If I recal, isn't using Plato or Platon at all already incorrect, in that that was not the name of the student of Socrates to which we refer? My copy of The Republic doesn't have much in the way of an answer to this. I really need to finish that book.
Well, I've not read the Republic (yet), but there's no other student to whom we refer. Plato wrote the Republic, that much is certain, but the debate is rather on the true Socrates. You see, Socrates became something of a mouthpiece for philosophers. To bring across their theories, they'd have Socrates in dialogue. Plato was the first to do this. Being the student of Socrates, it is likely that he knew the man better than most, yet even so, it must be questioned, are the words that he brings forward those of Socrates (or even how Socrates thought), or of Plato himself? But no, Platon's not incorrect. It's just that, in English, we have a tendancy to drop the n off that name. Technically, it's Second Declension Neuter (though why he has a neuter name... it can be done in Greek, that a man's name is of neuter ending, but it still looks funny. For a man's name, Platos seems more natural to me. But I can't argue with what actually was...) Anyway, yeah, so it's Platon... or Plate if you're talking to him. For some odd reason we like to mess up names. I mean, we say Mark Antony instead of Markus Antonius, right? Then why don't we say Mark Auriel rather than Markus Aurelius? Or if we keep the Latin 'us' on, why not Traianus or Hadrianus? And Greek... well, we commonly lose the 'os', 'es', and 'as' off Greek names. Alexandros becoming Alexander, as the example I gave. But I guess not always. We've still got Athene and Herakles and Herodotus (though that's been Latinized), it's true.
But back to what I was saying, yeah, it's Platon all right. But since Socrates didn't write, we can't be sure what sort of person he was. By all accounts, he was half insane. He was taken to walking around barefoot, standing in trances, and hearing voices (his 'te daimonion' as he called it). A wise man, but crazy.
Anyway, my point is just that... purity to the source can be good, but in translation is must be secondary to the assurance of correct meaning.
(Personally, going back the to Greek example, I still say Ajax and Achilles in speech... usually. Just like some might prefer Maou to Magus, I prefer Aias and Akhilleus - with the stress on the u. But it'd be pretty haughty of me - and yes, admittedly, I've done it before - to use those names in conversation to people, as it would just lead to misunderstanding of meaning. I like it, but I've got to go with what they know in order to communicate. Nowadays, it's Ajax and Achilles in speech (though, I usually write it otherwise because it's easier to pick up on in writing), even as I still say Zeus as Zoos and not the correct Zay-oos.)
