Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Variabillimus[fontem recensere]

Sex tantum adiectiva superlativum mittunt in -illimus: facilis, difficilis, similis, dissimilis, gracilis et humilis. Qua de re vide etiam Latin declension (anglice). --Fabullus 07:40, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duos continentis orientales tertios ---> Duas continentis orientales partes[fontem recensere]

"When the denominator is but one greater than the numerator, the numerator only is given: two-thirds, duae partēs; three-fourths, trēs partēs, etc." (A&G #135, note 2). IacobusAmor 13:04, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respublica[fontem recensere]

Australia "republic" (verbum anglicum) non est, quia monarchia est. Vide textum rei: Anno 1999, referendum factum est an constitutio mutaretur et Australia res publica se transformaret, cum praeside electo qui reginam velut civitatis dux substitueret, sed negativum factum est. Non scio ego utrum explicatio verbi latini "res publica" similis anglice est... [Ab usore ignoto numero scriptum]

Latinum vocabulum respublica Anglice significat 'republic, state, commonwealth; the common weal, the public interest; civil affairs, administration, power'. In Foederatis Americae Civitatibus, exempli gratia, Latinum nomen translaticium pro Anglico vocabulo 'Massachusetts' est Respublica Massachusettensium (Anglice 'Commonwealth of the Massachusetts [Indians]'). IacobusAmor 12:10, 5 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new user has removed the alternative lemma "Respublica Australiana". I have a feeling the new user was right: we are writing Latin here, and we don't have a right to say that this country's full name in Latin is "Respublica Australiana" unless we can find a source to confirm it. Our problem is that "Respublica" can have several translations in English, of which "Commonwealth" is not the first or most obvious. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections in Australia were under way before this comment was posted. Vide definitionem in vicipaedia Anglica: "Res publica is a Latin phrase, loosely meaning "public issue" or "public matter". It is the root of the word republic, and the word commonwealth has traditionally been used as a synonym for it." IacobusAmor 12:41, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has long been attested in Latin on Harvard University's diplomas as Respublica Massachusettensium (litteratim VNIVERSITAS HARVARDIANA CANTABRIGIAE IN REPVBLICA MASSACHVSETTENSIVM). So we have the traditional equivalence of English commonwealth and Latin respublica cited in en: and solidly attested by a well-known university. What more could we want? IacobusAmor 12:55, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more! In the English-speaking world (that, presumably, of Mclay1, the non-Latinist who objects to the equivalence of Latin respublica and English commonwealth), the most famous commonwealth is the Cromwellian one. Its name was attested in 1787 as respublica in the title of Prestwich's Respublica ([1]). Nobis etiam est Ioannis Miltonii Defensio Pro Populo Anglicano, cuius in praefatione legimus de summis in republica nostra viris, scil., 'the most important men of our Commonwealth'. Likewise commonwealth = respublica in letters of state also written by John Milton. IacobusAmor 13:09, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with "respublica" here is that in context it is ambiguous and therefore misleading. I have added "Convertimus" to the lemma, but this will only serve temporarily: we need to find a source, or find an unambiguous translation of "Commonwealth", or, if we can't do either thing, we don't put a translation of "Commonwealth of Australia" as lemma. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Australians who applied the word to their federation did so with the seventeenth-century Commonwealth in mind, and they knew its republican implications: "The Commonwealth of Australia, the word is the exact equivalent of the Roman Respublica—otherwise our modern republic" (Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Aprilis 1891). The word commonwealth was "the exact equivalent of the Roman Respublica." What more can we want? IacobusAmor 19:13, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more, if you like. Henry Parkes, who chose the name for the new Australian federation,
had indicated that his admiration was for the English parliamentary leaders of the first half of the seventeenth century who resisted the absolutism of King Charles I before the time of the Protectorate. Parkes asked Edmund Barton’s journalist-brother G.B. Barton to write an annotated version of the 1891 National Convention’s Draft Bill. In G.B. Barton’s The Draft Bill to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (1891) there was a discussion of the term ‘Commonwealth’. It was argued the term ‘Commonwealth’ emerged from the English writers before the Civil War and that when political writers such as Hobbes used ‘Commonwealth’ in 1651 in Leviathan, they “used the word in a general sense of a State or established community, no matter what the form of government might be.”
When James Harrington chose The Commonwealth of Oceana for the title for his study on government, G.B. Barton suggested it was not selected, for the purpose of securing the favour of ‘the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth’ to whom it was dedicated, but because it was the proper scientific term for his subject, according to the usage of the time. This was the form of republic that Henry Parkes supposedly advocated. It was Milton [There's our Ioannes Miltonus again; vide supra.] in The Ready and easy Way to establish a Free Commonwealth (1659-1660) who used the word as an equivalent to the term ‘republic’.
Source: ‘Commonwealth’ is a republican term. IacobusAmor 19:13, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald quote is highly relevant. Let's see what Mclay1 thinks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:20, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some commonwealths are/were republics, such as the short-lived Commonwealth of England; however, some are not, including the Commonwealth of Nations, which is here translated as "Consortio Populorum", the Commonwealth of the Phillipines, which is translated as "Consortio Insularum Philippinarum" and the Commonwealth of Grenada, which is here translated as "Consortio Granatae". Whatever loose republican connections the English name of Australia may have, it is not a republic. If one did not know the English name of Australia and was translating this page, it would be easy to mistranslate it as "Republic of Australia". Isn't there a closer translation of commonwealth? Consortio seems to fit. Mclay1 11:35, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy indeed to mistranslate it thus if one were unfamiliar with Latin and the history of the equivalence of the English word commonwealth and the Latin word respublica, and if one were unfamiliar with the history of the formal English name of Australia. The politicians who coined the phrase Commonwealth of Australia did so with explicit reference to the Latin word respublica, not to the Latin word consortio or any other Latin word. ¶ The basic sense of consortio is 'community, partnership, companionship', and the phrase Consortio Populorum probably stresses the complexity of the project: it's not a unitary commonwealth, but a community of diverse peoples. If memory serves, that term originated outside Vicipaedia (ex ipsa consortione), and the cited names of the Philippines and Granada must have been modeled on it. They're awkward, and should be changed. IacobusAmor 12:01, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing for people who are ignorant of those things, Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But are we really writing for people who are ignorant of the language and are therefore unable to read what we've written? IacobusAmor 16:49, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as well as for people who are informed about them. It seems to me that if the correct interpretation of our invented term "Respublica Australiana" needs all that knowledge, we should either renounce the invention, or, if we stick with it, place it not in the lemma but in a second paragraph, about the names of Australia, where there is room in the text for explanations. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't invent the equivalence of commonwealth and respublica, nor did we invent the connection of respublica and the modern Australian polity : we have, in effect, an attestation that the word commonwealth in the phrase Commonwealth of Australia is equivalent to the Latin word respublica. But you're right to point out that wherever democracy rules, arguments from ignorance can have great weight, sometimes (as the results of elections prove) dispositive weight. The present argument from ignorance, which falsely holds that the semantics of a Latin word must exactly map those of an English word, would lead to obvious absurdities if pursued between languages generally; for example, our friend is practically in the position of having to tell the French that they must stop using the word figure to mean 'face' because figure means something else in English. Perhaps a way of accommodating the ignorant would be helpful, but what could it be? Our lemmata for countries ordinarily give any short form first, followed immediately by any longer, official form (as a synonym), so pushing the official name to a later paragraph here would be unexpected. IacobusAmor 16:44, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Respublica Australiana" is not an official form.
"Respublica" has several equivalents in English of which "commonwealth" is only one.
I warn you to avoid any more arguments based on one person's linguistic knowledge, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 24 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that seemed to me to be needed was to take the form "Respublica Australiana" into the footnote, stating that it is a version of "Commonwealth of Australia": a good version, the best we can do in Latin, very likely, but not an authoritative one. So that's what I've done. I hope others are happy with that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:57, 28 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Iacobum is right about the latin translation of commonwealth. Not only is it attested as such in latin-english dictionaries, but one has one of the most important documents of modern government Thomas Hobbes "De Cive", translated into almost all languages; and respublica in those translations is unambiguously translated as Anglice commonwealth. Respublica (the "public thing")is a term that holds many meanings because res is all inclusive. Primarily in the roman mind, it meant public affairs as opposed to private, clan or family affairs: by extension it meant what you as citizen did outside of the household--participate in commerce, law, debates and elections; and by extension to that it meant participatory government in the most general sense, including what today Anglice is called "democracy"; and many other legal meanings such as Rome itself, a civitas dependent on Rome, a municipium, and also the name of a form of government; also it meant the legal person standing for a civitas in law (there sort of meaning "the state/public interest"). The hierarchy of these meanings can be confirmed in abundant internet sources.
Obviously the word by word translation of the words common wealth into latin is not res publica, but each of these terms in each language has technical meanings that don't exactly translate. Commonwealth is one such term and it translates to Latine respublica in the sphere of political science. The order of suggested translations in the english dictionary entry provided above does not reflect the order of precedence of the meaning in Latin: see e.g. Lewis and Short give this as their first line: "Res publica, also as one word, respublica, the common weal, a commonwealth, state, republic (cf. civitas); also, civil affairs, administration, or power, etc"
I searched, albeit non extensively, and could not find an attestation for consortio being commonwealth extra Vicipaediae ambitum. Is there one?-- 19:37, 28 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Iacobus is right about the translation too, and the footnote backs him up, but I think he was wrong to put "Respublica Australiana" in bold, as an alternative lemma, in the first sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:56, 28 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Borealis[fontem recensere]

Sorry for not knowing enough Latin, so I write in English... Anyway, are you sure about "Australia Borealis (Anglice: Northern Territory, NT)"? Isn't there a way to say "territory" in Latin (if the obvious choice isn't correct)? Messlo 01:06, 17 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's an obvious way to say it, and Vicipaedia said it. The territory in this article used to be named Territorium Septentrionale—but then on 28 June 2008, a person going by the number changed it to Australia Borealis. Perhaps will show up and tell us the reason. IacobusAmor 02:42, 17 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the article Australia Borealis seems to have been created on 29 December 2007 by Hendricus, whose userpage explains "my Latin is absolutely worse tot worse, so keep an eye to my contributions please." IacobusAmor 02:55, 17 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous user was helping, in fact: making a link to the page that, thanks to Hendricus, existed. The next job is to move the page to a more accurate name (citing a source if there is one): it's open to anyone to do this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 17 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Australia Borealis on its face means 'North(ern) Australia'. It's all over the net in reference to biological specimens, and some of those attestations are from dates before the Northern Territory existed: that gives us a strong suspicion that the phrase is meant to mean merely 'North(ern) Australia'. At least one site, this one, says it means 'South [!] Australia'. Quite a few sites use it to mean 'southern lights' (rightly aurora australis). The Vatican uses territorium septentrionale in reference to a couple of northern territories, but not, apparently, to the Australian one. It's quite a mess! IacobusAmor 12:02, 17 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]