Disputatio:Regio Ilocana

Res variae

Jondel, you asked UV about the -6, and I agree with you that that may be a bit too low; maybe -4 or -5 would be more accurate. And you ask why. For starters, the map shows the area to be in the northwest, but the lemma says otherwise: Regio Luzonus Orientis Semptentrionalis = 'The Luzon Region of the Northeast'. Next, regio is feminine, but Luzonus is masculine, so those words can't go together. Next, Semptentrionalis is misspelled (it has an unwanted em). Next, in Regio Luzonus Orientis Semptentrionalis aut Regio I, this aut is probably the wrong conjunction: it usually introduces, as Cassell's says, "an alternative which positively excludes the first" (it's the kind of or seen in "Give me liberty or give me death," in which you can have one thing or the other, but not both); for lemmata that list acceptable alternatives, vel or sive or seu are ordinarily apter. Then, if Luzonus is reflecting the same root as Luconiae, something could be wrong with the spelling of one of those names. Then, in sermo Regio Ilocos, there's no grammatical connection between sermo and Regio (forcing the English translation 'the discourse, the region'), and Ilocos looks accusative plural, so it can't modify either of the preceding words, both of which are nominative singular. Then in Orientis Semptentrionalis insula Luconiae seems to mean 'in Northeast Lucon's island', and that seems odd. The name Urbs Sanctis Fernandi Civitas 'City for Fernando's Saints the State' can't be right. Then locum is accusative (or wrongly neuter), but the syntax wants the nominative. Then natalis can't grammatically modify locum. Then Ilocana can't modify linguae. Then praesidentium seems to be in the wrong case. Then all the words of Situ est Chordae Administrativo Regione look wrong; the adjective Administrativo can modify only the noun Situ (it's in the wrong case to modify Chordae and the wrong gender to modify Regione), but Situ is in the wrong case to be the subject of a clause, etc. Most of these problems indicate the ineffectual use of gender and case. If you put those things in order, this passage will be well on its way to a -1. Good luck! IacobusAmor 12:28, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

I uh, regret my post to UV now whether he was exagerating or not. I honestly thought,well the grammar was correct. I get upset but I accept I still have far to go. I can't understand how I mixed up east and west in the map. Please let me work on this later. I have to go now. --Jondel 12:53, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)