Talk:Mataswintha

Source for title's spelling?

The article is currently titled Matasuntha. I assume the last part is a Romanization of 𐍃𐍅𐌹𐌽𐌸𐌰. The text currently cites references spelling her name Matasuentha, Mathaswentha [I checked], and Mataswintha. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Mataswintha. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Matasuntha → Either Matasuintha or Matasuentha – Matasuintha is analogous to a scholarly spelling of Amalasuintha, found in Amory's People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy which cites Jones's Prosopography of the Late Roman Empire, and in Barnish's translation of Casiodorus's Variae. It may be the most etymological form. Matasuentha is a scholarly spelling, also found in Amory's, and in Barnish's, and matches a scholarly spelling of Amalasuentha, in Peter Heather's The Goths, page 233. It is probably more etymological than the current Matasuntha. Note that Amalasuntha appears in Jones's Late Roman Empire, pages 274-275, so Matasuntha is at least analogous to a form with some scholarly usage. In fiction, we also find Mathaswentha and apparently Mataswintha. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See also discussion in talk:Amalasuntha. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Mataswintha or, if there's not enough support for that, Matasuintha, both reflecting the apparent pronunciation. The 'w' spelling would harmonize with other names using the theme -swinth. Not sure I recall the first theme in this name—more familiar with themes in Old English, less so with continental and very early names, so no idea how it should be spelled if not mata-. P Aculeius (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't recognize the first element either. Something may be lost in translation, and we should probably avoid unverifiable speculation. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it might be the same as -mod/-muot/-muth/-mut, which our article on the name Helmut says means "spirit, mind", while under "Hermod" it's said to mean "spirit". I begin to vaguely recall searching for it before—it doesn't turn up much in English sources, but I think that's right. In my experience vowels are highly flexible in Germanic names, with the consonants staying relatively fixed. So unless something else comes up I'd say that's probably it. But not sure that should make a difference to the title of this article—it's not a common enough name or theme to suggest a need to harmonize it with others, although I think that -swinth probably is. I note that the typical order of themes in Germanic names sometimes depends on gender—pretty much any name ending in -burg/-burgh/-burga/-berga is feminine, while burg- can begin either masculine or feminine names. I suspect that -swith/swinth works the same way (note "Swithhun", masculine, "Aethelswith", feminine). At least, I think that -swith and -swinth are the same. P Aculeius (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The corresponding Gothic form would be 𐌼𐍉𐌸𐍃/𐌼𐍉𐌸𐌰, but Wright translates it as anger, so it seems like a poor fit for a name. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/m%C5%8Ddaz 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Three Four reference works I just added to the bibliography use Matasunt(h)a. I'm not sure what is going on here. Wolfram uses Amalasuintha beside Matasuntha in his History of the Goths. Srnec (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

1 of those sources is unrelated, concerning Byzantine warfare. 6 are entries in longer works, I'm not sure how much they focus on Gothic or Italian history. Wolfram is a specialist in Gothic history, but look-up constraints may be in play. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all the sources may be wrong. So let's look at the primary sources. Jordanes and Marcellinus use Mat(h)esuent(h)a, but Procopius uses Ματασουνθα (Matasountha). He also uses Amalasountha. Historians appear to like Procopius a lot (no surprise). Srnec (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've struck my oppose for the sake of consistency, since the other article was moved. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.