Disputatio:Historia Philippinarum

Quaestio[fontem recensere]

"Greges palaeolithici per decem milia annorum incolas esse videtur." Potestne hoc periodum aliis verbis vel alia lingua explicari? Lio 09:17, 17 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago. (The Philippines) is believed (videtur) to be inhabited (incolas esse ) tens of thousands of years(per decem milia annorum) (after), by the people (greges) of the paleolithic (culture). --Jondel 12:07, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'is believed' = habetur, putatur, existimatur, &c. + 'to be inhabited' = habitari. + For extent of time, per is unnecessary & wrong; the bare accusative suffices. + decem milia = 'for ten thousand', not 'for tens of thousands'. + 'by the people' can't be in the nominative; and 'grex' may not be the best word for 'people' (try homines; populus, gens, natio). + 'of Paleolithic culture' may fit best as an adjective modifying the people. IacobusAmor 13:20, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobus, Salve. What is wrong with videtur? J. Ceasar uses it in the Gallic W.: 'non alienum esse videtur'.

That's basically 'it doesn't seem strange'. Also, it's singular, but your supposed subject, Philippinae, is plural. IacobusAmor 14:35, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incolas -also contains that meaning of Inhabit. I really don't see what is wrong with this. Maybe the grammar form is wrong.

It's either the second-person singular present subjunctive '(may) you cultivate', or the accusative plural 'the inhabitants [as direct object]'. This incolas esse could mean 'are inhabitants' in oratio obliqua, but it can't mean 'to be inhabited', for which the verb incolo gives us [Insulae] incoluntur. But if your subject is greges, you can't say it that way. You could, however, say Insulae a gregibus Palaeolithicis incoluntur. IacobusAmor 14:35, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 or 20 o 30 thousand years. The Philippines was occupied after the first arrival for 10 or 20 or 30 thousand years. (estimate) Thus I use Per + accusative.

For duration in time (and extent in space), the bare accusative does the job; no preposition is needed, though (I think) examples do exist in which per has been added, so you're not technically wrong to use it. IacobusAmor 14:35, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were many groups. Grex/Gregis seems to fit this discription well.

That's possible. So "Greges palaeolithici per decem milia annorum incolas esse videtur = 'Palaeolithic bands for ten thousand years it seems to be (to? toward? [= direct object]) inhabitants'. That's not what you really want! IacobusAmor 14:35, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>of Paleolithic culture' may fit best as an adjective modifying the people.

Exactly. I was trying to use the Genitive of Paleolithic. eg : A people of a paleolithic culture. Cheers.--Jondel 13:52, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sample appropriate here?:Dicitur Caesarem interfecisse Pompeium. It is said Caesar killed Popei. Im trying to find the exact grammar rule. Im using using everything other than videtur as a direct object in the same way as 'Dicitur', thus, The groups (plural accusative-object ) was being(infinitive past) seen(videtur=>existimatur) having lived afterwards for some tens of thousand of years. Videtur seems more appropriate because the 'evidence' is see-able. I am changing incolas to a a verb participle. As such, what do you think of this: ~~Videtur~~Existimatur greges paleolithicos 'postquam', per nonnullam decem milles annos(plural accusative)'incolata(now a verb plural accussative ?)' esse. Is the word order also ok ? --Jondel 02:28, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've made the Palaeolithic bands accusative, nonnullam has the wrong form to be modifying 'thousands', milles is an incorrect plural, and I have no idea what incolata is, because it has the wrong suffix to be referring to the Palaeolithic bands, and verbs can't be accusative. ¶ N.B. See what the pertinent sentences in en:Philippines say: "Archeological and paleontological discoveries show that Homo sapiens existed in Palawan circa 50,000 BC. The aboriginal people of the Philippines, the Negritos, are an Australo-Melanesian people, which arrived in the Philippines at least 30,000 years ago." If that's true, then instead of plusquam decem milia annorum or (better?) abhinc annorum plusquam decem milia you might want to be saying abhinc annorum plusquam quinquaginta milia. IacobusAmor 03:39, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. Thanks for your time and trouble and sorry about the Nexus debacle. Anyway I' m anxious to get thsi resolved. Ergo habemus : Abhinc annorum plusquam decem milia greges ~~incolata/~~habitata(nominative plural nuetral ) fuerunt (because this is in the far past well sunt is fine too). Using Insulae or Philippinae will be redundant in context with the preceding sentence. If I have time I will translate or write about Homo sapiens in Palawan, etc. If there are no objections I will copy the paste the above result of our discussion in a few days or you may do it or suggest a better sentence. Regards,--Jondel 01:03, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greges = masculine; habitata = neuter plural: they don't agree. Greges insulas habitaverunt / habitabant. 'Bands inhabited / were inhabiting the islands'. IacobusAmor 02:58, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinc annorum plusquam decem milia greges palaeolithici(forgot this in prev. ex.) habitabant. -Is this ok?--Jondel 03:33, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'More than ten thousand years ago, Palaeolithic bands were dwelling'. Does that sentence look complete to you? (Without a direct object, 'inhabiting' becomes 'dwelling'.) Don't forget to change decem to a larger number, maybe all the way to quinquaguinta. IacobusAmor 10:50, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than ten thousand years ago,'since then'...., How about:Abhinc annorum plusquam quinquaginta milia greges palaeolithici habitabant in insulas. ?--Jondel 02:39, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this last version into the article, thanks for your insights Iacobus.--Jondel 00:59, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]