Disputatio:Oropedium Azorense

De mutationibus recentibus[fontem recensere]

De: "My grammar was fine already, just usage of higher words and expressions."

in flavo monstrata = grammatica falsa? ('shown inside yellow(ness)'? Melius "ablative of specification" = ablativum nudum, non cum in?)
Formam a triangulo cum tribus brachiis habet = 'It has the shape of a triangle with three arms'? Not sure about this locution (non Formam trianguli cum tribus bracchiis habet? Triangulum cum tribus bracchis videtur? Triangulum inaequabile videtur? Triangulum bracchiatum videtur?), but experts may advise.
2 000 → 2000 (mos ISO, mos vicipaedianus)
aequorem = grammatica falsa (aequor nomen neutrum)
20 000 000 → 20 000 000 (mos ISO, mos vicipaedianus)
abhinc [millions] annos = grammatica falsa (post numerum ...000, annorum = "millions of years" non "millions years") + falsum dicendi genus (propria loquendi ratio = "abhinc annorum [millions]")
vulcanismo consociatur = fortasse falsum dicendi genus (consociare + cum in Cassells)
in temporibus antiquis = grammatica falsa (pro ablativo nudo; "[ablative of] Time When or Within Which is put in the Ablative," Gildersleeve #393; 'in ancient times' = antiquitate vel antiquitus)
temporibus antiquis, aevum = grammatica falsa (nomina appositiva casu congruenda sunt; hic recte aevo)
relevata = nomen falsum si res antea non levata erat (revelata autem = OK!)
aequor marinus = grammatica falsa (aequor nomen neutrum)
habitationem humanam hic exsistebat = grammatica falsa (the subject of a clause must be in the nominative, not the accusative)
aequor . . . humilis = grammatica falsa (aequor nomen neutrum)
ignotam = grammatica falsa (a clause ['whether X happened'] isn't feminine)
an = grammatica fortasse falsa (an usually "introduces the second (or any subsequent) clause" [Cassells], but this is the first; vide num et utrum et quod); nevertheless, an has its uses, and experts may advise.
habitationem humanam hic exsistebat = apparently trying to say 'human habitation was existing here', but even in English that's a pallid way of saying 'humans dwelled here' ([num] homines hic habitarent).
nescimus an changed to an . . . ignotam remaneat = problematic; nescire often goes with an (Gildersleeve #457); experts may advise.
Praeterea, formula Latinitatis (–2), nuper deleta, non sine significatione erat. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:39, 16 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Consociare cum" is a safer choice, to judge by Lewis & Short. They offer several examples of that usage; just one example of "consociare + dative", in Mela's geography, of a river joining the sea.

One learns more quickly if one accepts correction. At least, I hope so: I often need to accept it, and I've learned a very useful detail by reading the above :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:56, 17 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mutationes bonas in pagina ipsa ab Iacobe factas Donatello inconsulte reversit. Has mutationes restitui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 17 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aliquas mutationes minores feci. "Formam a triangulo" Latine dicere non possumus, nisi fallor. Tabula inspecta, formam non triquetram sed triscelem video: id ergo dixi. An recte?

Itidem "hodie ab Azoribus Insulis efficitur" non intellegi. An verba mea intellegi possunt!?

"Oropedium Azorense est oropedium oceanicum" mutare debui quia a tali repetitione scriptores Latini abhorrent.

"cum vulcanismo agenti consociatur". I guessed at the English, and that was how I understood what the Latin might mean. That's a sign that the Latin needs rewriting. I wrote "vulcanismo agitatur". Did I succeed? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:25, 17 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Many helpful changes! A subtle point I was making with regard to the triangle is that it's not "really" such a thing, but seeing it makes it so (hence my videtur). As for oropedium, one wonders about the wisdom of having that word be the lemma of an article for a subject that would have made more sense to Cicero as planities, planum, campus, or even aequor. (It isn't in L&S.) I hadn't thought of your last suggestion (vulcanismo agitatur), but it's a welcome & instructive example of the power of verbs—and not just in Latin: compare the English "human habitation existed here" with "people lived here." The former sounds like something an unimaginative archaeologist might write. (I've been busy with the beetles, so I don't have time to say more at the moment.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:12, 17 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More on oropedium. The article to which the link takes us turns out to be describing a high plateau, an elevated plain, probably not quite right for an underwater seabed. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:18, 17 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be acceptable in context to use overground terms for undersea features. If I saw an article "oropedium oceanicum" (as currently linked from here) I would understand the phrase; but I suppose "oropedium Azorense" would suggest airy heights on an island rather than an undersea plateau. I can't think of a Latin phrase that would come closer, unless one stretches to "planities marina Azorensis" or "oropedium oceanicum Azorense" vel sim.

I've tried "quatitur" in place of "agitatur": the latter has possibly too many other meanings and implications. I don't know which to choose really. Yes, I praise your humans dwelled here, now further emended to people lived here. Beautifully simple. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 17 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. I guarantee you, I am not wrong. I do know Latin quite well. Various Latinists may say various things. Furthermore, nobody knows Latin in the level of mother tongue anymore. We of the new age have in fact lost the deep understanding of Latin. After all this written on the discussion page, I feel powerless, so may it be so, I will not argue back, hehe. :P I'm completely fine with it and I do promise, I'm not angry at all (although it might look like that). :D Thanks anyway. :D --Donatello (disputatio) 14:10, 20 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]