Disputatio:Reginaldus Foster
Euge! Reginaldum cras videbo! Er... an hodie? --Iustinus 05:37, 24 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Ecce! --Iustinus 01:46, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Placuit mihi eius vocem audire. Salutationes meas si vis ei da. --Tbook 18:21, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Novieboracensis vs. Neoeboracensis[fontem recensere]
In fact, I'm pretty sure both forms are in use. I can look into it if anyone cares. The point is, I don't object to Neoeboracensis, but it was not prave scriptum as it was. --Iustinus 16:13, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Pater or Presbyter?[fontem recensere]
When speaking of a priest, is it more traditional to say Pater Ioannes Shmoannes, or Presbyter Ioannes Shmoannes? I have definitely seen the latter and wonder if it's preferable. LionhardusCiampa 11:11, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps presbyter is the specific name of their office, and pater is a courtesy title, extended in many social situations. IacobusAmor 11:59, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
(Courtesy) titles[fontem recensere]
The current start of this article—"Pater Reginaldus Foster natus est"—raises a question: should courtesy titles be part of lemmas? In some cases, their use may advertise a POV. For example, Augustine of Hippo is ordinarily regarded as a saint in the Western church (Roman Catholic, Anglican, perhaps others), but not in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where he's merely beatus; so calling him Sanctus Augustinus in a lemma would constitute a POV. The English wiki finesses the issue by calling him "Aurelius Augustinus, Augustine of Hippo, or Saint Augustine" (that is, by listing the neutral name first). In contrast, the English wiki's lemmas do accommodate legally established titles, like knighthoods; so, for example, en: has an article on Sir Ronald Syme, not Ronald Syme. So which is pater more like?—sanctus 'saint' or eques 'Sir'? I've seen books whose title pages name their authors in the form R. P. Ioannes Faber, S. M. (which I'd take to be Reverendus Pater Ioannes Faber, Societatis Mariae); standard English bibliographic style would cut the clutter and list such an author merely as Faber, Ioannes. That style may serve as a model for lemmas here. IacobusAmor 11:59, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- As a librarian, I prefer the bibliographic stripped-down style. It does help to avoid POV problems, among noblemen as well as saints. I wondered about this concerning the retitled Sanctus Gregorius Turonensis, whose best friends would not have claimed that saintliness was his main activity. Marvellous writer, though. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, the lemma should perhaps be "Gregorius Turonensis, vel Sanctus Gregorius Turonensis." Or should it be "Gregorius Turonensis, Sanctus"? or maybe '"Gregorius Turonensis, Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae Sanctus"? Surely, the lemma for each saint should follow the same style, whatever it might be. ¶ What do you think of the article that begins: "Carolus, Princeps Cambriae (Carolus Philippus Artorius Georgius natus 14 Novembris 1948)"? Aside from leaving out his other titles, that seems about right to me. IacobusAmor 13:04, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the first sentence has to supply both official and commonly-used names but mustn't get too clumsy; the title has to choose an obvious, short and neutral form. Charles is OK. I'm rather against "Sanctus" in titles, for the reason you give above and because saintliness is normally awarded long after the subject's death. I would put it in the last sentence of the introduction, "He was made a Saint of the Catholic Church in year ...." But, in my experience, it's not always easy to discover what year! If there's a database on this topic, I haven't found it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- There's a very good reason for that. The earliest saints were canonized long before records were kept. We simply don't know if these saints were named saints in the year 300, 400, 500, whatever. There's no question that the canonization process was nowhere near as rigorous as it is today, with the obligatory miracles, etc. LionhardusCiampa 14:50, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the first sentence has to supply both official and commonly-used names but mustn't get too clumsy; the title has to choose an obvious, short and neutral form. Charles is OK. I'm rather against "Sanctus" in titles, for the reason you give above and because saintliness is normally awarded long after the subject's death. I would put it in the last sentence of the introduction, "He was made a Saint of the Catholic Church in year ...." But, in my experience, it's not always easy to discover what year! If there's a database on this topic, I haven't found it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, the lemma should perhaps be "Gregorius Turonensis, vel Sanctus Gregorius Turonensis." Or should it be "Gregorius Turonensis, Sanctus"? or maybe '"Gregorius Turonensis, Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae Sanctus"? Surely, the lemma for each saint should follow the same style, whatever it might be. ¶ What do you think of the article that begins: "Carolus, Princeps Cambriae (Carolus Philippus Artorius Georgius natus 14 Novembris 1948)"? Aside from leaving out his other titles, that seems about right to me. IacobusAmor 13:04, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Middle names[fontem recensere]
Most Americans of Reginald Foster's generation have middle names, which belong in lemmas. Does Reginaldus Foster have a middle name? If so, perhaps the lemma here should take a form something like "Reginaldus Augustinus Foster, saepe dictus Pater Foster." IacobusAmor 11:59, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Gotta update this...[fontem recensere]
Page badly in need of an update, but I can't work on it right now. For future reference, though: http://thelatinlanguage.org/aestiva-milvauchiae-latinitas-mmxiii/ --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:50, 14 Augusti 2013 (UTC)