson), coupled with a proposal to amend to Comnenus or Comnenian etc. Constantine ✍ 11:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to amend from Komnenos/Komnenoi/Komnenian to Comnenus/Comneni/Comnenian seems to have significant support, although I'm not certain whether it currently represents the majority view in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is used, but so is "Komnenos" and the derivative forms. However, if we go for "Comnenus", we would have to go around moving every "Komnenos" article. And then someone would come and say well, we "corrected" Comnenus, why not Palaeologus, or Ducas? This won't end here. Pmanderson's argument relies less on usage and more on the fact that the ODB form is somehow flawed, incorrect or "bastardized" (see Talk:Constantine Doukas for more). This is his opinion, and he's welcome to it. However, it does not negate the fact that the ODB method is widely used by some (in my experience, most) of the best-known Byzantinists, as well as the de facto standard here at Wikipedia, and there is no reason to open a can of worms if we don't absolutely have to. Constantine ✍ 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We opened the can of worms years ago, when these articles were moved to their present titles. It's time to get a bigger can. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename somehow All the alternative are better than the present name. I'll leave it to the specialists to battle it out. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll add my support for Komnenos, agreeing with Srnec that it makes sense for our title here to agree with those other Byzantine family names. Also, in English texts the plural seems less familiar than the singular (cf. the very first discussion on this page). Andrew Dalby 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen this on the backlog at WP:RMB and note that there's been only one comment in the last month. Given that discussion has died, and the one title no-one seems to want is the current title, is there any objection to moving it to the apparently most popular alternative Komnenos? If anyone wants to propose further change, they could then start a new move request.--Kotniski (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, no response, so I'm going to mark this as closed with a move to Komnenos, without prejudice to further proposals.--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.