Jump to content

Disputatio:Compromissum Missuriense

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Latin source

[fontem recensere]

I'm wondering why we need a Latin source? If there is a totally new concept, e.g. web browser, it would be good to place the source so that we don't need to invent a latin word. But this is obvously a translation. I don't think they require a source for the word of the title in other language wikis as well.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:20, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from disputatio usoris Iacobus Amoris

[fontem recensere]
Latin is a special case. :) The custom of footnoting lemmata that would be unknown to Cicero seems to be an ancient one here. It's not obvious that the current lemma is the best. Cicero's compromissum isn't a compromise in the present-day sense, but means (according to Cassell's) "a mutual agreement to abide by the decision of an arbitrator." The present-day sense is a not unexpected twist on that, but still. Also, given the two nomina, we have six reasonable possibilities for a lemma: Compromissum Missuriense, Compromissum Missurianum, Compromissum Missuriae, Missuriense Compromissum, Missurianum Compromissum, Missuriae Compromissum (not to mention a seventh, your original lemma, Missouri Compromissum). I've suggested that the first is perhaps the best, but the second seems perfectly legal, and we shouldn't discount the possibility that someone (Neander, ubi es?) will come up with something altogether different. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright.Could we use the first one? In the future please already make the move to a lemma which you think is alright because there is so much work that I feel needs to be done. thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:43, 25 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was maybe forgotten, I'll make the suggested move now. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 1 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]