Disputatio:Cosmotheoria

Newfangled term?[fontem recensere]

So the word cosmotheoria dates from 1998. In what way is a worldview a theory? (Yes, of course it's from Greek θεωρία 'a looking at, a viewing'.) Should we therefore speak of a woman's view of London as her theoria Londinii? According to Cassell's, the CL words for 'point of view' are sententia and iudicium, which here might lead us to a phrase like sententia mundi or iudicium mundi. Why is cosmotheoria preferable? IacobusAmor 13:53, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newfangled? Oh, no. Witness Jean Fernel's Cosmotheoria (1527); G.Hensel's Cosmotheoria Biblica Restaurata (1740); Andrew Baxter's (1686-1750) Matho sive Cosmotheoria Puerilis. Rather than 'Weltanschauung', "sententia mundi" translates as 'Weltgedanke, Weltansicht, Weltmeinung', nor is it given in Redmond's vocabulary (s.v. world view) which has cosmotheoria, mundi conspectus, visio, imago mundi, mundivisio. --Neander 15:29, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, the only attestations cited in the article shouldn't date from 1998! For reference, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionaries, both worldview & weltanschauung IN ENGLISH (the language whence their use in Cultura came from) mean 'a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world[,] esp. from a specific standpoint'. I still wonder what Cicero would have made of the concept; after all, in an era that began more than two millennia ago, the year 1527 is indeed fairly new! IacobusAmor 16:31, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this to Sententina universitatis?--Jondel (disputatio) 12:26, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or Theoria cosmi?--Jondel (disputatio) 12:28, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobus's explication of worldview & weltanschauung seems to me to correspond closely with "Cosmotheoria" as used in Neander's three citations, so why move? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is not considered New fangled,lets leave it then. Let us assume that other latinists would agree.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:58, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imago[fontem recensere]

O care 186.127.247.32, utens ignotissime, quid significat haec imago, quam in commentario sine capitulo nuperrime ascripsisti? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:33, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience anonymi who add non-Latin material never look at talk pages. Better either to caption it, if you can see a relevance, or remove it, if you can't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove this then.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:22, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just do it, Jondel :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:34, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: A similarly anonymous source put it into the Dutch, Esperanto, French, and Spanish pages on the same subject, also today, and also without a caption. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am going to those pages and removing them now. --Jondel (disputatio) 22:34, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]