Disputatio:Convectrum solare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

The title currently reads "Lacunar pro colligando lucis de sole." There are a number of problems with this, which I will hereby enumerate:

  1. Lacunar means "paneled ceiling." So in a way lacunar is a brilliant description of a solar panel, which is, after all, divided into sections, like a paneled ceiling. Unfortunately, lacunar is most frequently used to mean "[not necessarily paneled] ceiling," and I have never ever seen it used to mean "panel [not necessarily on the ceiling]." How should we say panel if not lacunar? Honestly I don't know, and am willing to leave that bit as is for now, short of a better translation.
For "pane, panel," my dictionary offers Latin quadra. IacobusAmor 03:40, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Pro: It is often OK, when translating Latin into English, to render pro as "for," however when translating English into Latin, more often than not pro will not be the best word for "for", so watch out! (I really need to write a section on this in the Translator's Guide) "For" in the sense of "for the collecting of sunlight" is most commonly ad + gerund. Other translations are possible, but this is confusing enough as it is, so let's leave it at that!
  2. colligando: two problems with this. One is that now that we have changed pro to ad, we need to change the case to the accusative. The other is more important: colligo -are -avi -atum means "tie together." The verb you want is colligo -ere -legi -lectum "collect."
  3. Alright, we are going to need to discuss the gerund and gerundive, but I'll maybe write that in another section after I'm done with this. For now let's just keep it simple: in English you can say either "for the collecting of light" or "for collecting light." In Latin, generally only the latter is used (if you have a counterexample from your Vulgate, or something, then let me know. But even so, this is generally considered the best style). In other words lux should not be in the genitive, but the accusative.
  4. de sole: It is possible, but not necessarily the case, that you have made a common error here: de does not mean "of" in Latin. But it's possible you really did mean "light (down) from the sun." Even so, I think lux solis is a pretty common expression that doesn't need to be clarified with a preposition. If you really meant just "of" here, then see here for an explanation of why that's wrong.
  5. pro colligando lucis de sole: even if you correct all the errors I have brought to your attention, I think Latin would be just as happy as English with using just an adjective here lacunar (or whatever) solare.

Depending on if I feel up to coding a table or not, I may add a section on gerunds here. --Iustinus 02:53, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I guess everything went wrong with this article... Really I used "pro -ando" because that was what was recommended to me on the piscina page as a good translation of "for -ing". And if that is wrong then I am sure that Obiectum pro consolando is as well. So maybe you should give that a look. Anyway while I think that lacunar solare might be a decent translation, it might also be confusing, because while I presume it's a straight accross translation of solar panel the only hit on Whitakers words is concerning the verb "solor". A site that even lists many neo-latin words.

Now as for my title - I don't know what to do with it really. I would actually have prefered to use a word equaling "absorb" but all of the proposed translations of the word seemed to have the connontation that it was drunk.

Also I kind of like "de sole" if we use my general Idea for the title, but I'm not going to argue one way or another because it's probably not classical or looks odd to someone's eyes. Alexanderr 03:25, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also what is going on with Fabricator Ostri? Alexanderr 03:32, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's simply a case of "sunlight" vs. "light from the sun." Neither is wrong, but ... well honestly "light from the sun" sounds a bit awkward, as if you expect that the reader has never heard of the novel concept of "sunlight." You see what I'm saying? But as for the third option, see here.
I haven't gotten anywhere with the latter article since I last posted. Sorry, it's hard for me to keep all these plates spinning.
And I noticed "obiectum pro consulando", and really didn't like it, but as I had nothing better to offer, and as I was busy with other articles, I decided not to say anything. I would bet there's a good Latin expression that equates to that, bur damned if I know what that is. --Iustinus 03:41, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alexanderr: After you've got more Latin under your belt, and have paid more attention to the formation of words, you'll know instinctively, without looking anything up, that an English word having the shape of "solar" is likely to be from Latin solaris, and you can confirm this by going to a serviceable dictionary—say, a Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary—and looking up the etymology of "solar," which my edition of that dictionary says is "ME, fr. L solaris, fr. sol sun." In other words, rather than first going to an English-Latin dictionary, you can often get pointed in the right direction by a plain, ordinary English dictionary. (If your native language is other than English, first try the etymology section of a monolingual dictionary in your native language.) For "solar panel," my first guess would be quadra solaris. IacobusAmor 03:52, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two technologies[fontem recensere]

When I look at the interwiki links, most of them seem to be something like collector solaris (?):
  • de:Sonnenkollektor
  • en:Solar collector
  • eo:Sunkolektoro
  • es:Colector solar
  • fi:Aurinkokerääjä
  • it:Pannello solare
  • nl:Zonnecollector
  • pl:Kolektor słoneczny
Just the Italian term seems to have the concept of "panel", which seems to be closer to the German term de:Solarzelle than to de:Sonnenkollektor. I might be completely wrong ... --Roland (disp.) 19:55, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well since I don't think that we'll have anything like the information present on other wikipedias for this article I don't see why we can't include the bit about "Solarzelle" which, I believe, is talking about the chemicals that the solar collector is made out of, and through what process it converts the light into energy. Alexanderr 21:20, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better collectorium solare for reasons outlined in my Translator's Guide. The Latin for cell is, of course, cella or cellula. We know what the difference between a solar cell and a solar panel/collector is, but is there a technical difference between a panel and a collector? --Iustinus 22:28, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I thought the types were cell/panel and collector. But in ISBN 3-12-517522-4 (Egger) I found:
  • Solarplatte (never heard this German word): lamina solaris
  • Solarzelle: apparatum solare pono
--Roland (disp.) 21:10, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's with that pono? Solarzelle isn't a verb. Anyway, I don't know what anything about panel vs. cell vs. collector, so somoene else will have to figure out that bit. But hey, if it's in the PONS we have it made. --Iustinus 22:13, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The complete entry:
Solarzelle, f (mit ~n versehen) apparatum solare pono
(versehen = attached?)
I think there are two technologies: Solarzellen which use a photovoltaic effect and Solarkollektoren where a liquid is inside, which gets heated and transports the thermal (!) energy out of the Kollektor. So maybe our article describes a solar cell ("ad energiam electricam"). The German article (which is linked) says: "zur Wärmegewinnung" (Wärme = thermal energy). --Roland (disp.) 04:19, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely versehen is here an infinitive?
And yes, I was pretty sure the distinction was somethign like that, but I didn't know which was which. --Iustinus 04:51, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerunds and Gerundives[fontem recensere]

  • The Gerund is a neuter second declension noun, which means "(verb)ing" (but don't confuse this with the participle, which also ends in -ing in English, but is an adjective). The Gerund, for some reason, never ever occurs in the nominative (nor in the plural). If you need a nominative gerund, you can usually use either the infinitive, or a -tio noun.
  • The Gerundive is a first-and-second declension adjective, which can occur in any gender case or number. It most frequently means "which must be (verb)ed" (as in the infamous Carthago delenda est "Carthage must be destroyed"), but in some contexts can replace the gerund.

Here are some examples of how these forms can be used:

Case Gerund Gerundive English
Genitive Commentationes scribendi causa adsum. Commentationum scribendarum causa adsum. I am here for the sake of writing articles.
Dative Me totum commentationes scribendo subdo. Me totum commentationibus scribendis subdo. I devote myself entirely to writing articles.
Accusative Huc veni ad scribendum commentationes. Huc veni ad scribendas commentationes. I came here in order to write articles.
Ablative Commentationes scribendo Linguam Latinam disco. Commentationibus scribendis Linguam Latinam disco. By writing articles, I learn Latin.

(Please excuse the ugliness of this table: I don't know how to make the cell-divisions visible, which would help a lot).

So note the following patterns:

  • If you're using a gerund, then you put it in whatever case the sentence calls for, in the neuter singular, with the object in the appropriate accusative form.
  • If you're using a gerundive, then you put the object in whatever case the sentence calls for, and the gerundive in the same gender case and number as the object.

In point of fact, for whatever reason, the Romans generally preferred the gerundive in such constructions!

Let's say you wanted to say "Writing articles is fun!" Well, the English sentence calls for a nominative, but as I said above, there is no nominative gerund. So how do you say this? Simple: Commentationes scribere iucundum est! Use the infinitive (in such cases it counts as a neuter noun.)

A similar situation occurs when an English sentence uses the gerund as the object of a verb, e.g. "I love writing articles!" The gerund or gerundive construction can never be the direct object of a verb: instead use the infinitive. Thus, Commentationes scribere amo!" The accusative of the gerund(ive) is, of course, perfectly correct after a preposition, such as ad or in (both of which, more or less, mean "for the purpose of.")

I hope this is more helpful than confusing! --Iustinus 03:37, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it is quite confusing, but I believed that you explained it the best way possible, and will try to use it when the situation next arrises. The only thing I don't get is how the articles would translate. For example I don't see any reason for the first example to be genetive. It's english translation doesn't seem to show any signs of being genetive. Alexanderr 03:54, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ecce: "I am here for the purpose of writing articles." IacobusAmor 03:56, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, sorry, that's my fault. Let me go fix that. --Iustinus 03:59, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thank you. This might come in handy once I get the hang of it (something that might take a while...) so I'll keep it in mind. Alexanderr 04:06, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, I think I understand. In all your examples the word for articles (commentationes) is the gertrud, right??? The only things that still confuses me then is why commentationes is plural if you said it (a gertrud) couldn't be? Thanks for your help, Alexanderr 21:09, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, no. Gerunds/ives are verbal nouns. Commentationes is a noun noun. The verb is the gerund/ive...--Ioshus (disp) 22:02, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, and no. First and formost: the word is gerund, pronounced JAIR-rund (gerundive is pronounced jair-RUN-divv). There is absolutely no connection to Gertrude Stein. Second, the forms of commentationes is all the sentences represent the object. The gerunds and gerundives are the forms of the word scribere. So to make this even more explicit, let's take one sentence and analyze both versions:
  • English: By writing articles, I learn Latin.
  • Gerund: Commentationes scribendo Linguam Latinam disco.Scribendo is a gerund (verbal noun), in the "ablative of means" (meaning "by _____"). It is neuter singular (as gerunds always are). Commentationes is feminine accusative plural, and is the direct object of scribendo.
  • Gerundive: Commentationibus scribendis Linguam Latinam disco.Scribendis is a gerundive (verbal adjective), in the ablative. However, unlike the gerund form, it is in the feminine plural. Why? Because it is an adjective modifying commentationibus, which is feminine ablative plural (ablative of means).
The gerund is a noun, the gerundive is an adjective (easy to remember, because it ends in -ive!). I will grant that the gerundive is slightly trickier, because with a gerund the object of the verb is put in the accusative, where it would be expected, but with the gerundive it is more usually not. So just to show you how it works, I will go through those sentences again, word by word:
  • Commentationes scribendo Linguam Latinam disco.:
    1. Commentationes: "articles" (accusative: object of scribendo)
    2. scribendo: "by writing" (gerund, ablative of means)
    3. Linguam Latinam: "Latin" (accusative: object of disco)
    4. Disco: "I learn" (main verb)
  • Commentationibus scribendis Linguam Latinam disco.:
    1. Commentationibus: "by articles" (ablative of means)
    2. scribendis: "which must be written" (gerundive, modifies commentationibus)
    3. Linguam Latinam: "Latin" (accusative: object of disco)
    4. Disco: "I learn" (main verb_
So the only trick is to remember that "by articles which must be written" is just a clumsy (in English—it's lovely in latin!) circumlocution for "by the writing of articles."
...but the more I work on this, the less I think you're getting it. You're probably the type who learns better with less information. Unfortunately, I'm the opposite, and my teaching reflects it. --Iustinus 22:28, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I just kept it at verbal nouns, Iustine =]. Less is more.--Ioshus (disp) 22:40, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I think I understand a bit better now, especially since you broke down the sentence to the fundamentals. Alexanderr 00:04, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quid est convectrum?[fontem recensere]

Google hanc paginam solam invenit... פֿינצטערניש (disputatio) 10:45, 23 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]