Disputatio:Buzz Aldrin
Sigur, cur "Monte Clari"? Habesne testimonium verborum nexùs "N(in ablativo loci) + ADI(in locativo)" ? Neander (disputatio) 19:09, 11 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- I'm no specialist in locatives; I was merely trying to follow Iustinus here, according to which "Claro" clearly was no locative, while "Monte" at least didn't seem to contradict Iustinus' explanation. (Instinctively, I would have written "Monti" based on that explanation, but as both "e" and "i" appear to be right, I didn't change that part.) Of course, as Lesgles has pointed out, we don't even know whether the name exists in the first place... Sigur (disputatio) 19:44, 11 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- I see. However, the 3rd declension locative in -ī is an archaism, the use of which was not productive in classical Latin. So, Carthagini, Tiburi, temperi, ruri are old relics. Thus, it seems to me that the Iustinian rule is too liberal on this point. Accordingly, you were suggesting that Monte / Monti Clari be a noun phrase in the locative case. This is logical per se, but classical Latin has no living 3rd declension locative. Instead, the grammatical function of old locative was committed to the ablative case (see ablativus#De functione locativo)- So, Monte Claro is an ablative phrase in locative function. Whether Mons Clarus is a well-sourced name, or not, is of course irrelevant in the present case. Neander (disputatio) 22:06, 11 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- OK, what I conclude from your explanation and link for the time being is that the safest bet for a 3rd declension is the ablative with a preposition. But maybe we should discuss Iustinus' Translator's Guide on this point in the Taberna so that there is a common practice for 3rd declension. After all, the Formula:Salve links to it, which leads credulous people like me to think that it's safe to follow it. Sigur (disputatio) 22:35, 11 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- For some funny reason, I have totally skipped this useful guide by Iustinus. I suggest you take up, if you like, this issue in the discussion page of the Translator's guide. Neander (disputatio) 05:32, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- Iustinus is a very good guide in general, but if he led you to "Monte Clari", I agree with Neander, it doesn't work like that. "Monte Claro" is quite OK (assuming we accept this Latin name, see Disputatio:Mons Clarus (Nova Caesarea)). My preference is to welcome a preposition in such cases and say "ad Montem Clarum" [or even "sub Monte Claro"], but I'm not sure if I'm being classical in doing that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- Well, in Monte Claro is certainly decent Latin but hardly classical, though good examples in confirmation of my Sprachgefühl are hard to come by. Anyway, Livius 28.17.11 appears to licence the prepositionless Monte Claro in locative function; witness "L. Marcio Tarracone, M. Silano Carthagine Nova [...] ad praesidium Hispaniae relictis" 'leaving Lucius Marcius at Tarraco and Marcus Silanus at New Carthage'. Neander (disputatio) 11:12, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Ablative of Place Where is pertinent: "Names of Towns in the Singular of the Third Declension, and in the Plural of all Declensions, take the Ablative of Place Where without in" (Gildersleeve #386; example: Ut Romae consules sic Carthagine quotannis bini reges creabantur). The bare ablative seems to collect several kinds of relationships that can be summarized as "respecting" or "in regard to." For example, "In citations from Books and in Enumerations, the Ablative of Place Where is used without in (Gildersleeve #387; examples: libro tertio 'third book', versu decimo 'tenth verse', alio loco 'elsewhere'). And we have the bare Ablative of Time When or Within Which (Qua nocte natus Alexander est), the bare Ablative of Respect (Animo ignavus, procax ore 'coward of soul, saucy of tongue', Tacitus), the bare Ablative of Quality (Clavi ferrei digiti pollicis crassitudine 'iron nails of the thickness of your thumb'), and similar functions. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- Well, in Monte Claro is certainly decent Latin but hardly classical, though good examples in confirmation of my Sprachgefühl are hard to come by. Anyway, Livius 28.17.11 appears to licence the prepositionless Monte Claro in locative function; witness "L. Marcio Tarracone, M. Silano Carthagine Nova [...] ad praesidium Hispaniae relictis" 'leaving Lucius Marcius at Tarraco and Marcus Silanus at New Carthage'. Neander (disputatio) 11:12, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- Iustinus is a very good guide in general, but if he led you to "Monte Clari", I agree with Neander, it doesn't work like that. "Monte Claro" is quite OK (assuming we accept this Latin name, see Disputatio:Mons Clarus (Nova Caesarea)). My preference is to welcome a preposition in such cases and say "ad Montem Clarum" [or even "sub Monte Claro"], but I'm not sure if I'm being classical in doing that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- For some funny reason, I have totally skipped this useful guide by Iustinus. I suggest you take up, if you like, this issue in the discussion page of the Translator's guide. Neander (disputatio) 05:32, 12 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- OK, what I conclude from your explanation and link for the time being is that the safest bet for a 3rd declension is the ablative with a preposition. But maybe we should discuss Iustinus' Translator's Guide on this point in the Taberna so that there is a common practice for 3rd declension. After all, the Formula:Salve links to it, which leads credulous people like me to think that it's safe to follow it. Sigur (disputatio) 22:35, 11 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
- I see. However, the 3rd declension locative in -ī is an archaism, the use of which was not productive in classical Latin. So, Carthagini, Tiburi, temperi, ruri are old relics. Thus, it seems to me that the Iustinian rule is too liberal on this point. Accordingly, you were suggesting that Monte / Monti Clari be a noun phrase in the locative case. This is logical per se, but classical Latin has no living 3rd declension locative. Instead, the grammatical function of old locative was committed to the ablative case (see ablativus#De functione locativo)- So, Monte Claro is an ablative phrase in locative function. Whether Mons Clarus is a well-sourced name, or not, is of course irrelevant in the present case. Neander (disputatio) 22:06, 11 Novembris 2019 (UTC)