Talk:Portorož

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Portorož. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810055511/http://www.piran-pirano.si/zgodovina/ to http://www.piran-pirano.si/zgodovina/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150609043918/http://slovensko-morje.net/index.php?page=news to http://slovensko-morje.net/index.php?page=news&view_news=5401
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mcduMzzf03UJ:www.angelfire.com/biz/mareaslo/zgod.html+portoro%C5%BE+zgodovina&cd=3&hl=sl&ct=clnk&gl=si with https://web.archive.org/web/20160602034758/http://www.angelfire.com/biz/mareaslo/zgod.html on http://www.angelfire.com/biz/mareaslo/zgod.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714155409/http://www.casino-riviera.si/pc.asp?xpath=&xpathid=&lang=slo to http://www.casino-riviera.si/pc.asp?xpath=&xpathid=&lang=slo
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140618174650/http://www.bernardingroup.si/si/metropol-resort/hoteli/grand-hotel-metropol/casino to http://www.bernardingroup.si/si/metropol-resort/hoteli/grand-hotel-metropol/casino

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Gloss
Regarding this edit, the gloss of Italian Portorose is 'Portorož' because that is what Portorose means. Literally (and etymologically), the compound means 'port of roses'. Good comparisons are: Italian Fiume 'Rijeka' vs. Italian Fiume, literally 'river'; or Italian Capodistria 'Koper' vs. Italian Capodistria, literally 'head/cape of Istria'. Doremo (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not what Portorose literally means. Given that you made such a stance so confidently, can I ask you whether you are proficient in Italian? It's a rethoric question, I'm a native speaker, so I already know the answer.
 * See, in Italian the genitive case is necessarily rendered through a preposition (which can either be di, del, dello, della, dei, degli, or delle depending on the noun it is related to). You don't see any of them in Portorose. And yes, you're right when you say Portorose etimologically comes from "Porto delle Rose", but eventually that particle fell into disuse for whatever reason, leaving two grammatically unrelated nouns (porto, port and rose, roses), as if the port itself was called "roses". Therefore, Port Roses, or Portroses if you will. See, Italian doesn't work like English on this regard: while in English a construction, for example, like "Danube Valley" can work for "valley of the Danube", in Italian such a construction simply doesn't work without a genitive preposition, and so Portorose can't possibly be translated literally to Port of roses or Port of the roses. Where's of?
 * You inadvertedly made a good argument for my point by mentioning Capodistria: its extended name would be Capo d'Istria (d' being a contraction of di, fyi) i.e. Cape of Istria. "Capo d'Istria" was condensed into Capodistria -a very common phenomenon among Italian demonyms- but contrarily to Portorose, you can still see a genitive particle in Capodistria, it's that d in the middle of the word! So in this case you can ligitimately translate literally Capodistria to Cape of Istria.
 * Now, with this new little baggage of knowledge in mind, let me know whether you prefer to insert a literal translation for Portorose, or rather one that is more faithful to its etymological origin. But please let's erase that "literally Port of Roses", it's not just inaccurate, it's plain wrong. In my opinion, in the first case we could reinstate my previous edit (the longer one), while in the last case we could just erase the translation in the introduction and leave any further explanation to the paragraph "Name", which is sufficiently exaustive on the origins of the name. Simostar (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are confusing a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss with an intelligible gloss. Compare: Italian Ragusavecchia 'Cavtat', literally 'old Ragusa' (not 'Ragusa old'); Italian Porto Re 'Kraljevica', literally 'harbor of the king, king's harbor' (not 'harbor king'). The word order and filler words (of, the) are normally adjusted as needed to make simple glosses intelligible. Portovecchio, literally 'old port' (not 'port old'). Montefiore 'mountain of flowers, flower mountain' (not 'mountain flower'). If you want an etymological morpheme-by-morpheme gloss, it would need to be along the lines of this: Italian: Portorose, literally 'port of roses', a compound from porto 'port' + rose, pl. of rosa 'rose'. Doremo (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not how any of this work in Italian, you are making up rules out of thin air, and using out of context examples, none of which contains genitives. On this regard, a little clarification: of course Portovecchio means "old port", the reason is the usual structure in Italian is noun+adjective, contrarily to English; it wouldn't make sense to translate it as "port old". Why even pointing it out?

I don't know, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. It's sad to see such arrogance about unknown subjects and so little constructive attitude by a fellow wikipedian. We're all here to make Wikipedia grow better and more accurate everyday, you should be more cooperative, instead of acting like this article is your own property.

An edit war is inadmissible. If you have no intention to collaborate and listen to other, more educated points of view, then I really don't know what to do. It's even pointless to try and find an agreement on this talk page if this is your attitude. Simostar (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)