Jump to content

Disputatio:Corpus Domini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Revertere abusiviter, sine explicatione, more barbarico est. Complenere ellipticos propositiones de transubstantiatione, non vandalicus est, sed constantinopolitanem sanctam othodoxiam sanctio et anathema super transgressiones vaticanorum vates Cybelae.

↑ Quis hoc scripsit? IacobusAmor 18:05, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio! E loco, certe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"cum magnum claedes haereticorum profectus fuit, iussu papa."[fontem recensere]

For my edification, could an English-speaker elucidate the grammar here for me? This cum + indicative "points to a general chronological coincidence between two actions" (Minkova 2001:49), but I don't see how that works; was the historical cum with the imperfect subjunctive intended? This claedes isn't in my dictionary; clades is, but it's feminine, and this claedes is neuter. And why is papa nominative? IacobusAmor 18:05, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand cum magnum claedes ... either. I took that clause out. I guess we wanted the genitive papae so I've made that change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It makes more sense now! When puzzled, I often wonder what it is that I'm missing, so I'd still like to know what the original writer meant. IacobusAmor 18:32, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]