Tell me more ×
Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -1 down vote favorite

There are multiple ancient titles which we always translate as "king". I wonder if could there be more precise translations of those titles.

Just a short list includes the following:

  • rex
  • princeps
  • dominus
  • dux
  • basilios
  • vanax
  • archon
  • archagestes
  • despotes
  • hegemon
  • tyrannos
  • kuningas
  • pharaon

I wonder whether we should use terms like "president", "chairman", "leader", "commander-in-chief", "regent", "dictator", "commissioner", "elder" and so on to refer to these titles more precisely.

share|improve this question
4  
You should clarify your question with what meaning you're trying to deliver with translation. In every society, rulers have different rights and social status. So if your goal is delivering exact ruler's social status, then I would say just a transliteration (e.g., "राज" = "Raja") is the best. If it's a popular article, "राज" = "King" or "Prince" is sufficient. – bytebuster Nov 22 '12 at 8:25
1  
We already translate those words differently depending on context, and often hard choices have to be made. The problem is ancient and well known. Rex = king; princeps = prince; dominus = lord/master; dux = leader; basileus = king; (w)anax = lord/prince?; archon = archon/ruler; archagestes, no idea; despotes = ruler/lord; hegemon = (undisputed) leader; tyrannos = autocrat, absolutely ruler; kuningas, no idea; pharaon = pharaoh. – Cerberus Nov 22 '12 at 11:09
2  
I don't understand the point of this question... P.S. To everyone: avoid comments on the accept rate, they will be deleted/edited out. The accept rate is probably going to disappear anyway. – Alenanno♦ Nov 22 '12 at 11:51

closed as off topic by Gaston Ümlaut, Otavio Macedo♦ Apr 10 at 16:29

Questions on Linguistics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to linguistics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote

I think this is a part of general problemme of what realia are. My guess is that whenever there has/had been a special civilisation, there also was a special term for its rulers. To mention a few:

Raja(h) (Indian)

Lugal (Sumerian)

the Sun (Hittite)

Sapa Inca (kingdom of Cusco)

Cacique (any ruler of Pre-Columbian Mezoamerica in general as described by Spaniards)

Rgyal-Po [gjalpo] (Tibetan; although this term has a broader esoteric meaning)

Wang (Ancient Chinese title valued above five other titles of aristocracy, generally rendered in English as 'emperor'/'king')

Sheikh/Sheik/Shaikh/Shekh/Shaykh (Islamic)

Emir/Amir/Aamir/Ameer (same as above)

Kaan/Khan/ Kahn (Turkic and Mongolian title)

Tzar/Zar (Russian Empire)

Therefore, the word kuningas does not seem quite matching the list, although the words jarl or emuu - the latter is not an actual title but rather a Finno-Ugric concept meaning 'primordial mother' - do.

share|improve this answer
Of course, if there is another language, they have their own term for a king. Yet my list mostly lists terms from the Greek area of influence. As such, the terms most likely did not mean the same. – Anixx Mar 10 at 7:27
You are absolutely right. The ancient civilisation included many polices of Ancient Greece, so there are reasonable differences in titles. – Manjusri Mar 10 at 11:51

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.