Disputatio:Dictionarius (Iohannes de Garlandia)
- I checked. This does seem to be the correct title for Mister de Garlandia's work. His name, however, is Latinized various ways, and I haven't bothered to check which way is "best." --Iustinus 10:18, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
I have been known to make mistakes, but we're OK here. Someone just xeroxed the work for me and the first sentence begins:
- Dictionarius dicitur libellus iste ...
See also my recent emendation to Lexicon, where it had previously been claimed that this word, in both -us and -um forms, originated in 20th century Latin.
I've just been persuaded to do an English translation of this dictionarius; which may result in the appearance of a bit more medieval Latin in Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:33, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- I enjoy your texts and am glad you'll continue contributing. I recall going through Anonymus IV in the late 1960s, and probably read some of Garlandia, though I don't remember what. It's an important period for the history of music & music theory.
- That said, G's noun dictionarius should be a blunder (and Ioshus should be right), at least from the viewpoint of the Golden Age. A&G say the termination -arius, -a, -um forms adjectives "meaning belonging to . . . from nouns" (#250), and they cite the suffix -arius as forming nouns (masculine, obviously) for persons (not objects) "employed about anything" (#254). Of course if Garland used it, he used it, and it's a valid attestation; you might make sure, however, that the -us (instead of an -um) isn't a latter-day transcriber's incorrect expansion from a medieval abbreviation. Many terminations of syllables are squiggles of various sorts, and these may puzzle readers unaccustomed to them. IacobusAmor 22:04, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- These are good points. And one could alternatively understand, from his first words as I quote them above, that he intended the title to be Dictionarius libellus (i.e. a little book about words), using dictionarius as an adjective. However, all recent scholars have accepted the title to be Dictionarius (see bibliography for an example), so I think it would only confuse things to try to "correct" it.
- It will be interesting, as more items linked with medieval Latin appear in Vicipaedia, to decide what we do about un-classical phraseology. I foresee more discussions along these lines ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see! Garlandia must indeed have been using dictionarius as an adjective, referring to his "diction-related volume" or (if Anglo-Saxon roots be preferred) his "wordwise booklet," and the "recent scholars" may be misinformed—or we might grant that their Dictionarius is still an adjective: after all, there's no law that says the name of a book has to be a noun. No such book springs immediately to mind, but two movies whose titles are adverbial phrases do: North By Northwest and Suddenly, Last Summer. Then there's a movie that's a participle and an adjective/adverb: Born Free. And the movie Unforgiven (a participle) won the 1992 Academy Award for best picture. Maybe somebody will think of a book. IacobusAmor 18:44, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- Also, don't forget that it would be perfectly acceptable, especially in the middle ages, to have a book whose title refered to a profession rather than a thing. If I weren't lazy and in a hurry I'm sure I could come up with an exampkle ;) --Iustinus 20:42, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
- There you go! --Iustinus 01:55, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
I have just added an outline of contents. Some of these words are a bit (or more than a bit) obscure, but I aim to link them or explain them sooner or later. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:34, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)