Disputatio:Philosophia et litterae

Jondel, sorry but I had to rewrite this, because there were too much grammatical and stylistic infelicities:

litterarium (agreement?) tractatio philosophorum et philosophicorum thematarum (it's thema, thematis n.)
thematarum was supposed to be plural neutral. The meaning, as you can read over at the English wiki was supposed to be "literrary treatement of philosophers and philosphical themes"Jondel (disputatio) 10:28, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
et philosophicarum tractationarum (???) materiae sublatae (tollo 'elevate; remove')
philosophical treatement of issues (materiae) raised (sublatae) by litterature. --Jondel (disputatio) 10:28, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a (a(b) = by only when somethig is done by intentional agents [esp. humans] or collectives consisting of such agents [e.g. senate]: in other cases, use e.g. instrumental ablative)
You may be right. I have two grammar books let me recheck but I feel the above is not mentioned.Jondel (disputatio) 14:23, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
literatura (litteratura 'alphabet(ic writing); grammar' in classical and post-classical Latin).
NB: I deleted the Nota section because we're not supposed to use other wikis, not even English, as sources; Iacobus has used "ex En" in the Summarium field, when translating or adopting material from the English wiki. Neander (disputatio) 17:41, 18 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help but I don't understand why we can not adopt material from the English Neander, I am forced ask why you say that Neander.Jondel (disputatio) 00:26, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jondel. I agree with Neander that en:wiki cannot be treated as a "reliable source". Even the Great Founder Jimmy Wales says this. It's simply because it is an open wiki, and therefore anyone can add anything to it.

We should aim to cite reliable sources. The way this works on en:wiki is discussed in help pages there (such as en:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). I think we ought to develop a page like that here too, though probably shorter and simpler! They have more time over there ...

It can be a good idea to begin articles by translating from en:wiki, as Iacobus often does, but the long term aim should be to cite reliable sources directly. Hence, if there is a single initial source that you are translating, it's sinmplest to acknowledge it in the summarium (where the fact remains on record).

I am making a change to your headings. It's not a good idea to include the language in the heading, because the next item added may be in a different language! So, if you want to indicate what language the sources are in, you need to use the in-line templates, as I will do here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It is starting to get to feel like the English wiki.Jondel (disputatio) 10:05, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe. It's a curious fact that the en:wiki article you are working from was written in 2007, is almost completely unchanged since then, and its original writer has now been permanently banned. (For what reason, I have no idea.) We block, just occasionally, but we haven't ever banned anybody! That's one difference ...

It would be nice to know what that writer got out of Borges' Collected Fictions, and from where exactly. It would be better for us to cite Borges in Spanish if we can: no reason to send our readers via English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author was that bad huh.Jondel (disputatio) 10:38, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some people didn't like him ... I really don't know, I didn't check any further :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I caused trouble. I'm going over/reviewing this page. I can't grasp the issues very well yet. Can't reply yet.Jondel (disputatio) 10:34, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jondel, your outpouring (later deleted) in my discussion page is yet another indication of how difficult it may be to read other people's intentions. I made detailed comments on those loci of your text that I considered problematic, given that we're aimig at good Latinitas. I made the comments bona fide, so as not to be regarded as acting high-handedly. It's definitely not my intention to drive you away, as you appear to think, and it's downright outrageous to suggest that I consider Vicipaedia to be my Vicipaedia. My only concern is Latinitas — which I first misspelled Latrinitas (or maybe that was a Freudian slip) — not harassing you or anyone else. Maybe it's best not to correct your Latin at all. But the truth remains that people outside Vicipaedia judge us by Latinitas. Neander (disputatio) 12:51, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latrinitas is really good. That must be the style of those graffiti in the toilets at the back of the pub. Maybe I'll write a page on the subject ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to ignore the intended translations. for example how would you say say the plural genitive of thema? The intended meaning is 'of political themes'. There is a feeling of wasted hard work. Can I ask what you meant by (agreement?) with litterarium? Did you mean non agreement with gender and declension ? Tractatio should have been understood as 'treatment (of subjects)'. Could you reply to my inserts to your comments above?Jondel (disputatio) 14:21, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not ignoring anything. I read carefully the wording in the English original, because I had difficulties in understanding your Latin. My translation is based on the English text. Gen.pl. of thema is standardly thematum. ¶ "There is a feeling of wasted hard work." This might be used as a telling example of an argumentum ad misericordiam, but rules of grammar are ruthless. ¶ Indeed, by agreement, I meant case&gender agreement/concord. Because I didn't find a viable head-word for litterarium, I assumed that there must be a problem in the agreement. I still do. ¶ In English, we say to raise an issue, a question, but we don't say (to the same effect) *elevate an issue. Why? Because this wouldn't be idiomatic English. Every language has its idiom(atic expression)s, a huge lot more than one could think. This goes for Latin, too, and this is why picking up a word from the dictionary is just the beginning of the journey, not its end. ¶ Yes, tollere means 'to elevate, raise to a hgher position', but it's not used in Latin to say to raise an issue; the verb excitare might be a better choice. ¶ Your additions to the article contain some grave errors of grammar. But if nobody else but me detects them, obviously no damage has been done. Neander (disputatio) 23:41, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at correcting the second sentence, basing myself on the sentence at en. Feel free to make it better, Neander! I tried to get an indirect question in there (something like "philosophia litterarum est aestheticae ramus, qui quid sit ars tractat") but I'm not sure how to do so grammatically. Would it be possible here? Mattie (disputatio) 01:36, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Mattie! Jondel (disputatio) 04:02, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago, mi Jondel! Mattie (disputatio) 05:30, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]