Atlanta, Geōrgia

What be the best way to express a city and state such as Atlanta, Georgia? Would it simply remain Atlanta, Geōrgia and then keep them in the same case, or would it be something like Atlanta Geōrgiae (Atlanta of Georgia) or is there another, better way.

thank you for any help.

P.S. I am looking for the solution that would most closely fit Classical Latin. I realize that this is not the only way as Latin has changed much over the years. However, I am trying to stay in the bounds of the older language (if possible), just as if i was learning Old English.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Atlanta Georgiae makes sense. Now, I don't know how broad or narrow your concept of "classical Latin" is. If it's limited pretty much to Cicero and Caesar, then I think these authors would probably have been more likely to write something like Atlanta, urbs Georgiae, Atlanta, urbs in Georgia sita or Altanta, quae in Georgia sita est. The geographical genitive as in Atlanta Georgiae is a legit ancient Roman Latin thing (it isn't a medieval or modern aberration), but it might be more common in slightly later authors. I haven't searched whether it doesn't actually occur in Cicero or Caesar, mind you, but I don't remember coming across it there at any rate.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
How did they express the idea of a "capital" city, just out of curiosity (if that concept was even applicable)?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I don't know if they had a concept of "capital city" exactly as it is today, but they certainly had a notion that a certain city could be the principal/most important one of its region, in which case it could be called the caput of that region, so you could say something like Parisii, quod caput est Franciae...
 
Thank you Pacifica, I am fine with Latin that is a little after Silver Age, I think I would be OK with most anything from a time when there were still large communities of native speakers. It is good to know what would have been more common with Cicero and Caesar, though. So if I wanted to say "in Atlanta, Georgia" it would be Atlantae Geōrgiae? or would in Atlantā Geōrgiae also work?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Thank you Pacifica, I am fine with Latin that is a little after Silver Age, I think I would be OK with most anything from a time when there were still large communities of native speakers.
You and I take similar approaches, then (I also venture into medieval and Neo-Latin when needed, but usually limit that to vocabulary, rather than grammar).
So if I wanted to say "in Atlanta, Georgia" it would be Atlantae Geōrgiae? or would in Atlantā Geōrgiae also work?
The locative is more correct with a city name.
 
You and I take similar approaches, then (I also venture into medieval and Neo-Latin when needed, but usually limit that to vocabulary, rather than grammar).

The locative is more correct with a city name.
Thank you very much, this helps me plan how to introduce this structure to my students.
 

Agrippa

Active Member
I don't know if they had a concept of "capital city" exactly as it is today, but they certainly had a notion that a certain city could be the principal/most important one of its region, in which case it could be called the caput of that region, so you could say something like Parisii, quod caput est Franciae...
In eadem sum sententia cum Pacifica.
Cf. Cic. epist. 15, 4, 8: "Eranam..., quod erat Amani caput". Quo loco vox capitis significat urbem primariam.
Praeterea cf. TLL (s.v. caput) 3, 425, 64sqq.
Sequitur ut scribere liceat "Atlantae, in Georgiae capite'.
 
Last edited:
Top