Disputatio:Eduardus VIII (rex Britanniarum)

Nomen + titulus

Praenomina completa in litteras Italicas mutavi et Anglice rescripsi quia (a) utile est scire quo nomine a parentibus nominatus est; (b) hoc non est lemma nostrum. Vide et disputatio in Vicipaedia:Taberna#Typographical note: boldface vs. parenthesis. Titulum in "rex Britanniarum" mutavi quia haec est forma Latina officialis (e.g. in nummis); fuit rex non Britanniae et Hiberniae septentrionalis tantum sed et aliorum "dominiorum" et territoriorum, quod omne in appellatione "Britanniarum" implicitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

The power of a comma

(1) is the text as I found it. (2) is how I initially read it. (3) is how it should be read. (4) is perhaps what it should be changed to.

(1) Throno a patre ascenso Maio 1910 factus est Cambriae princeps.

(2) Throno a patre ascenso, Maio 1910 factus est Cambriae princeps.

(3) Throno a patre ascenso Maio 1910, factus est Cambriae princeps.

(4) Throno a patre mense Maio 1910 ascenso, Cambriae Princeps die 23 Iunii 1910 creatus est. IacobusAmor 14:39, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Though your point is well taken, let me point out that ascendere isn't a real transitive verb, and so it doesn't normally allow an agentive P-phrase. I changed the sentence accordingly. --Neander 15:57, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that a problem like that might be pertinent, so I checked Cassell's and saw that Caesar has ascendere murum, and Cicero has ascendere ripam equo (both transitives), so I left it. IacobusAmor 16:24, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe "transitive" isn't distinctive enough, because a case can be made for ascendere montem expressing a transitive relation. The point is that, in classical Latinity, the passive forms of ascendere are in fact impersonal forms: whereas ascenditur in montem (impersonal) is ok, the real passive structures *mons ascenditur or *montes ascenduntur are late/vulgar Latinity (attested in Egeriae peregrinatio). This being the case, *mons ascenditur ab Oreste or monte ab Oreste ascenso aren't permitted structures, either, though interference from the English verb ascend may cause some disturbance in this matter. --Neander 20:11, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Does "Eduardus, cum pater mense Maio 1910 in thronum ascendisset, factus est Cambriae princeps" imply that Edward was made Prince of Wales in May 1910? or does the subjunctive, by making the statement more explanatory than temporal, put no temporal restriction on later actions? What I've read in grammar-books suggests the latter, but you can bet that some people will take the sentence to mean the former. The date he became POW should be put into the sentence, or at least somewhere the article. IacobusAmor 16:32, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

The latter is right. Had the temporal restriction been stressed, the proper conjunction would have been ubi (primum) or simulac instead of cum. If there's a risk of misconstrual, it may be expedient to express the info in two sentences. --Neander 20:11, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)