Disputatio:Dictionarius (Iohannes de Garlandia)

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dictionarius, Andrew?--Ioshus (disp) 01:41, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

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)
Ok, obviously I trusted Andrew Dalby to have done his research, I just wanted to make sure =].--Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 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)
A few of my students are reading a kid's novel called "Plush"...--Ioshus (disp) 20:36, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Well, there you are then! ;) IacobusAmor 22:09, 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)
So it means "The Word-Man" or indeed "The Lexicographer". Yes, I like that. Cicero's Orator is a classical parallel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:33, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
There you go! --Iustinus 01:55, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Continentur[fontem recensere]

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)