Disputatio:Asteroides

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pagina honorata Asteroides fuit pagina mensis Iulii 2007.

LATINITAS[fontem recensere]

  • +2 (inspecta2) --Alex1011 18:32, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)
I changed the rating to inspicenda because not only of my recent additions which should be inspected but also because of the issue noted in the topic section Confusus below.Rafaelgarcia 12:41, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
That's good, Rafael. I noticed a few things that needed a look, too. I intend to contribute greatly to this article (and finish up with Hispania Visigothica) this weekend. Thanks for your recent additions!--Ioshus (disp) 13:38, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Declination[fontem recensere]

What declination is Asteroides (-ae m)? --Rolandus 15:25, 10 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Asteroides flectit secundum a-declinationem, nam et Graece ex a-declinatione est. (Solum nonnulla nomina masculina sicut Aristoteles declinationem mutaverunt.) usor:Bohmhammel, 20.47, 3. Id. Dec. 2006
Immo! Si "asteroides" interpretamur ut "ἀστερ-o-ειδής", i.e. "astro similis", flectere oportet secundum tertiam declinationem, ut (paene) omnia adiectiva Graeca, quae finiuntur litteris -ης. Ergo, ut mihi videtur: Asteroides (-is m). --Fabullus 06:58, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Immo, ambo paradigmata accipienda sunt. Secundum L&S:
Recte igitur, Fabulle, mones declinationem tertiam longe frequentius inveniri, prima autem origini propinquior est, et quidem attestatur. Ergo mea quidem sententia, quod spectat ad nomina substantiva masculini feminive generis utra figura adhiberi potest, sed quod ad substantiva neutralia et adiectiva pertinet, opus est tertia declinatione uti. Valete. --Iustinus 17:18, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Ope Googlei, has formas exloravi:

asteroides + est asteroidi + est asteroidis + est asteroide + est asteroida + est asteroidae asteroidarum asteroidum asteroidibus

Mi videntur ambae declinationes usurpari. Etiam nostra pagina ambobus scriptast. Quare et quomodo eligamus?--Ioshus (disp) 01:21, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Salve, Ioshe. Maior pars tuorum 'hits' non proveniunt e contextibus Latinis, eorumque qui supersunt pars ambigui sunt (asteroides, asteroidis). Omnibus illis subtractis, qui restant majore e parte ex ipsis paginis Vicipaedianis proveniunt, quas quidem nunc emendare conamur. Non igitur mihi persuades. Vale, --Fabullus 11:51, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Magnas, Iustine, tibi gratias ago ob industriam tuam. Paene etiam mihi persuasisses ut concederem, si non, curiositate inductus, ipse nonnullos casus a te citatos scrutatus essem. Sane L&S aeroides, daphnoides et dendroides primae declinationi attribuunt, haec tamen attributio rebus non confirmatur. Vide enim hos casus (omnes quidem quos apud auctores antiquos invenire potui):
  • aeroides:
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 37.77.4: “quinto {sc. loco numerantur} quos aeroidis vocant” (m. acc. plur. 3a decl.(Graece: -εις))
  • daphnoides:
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 1.24a.110: “clematide Aegyptia sive daphnoide sive polygonoide” (f. abl. sing. 3a decl.)
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 15.132.2: “id quoque quod daphnoides vocatur genus” (n. nom. sing. 3a decl. (Graece: -ες))
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 23.158.5: “eodem modo pota daphnoides sive iis nominibus, quae diximus, silvestris laurus prodest” (f. nom. sing. decl. incerta)
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 24.141.2: “Est alia clematis Aegyptia cognomine, quae ab aliis daphnoides, ab aliis polygonoides vocatur” (f. nom. sing. decl. incerta)
  • dendroides:
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 1.26a.62: “tithymalos dendroides sive cobios sive leptophyllos” (m. nom. sing. decl. incerta)
- Plin. Nat. Hist. 26.71.1: “Septimum {sc. genus} dendroides cognominant, alii cobion, alii leptophyllon” (n. acc. sing. 3a decl. (Graece: -ες))
Aliquando, ut opinor, et L&S errant! Re vera nomina substantiva et adiectiva huius generis numquam a veteribus primae declinationi attributa sunt. Vale, --Fabullus 11:51, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Vae mi, linguam haud habeo...--Ioshus (disp) 21:57, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Ego quoque!--Rafaelgarcia 13:43, 24 Maii 2007 (UTC)

pagina mensis[fontem recensere]

Valde sustineo hanc articulam esse paginam mensem adhibendam, at emendationes debent facere:

  1. Nihil fontium!
  2. Caeca imaginum...
  3. Pauper tabularum diagrammatumque...data sun errata, fere semper in columna una...
  4. Inopia sapientiae multae, sicut apud has paginas de Wikipeda duas.

Quis cooperationem capescere vult? Auxiliaturus sum, et nolo hanc regere, sed, suppono, si erit administranda, administrabo.--Ioshus (disp) 01:07, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Confusus[fontem recensere]

In pagina dixit: "Nota bene: summa asteroidarum notorum ad quoddam ex eorum generum spectralium pertinentium non necessarie cum summa vera planetularum illius generis convenit quia quaedam genera facilius inveniri possunt."

Nescio exactiter quod id significat. ..."ex eorum generum ...." Debetne casu ablativo uti? Ubi? "The greatest of the known asteroids to a certain one from pertaining to of whose spectral type not necessarily with the greates truth of that type of minor planet corresponds because a certain type can be more easily discovered." ?Rafaelgarcia 15:29, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)

PS there seems to be a superfluous phrase right after this sentence as well, which already occurred at the top of the section.Rafaelgarcia 15:29, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)

fontes[fontem recensere]

Pagina Anglica is not going to work as a source...--Ioshus (disp) 15:07, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

It's a beginning. It seems that much of the text of Asteroides is a translation of the english page.Rafaelgarcia 17:03, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Planetulla[fontem recensere]

Planetulla significat Anglice "dwarf planet". Secundum paginam Anglicam en:Dwarf Planet et paginam en:2006 definition of planet, planetulla definitur corpus caelestialis esse, sicut Ceres, Pluto, et Eris, qui sufficientem massam habet ad formam sphericam formandam, qui non est satelles et cuius ambitus circum solem non est ex alia corpora purgatus. Ergo Ceres, Pluto et Eris considerantur planetullas et asteroidas, sed non tota asteroidae sunt planetullae.Rafaelgarcia 22:48, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Secundum Wikipediam, quae ad tempus solum fontem nostrum facit, asteroides etiam appellantur "planetoids or minor planets". In animo plane habui alteram affectare, "dwarf planet", autem nolui. Quid de linguae compromissione petamus? Et, ut planeta verbum masculinum est, nonne forma sua diminutiva cum -us terminet? Vide Disputatio:Pluto (planeta).--Ioshus (disp) 23:07, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Heu! Vere hoc est alterum casum socolatae simile...Etiam nescio quo verbo melius uti ad "dwarf planet" ab "minor planet" distinguendum. Nomenclatura anglica, mea sententia, quae "dwarf planet" ab "minor planet" distinguit, aliquanto est absurda.Rafaelgarcia 00:08, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Ignoscas usum quaeso linguae Anglicae, but if we're talking about English terms, it may be more helpful. How bout, like the IAU and Wiki we call all of them planetuli (I'm still thinking the diminutive should be masculine...) and specify and call Ceres and the like pumiliones??--Ioshus (disp) 04:15, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are trying for but simply "dwarf" is also problematic since dwarfs can also be stars (i.e. white dwarfs). Strictly speaking, IAU doesn't recognize "minor planet" or "asteroid". According to IAU nomenclature, there are only "minor solar system bodies", "planets", "dwarf planets" and "satellites". The IAU seems to have decided to altogether avoid very problematic terms like "minor planet", "asteroid", "kuiper belt object" that have a lot of history attached to them.
I think most everyone must agree that "minor planet" is not a very good term for asteroid. It should be abandoned because it puts us in a position of claiming that a minor planet (i.e. asteroid) is not a planet. Ick! On the other hand...
Planetoides is a great term because it only implies the object is planet-like and not necessarily a planet. Planetula is a great and logical latin term for "dwarf planet" because it conveys the idea that it has most of the important attributes of the regular planets minus a couple of important ones relating to their distinct origin in the solar system. Rafaelgarcia 04:50, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I see, I read the sentence wrong on the English article. I thought it was saying "asteroid" was the preferred term for "minor planet". I'll change that sentence. I didn't, for the record, suggest calling them just pumiliones, but a combination of planeta/ulus and pumilio.--Ioshus (disp) 04:57, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the gender and form, see Disputatio:Planetula. Scurrula, Mosella, both m. --Iustinus 05:15, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Ha! It was your comments at Disputatio:Pluto (planeta) which made me look into the grammar...--Ioshus (disp) 05:17, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well allatis exemplis I am quite happy to admit I was wrong. --Iustinus 09:32, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

iau[fontem recensere]

See these links to the IAU website discussing these issues:

Rafaelgarcia 15:32, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. This is what we need in the fontes section. If you have any more links, or sources, please provide them here, and I will be happy to go through this weekend and add inline <ref> style citations.--Ioshus (disp) 15:52, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)