Is there any historical explanation of why the name of the Canadian province of Nova Scotia uses Latin. Is it an oddity with no explanation? Do you know of any other European colony (especially of the form "new something") that uses a Latin name instead of an equivalent in a modern European language? 178.51.8.23 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-Latin name Nova Zembla was until fairly recently^[1] the most commonly used English exonym of Новая Земля. (It is still the preferred exonym in Dutch and Portuguese.)  --Lambiam 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Nova Zembla" semi-Latin or just a garbled version of the Russian? 178.51.8.23 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this borrowing, Zembla is clearly a phonetic adaptation, but (although this would be hard to prove), I find the most plausible explanation for the component Nova that it arose by alignment with the then many Latin geonyms found on maps and atlases starting with Nova. In any case, the evidence is that Nova Zembla used to be seen as a Latin name, as from the use of the accusative case Novam Zemblam here, in 1570, and the genitive case Novæ Zemblæ here, in 1660.  --Lambiam 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was named in 1621, when James I made William Alexander, 1st Earl of Stirling lord of the area. This lordship was granted in the royal charter, written in Latin. Praefato Domino Willelmo Alexander ... nomine Novae Scotiae. Though he left his own name as William and didn't change it to Willelmo, he apparently took the instruction to call the place Nova Scotia very literally.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was Nova Scotia the only Scottish colony ever? Maybe it is a Scottish thing to use Latin? 178.51.8.23 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the Darien scheme, i.e. New Caledonia.--2A04:4A43:909F:F990:E596:9C8F:DF47:1709 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And re-used for New Caledonia by James Cook in 1774. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Sir Francis Drake claimed New Albion (or Nova Albion) in the California area in 1579. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 18:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back then (the 17th century) it was a European thing to use Latin in a lot of contexts, particularly in law and academia. Consider for example Isaac Newton's magnum opus, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are the Carolinas (Latin for Charles). Matt Deres (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Australia, from Terra Australis (Southland), for a while also known as New Holland. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thule (Greek/Latin, location uncertain) and Ultima Thule Peak (in a former Russian colony or territory; I don't know whether the Russians named it, but the Alaskans did in 1996). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, I am grateful for all your answers. I just want to point out that my question was not about names in Latin (there are other exmples btw: Virginia, Georgia, Columbia/Colombia, Argentina, maybe Guinea, etc.) but specifically names in Latin where an equivalent in a modern European language seems to be more natural. I was simply curious as to why "Nova Scotia" instead of "New Scotland". All your examples are great but for very few of them (if any) an equivalent into a modern European language comes readily to mind. For example "New Caledonia" would have no "equivalent into a modern European language". Caledonia is itself a Latinism. So is "Batavia" say. There are many places in Europe with classical equivalents. Using one of those is not exactly the same thing as using a Latin translation of a modern name. Clearly it is not always clear cut. "Hispania" and "Austria" would be considered Latin translations of "Spain" and "Austria", but "Lusitania" and "Helvetia" would not be considered Latin translations of "Portugal" and "Switzerland". Does it depend on whether the Latin and the modern language equivalent are related etymologically? Of if that relation is commonly perceived? If the city of New York had been named instead "Novum Eboracum" would we be in one case or the other? I'll let you decide. The two names are linked but it is pretty involved. 178.51.8.23 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Caledonia' is no more of a Latinism than 'Scotia', and is sometimes used as a near synonym for 'Scotland' in modern British English (including Scots English, not to be confused with Scots, or Scottish Gaelic in which it's called Alba). It would be rather confusing if we called two different places "New Scotland" – I suppose Cook could have named his discovery "New Pictland", but I'm not sure if that would have gone down well.

You refer to 'modern European language[s]', but these (particularly English) have long since absorbed a great deal of Latin, both in assimilated and 'classical' form, so to me your attempted distinctions appears meaningless. Others may differ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Austria" is a Latin coinage to begin with. Otherwise, there are a few languages which have calqued the native "Österreich" (Eastern Kingdom). Navajo has apparently the descriptive moniker "Homeland of the leather pants". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm curious about place-names in sign languages. I dimly remember (or misremember) that the Trappist sign for Jerusalem means ‘Jew city’. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, they're generally spelled out letter by letter, unless they are famous enough to get their own sign. Some might be "compound-signed" from their constituent parts if they're transparent enough, I guess. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]