User talk:Terminus Technicus

About the correct spelling of the Rohonc/zi Codex

I moved back article body and I like to consult with you article future. Nasz 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Dear Nasz,

I do not understand your logic in insisting on the old orthography of the Rohonc Codex.

Imagine the following situation: let's suppose that a 17th century English author wrote a book about "Shaxpear", who is actually Shakespeare (author of Romeo and Juliet, and others), but the 17th century English orthography would allow this diversity in the spelling of the name. Now suppose that his book was published in Neverland in 1999, and the simple Neverlandian people who had never had any books, and so never heard about either Shakespeare or "Shaxpear", they take this latter spelling as official. Now suppose that the first to write a Wiki article about Shakespeare is a Neverlandian, and therefore he creates it under the title "Shaxpear". After some time, the rest of the world would notice the strange spelling, and correct it to "Shakespeare". Would you feel it unjust?

This is approximately how I see our situation. Since WWII, using the old Hungarian orthograhy in scholarly communication is a sign of unscholarly or uneducated behaviour (but at least ridiculous and imprecise). Now, thanks to Viorica Enachiuc (whose scholarship is also doubted my many), this unscholarly, or at least ridiculously outdated reference is being spread on the Internet. I do not blame the Romanian Bogdan Guisca, the creator of the Rohonczi page for this error, as he only had access to this information. Just as, in the imaginary story above, the simple Neverlandian Wikipedian had never heard that the world calls their "Shaxpear" -- Shakespeare. The simple Neverlandian should not behave huffy when s/he is corrected by everyone else.

You can check this "everyone" in the bibliography. (Tóth B., Pintér, Gyürk, Nyíri etc. but first of all Csapodi, who is the publisher of the recent catalogue of the Library where the codex is held.) The only thing that may be an error is the hyphen in some of the references (that is, whether Rohonci-kódex or Rohonci kódex or both are correct), and I am going to double check that in Csapodi's catalogue in the following days. About the two references in Turán - you must know that they are almost only accepted scientific or scholarly, by themselves. If you examine Mahesh Kumar Singh's "hoax-transcription", or read several issues of Turán to get a picture of them (as I did), you will also see what this is based on. But in any case you may consult somebody at the Academy of Sciences, you have the link in the article.

Now this was all about the Hungarian spelling. Of course when I speak or write in English, I use English grammar, so I drop the adjectival modifier "-i" at the end of place names:

"berlini utca"	becomes	"Berlin street",
"New York-i lány"	becomes	"New York girl",
"rohonci birtok"	becomes	"Rohonc estate".

You can also see this "-i" in usage in the names of codices, for example in the article about the Hungarian Hussite Bible, where the Vienna Codex ("Bécsi kódex" from "Bécs" = Vienna), and the Munich Codex ("Müncheni kódex" from "München" = Munich) are mentioned. I do not think that either English or German scholars would ever use a Hungarian adjectival modifier when they speak about the Vienna or Munich Codex in English or German. That is why it seems to me both most precise and most natural to use the English expression "Rohonc Codex" when I am referring to that book which the Hungarians call "Rohonci kódex".

I am planning to translate the English Rohonci page into Hungarian. Of course, that would be named "Rohonci kódex" or "Rohonci-kódex", whichever is the most correct.

I expect that you respond only after you have understood what I wrote above. If you are still sceptical, please consult the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. If you have no command of Hungarian, you should still be able to communicate with them in English, German, French, or Russian, and perhaps in other European languages too.

Regards,

Terminus Technicus 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Dear Terminus Technicus,

I think in "correct spelling of the Rohonc/zi Codex” you mean the word Rohonc or Rohonczi.

I have conceptual dilemma and do not like to folow with the general notion of the word correct or spelling, especially in such unique context. (..) (ortho-graphy|orate-graphe|orat-gra*)

You prefer the modern spelling, from (1892?) I do not really object. I don't think the name Rechnitz will be good. The current name is also not so old, as we can find Ruhoncz > Rochoncz > Rohonc.

Now the codex name is based, on the place of the codex, where in city R* up to 1907 this book was located (perhaps from 1838 to 1907). Where codex was before 1838 ? Was in the Batthany’s castle on the other hill at; Güssing, Güns Köszeg, Kővágőrs, Németújvár?

There are some traditions in naming Codices, but there is also inertion.

Where it was before? Do you know about any serious attempts to date this codex? There are method to analyze age of paper, ink and the age how long ink is on paper.

If you really like to change the name rename it that way the contribution info wont be affected. For me Rohonczi/Rohonci sound better)

I searched for the periodic Turan.

Could you help me to locate this source?

I like to see the (perhaps) false translation. (if LR -, but “sometime reading direction depends on what site of Nile a writer seat :)” Anyway I can’t give opinion withouth reading the papers. In my opinion the codex is NOT a hoax.

Regards,

Nasz 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Dear Nasz,

I really appreciate your contribution and your questions. You are right about the subjective nature of "correct spelling". However, I think it is best to ask the owner, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. They name the codex "Rohonci-kódex" - and by the rules of grammar I outlined above, this translates in English as "Rohonc Codex". I consulted with a librarian about this English name, and they suggested that it may be the title of the article if the Hungarian spelling(s) are also shown, to enable the search for Hungarian references. So this is what I follow.

Your questions concerning the history of the codex are also very valuable. They show that the respective section of the article needs some polishing.

The codex was in Rohonc before 1838. Then, contrary to the wiki article, Némäti (1892) but also the catalogue says that this year the codex was moved to the Academy of Sciences which is in Budapest. So the article may not be correct saying that the codex remained in Rohonc until 1907.

The disagreement might have arisen from the fact that the codex was sent to various people in various places (like B. Jülg in Innsbruck, or Mihály Munkácsy, Hungarian painter, in Paris [yes!]), and one of the codex's journeys may have ended in 1907, getting back to the Academy.

Where the codex may have been before 1838, nothing is sure. Jerney mentions (and Némäti quotes him) that the Batthyány library in Rohonc had a catalogue from 1743. That catalogue lists a book called "Magyar imádságok" (Hungarian prayers), one volume, 12^o format. Now the size is OK, and the religious content also fits. However, this is all information that is given, and it is just too scarce to say that the entry refers to our codex.

Otherwise, scholars like Károly Szabó and others see more than a coincidence in the codex's emergence in 1838 and Sámuel Litteráti Nemes's many (more than 20!) infamous hoaxes around the 1830's. However, they can not support their thesis with any solid facts. The codex remains a mystery.

Now about Turán. Since it is not an academically respected periodical, their distribution might be unsupported. This means that Turán may not be available outside Hungary. I created a very short article to share the journal's ISSN number, so you may search for it in larger databases easier. However, I may scan some pages of the alleged transliteration and translation for you, so that you may see and judge it for yourself. The test of the pudding is eating. :)

If I scan the images, I will put them on-line on yahoo, to minimize copyright debates. There is a group named "Rohonczi codex" on yahoo groups. You may subscribe to it, and become a member, so you will be able to see the images.

Wish you good research,

Terminus Technicus 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I will join the group soon. Thanks for whishes :) Nasz 09:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Nyiri6 .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nyiri6 .jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Turan cimlap.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Turan cimlap.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Turan cimlap.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Turan cimlap.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singh01 .jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Singh01 .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nyiri6 .jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nyiri6 .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]