Disputatio:Aquae Mattiacae
Cum viginti sex fontibus urbi una veterrimarum aquarum est.
Alia lingua, sicut italice, hispanice, anglice, vel russice, possin mihi haec convertere?--Ioshus (disp) 18:11, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
- Paginam retractavi. --Alex1011 19:54, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
- Gratias, Alex.--Ioshus (disp) 21:25, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Why?[fontem recensere]
Why does it say sunt urbs Germanica? Doesn't "sunt" mean "they are"? And is "Germanica" the right adjective for Germany, isn't the genitive "Germaniae" better? --Kazu89 17:40, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
- The grammar is correct, because Aquae is plural, but the result did look strange. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
- I see! Thanks for the expaination. Now it seems better. --Kazu89 11:14, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
- Chiefly it's strange because in English (and other languages as well) so many names that are formally plural are grammatically singular. Still, some names are treated 'normally,' e.g. on en: "The Cayman Islands are" (not 'is') "a British overseas territory..." (Saying "The Springs of the Mattiaci is a city of Germany", doesn't work so well in English either as it does with 'are'.) I'm not sure I like the solution "...est nomen urbis" though — it makes it sound like the article is gearing up to be about the name, not the place. —Mucius Tever 13:28, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
- Mucius was right, and 9 years later I have made the correction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- What's this discussion about? Verbs are governed by their subjects, not their predicates. A correct English translation of the current definition—Aquae Mattiacae . . . est urbs in Germania sita—is "The city situated in Germany is . . . Aquae Mattiacae." The subject is city. It's bizarre, though, in view of "Civitates Foederatae Americae sunt res publica" and "Pompeii sunt urbs" and "Trilobita sunt classis" and thousands of other articles having this syntax. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:59, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to write "... sunt urbs ...". Is that OK now? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- Je crois que oui! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:36, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to write "... sunt urbs ...". Is that OK now? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- What's this discussion about? Verbs are governed by their subjects, not their predicates. A correct English translation of the current definition—Aquae Mattiacae . . . est urbs in Germania sita—is "The city situated in Germany is . . . Aquae Mattiacae." The subject is city. It's bizarre, though, in view of "Civitates Foederatae Americae sunt res publica" and "Pompeii sunt urbs" and "Trilobita sunt classis" and thousands of other articles having this syntax. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:59, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- Mucius was right, and 9 years later I have made the correction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
- Chiefly it's strange because in English (and other languages as well) so many names that are formally plural are grammatically singular. Still, some names are treated 'normally,' e.g. on en: "The Cayman Islands are" (not 'is') "a British overseas territory..." (Saying "The Springs of the Mattiaci is a city of Germany", doesn't work so well in English either as it does with 'are'.) I'm not sure I like the solution "...est nomen urbis" though — it makes it sound like the article is gearing up to be about the name, not the place. —Mucius Tever 13:28, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
- I see! Thanks for the expaination. Now it seems better. --Kazu89 11:14, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)