Disputatio:Dryococelus australis

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes:

  • In many cases the scientific name of an animal really isn't the best thing to call it in Latin. However, as I'm too lazy (and insectophobic, and half-asleep ;) ) to look into the matter, I've kept the name drycocelus australis, which afterall isn't nearly so bad as Canis latrans. N.B., though, normally I put scientific names in italics, to mark them off as something special, and not to be confused with non-scientific Latin (again, Canis latrans is not the same as a "canis latrans"), and likewise try to structure the sentence so as to avoid declining them, but since here I am using the scientific name as the common name I have followed neither of these conventions.
  • I don't think you can call the young of an insect a catulus. A good rule of thumb is that that term is generally reserved for mammals, and mostly carnivorous ones at that. However, I'm not sure what to call the young of a stick insect: I assume it's a nymph, rather than a larva, so I suppose just "nympha" would work. But to keep it simple I went with iuvenilis, which is nicely general, and is surely in use by biologists.
  • Furthermore I wasn't really sure what you meant by Ut catulus est is, veriter potior color est, viridis. Were you trying to say "as a juvenile it is, or rather its color is, green"? Let me know if my attempted correction is not good enough.
  • The Latin word for "small" is parvus, not *paravus (which sounds like some made up word for "greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat-grandfather" ;) )
  • To say "a NOUN NUMBER UNITS long/wide/thick/tall/whatever" (e.g. "an amoeba 23 feet long") you need the folowing:
    1. The NOUN in whatever case the sentence calls for.
    2. An adjective meaning "long/wide/thick/tall/whatever" which agrees with the NOUN. (e.g. "I saw an amoeba 23 feet long" would contain amoebam ... longam)
    3. the UNIT and NUMBER in the accusative (you may or may not be able to tell: very few numbers decline, and many units are the same in the acc. and nom. pl., but trust me, it's in the accusative)
  • The order of those elements is, of course, negotiable.
  • Please see my comment at disputatio:Lazarus Effectus. We need to move that article, I'm guessing to Effectus Lazarenus.

Enjoy! --Iustinus 08:22, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for helping, to tell you the truth I thought I'd done better in writing this article, but then when looking it over compared to the current version I felt like hiding my head in shame. By Ut catulus est is, veriter potior color est, viridis. I meant "when he is an adolescent/child/young stick insect he is, truthfully the better color, green", and I'm not sure if you misinterpreted Latior amplitudo feminarum amplitudo mararum est. but incase you did I meant "The female is larger than the male". My original source was de:Baumhummer if you want to give it a once over. Again I'm sorry for my mistakes, and I'll be sure to contact you ahead of time next time I'm having problems translating. Oh and there is a small comment on the discussion page for Lazarus Effectus. Alexanderr 08:50, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Latin is harder to write in than people think! Generally I highly encourage novices to write in Latin because it is a great way to learn. Unfortunately on the Latin Wikipedia I have mixed feelings: I definitely want novices to contribute, but we have so few advanced users to read over compositions, that correcting becomes a difficult chore :( I don't want to discourage you or other tirones ... but you might want to consider using one of the "the Latin needs work" templates, as humiliating as it might be, on future articles, especially if you are unsure about your Latin. Come to think of it, perhaps we should create a template just for this, somethign that says "This article was written by someone with a less than perfect knowledge of Latin. Please feel free to correct or improve it." That would be less humiliating than any of the templates we currently have, without giving up the advantages. But enough about that.
I did misinterpret that statement: latior means "broader"! So We'll have to change it to maior. As for the sentence about color, I simplified it to "as a juvenile it is of a green color." I can change it to the full sentence you intended, if you wish, but isn't it a bit POVish to judge which color is better? Especially if we don't state why. --16:35, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, you might be interested in the constructions I used there: in Latin the most frequent way to say "as an adult", "as a child" or even "when he was just a boy..." is simply to put the relevant noun or adjective in apposition with the person (or insect) in question. Thus, to say "When I was a little boy, I liked to eat glue" you would say puer gluten edere amavi, or better yet mihi puero gluten edere placebat. No need for an ut, quam, sicut or anything at all. Neat, eh? --Iustinus 16:39, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Does this comment come from personal experience Iustine? ;]. The relative result clause was pretty awesome, though, I'll give you that... =]--Ioshus Rocchio 19:07, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well the reason the color is better is because its better for camouflage, but how do you say "...truthfully the better color because it allows him to camaflauge himself" in latin? Can you use "quia" in that case because there is a noun? What is the word for camaflauge? Alexanderr 18:50, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Ups, I meant to say "because there is a verb" not "because there is a noun". Alexanderr 19:53, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
OH! Ok. Now I get it. I'm thinking the best way to handle this is a relative-result clause. It'll be awesome. Check it out ;) --Iustinus 18:57, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
That looks really good, but can you tell me how the quo would mutate depending upon masculine, feminine, neutral, and plural nouns? Also while it doens't concern the topic at hand I wanted to ask what the difference is between "fontium" and "fontarum"? Alexanderr 19:51, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
m/n s. quo, f.s. qua, m/f/n pl. quibus but do make sure you understand the grammar before you try to copy that. Essentially what I said was "... a color by means of which it might hide itself better." So quo is in the ablative of means (or instrument, I guess. These distinctions sometimes become ridiculous and irrelevant, if you ask me), and aggrees with colore. Latin will sometimes use a relative clause in the subjunctive in the place of a purpose or result clause, thus quo colore melius se celet means the same thing as ut eo colore melius se celet. Got it?
quo colore melius se celet = by which color it may better hide itself?
ut eo colore melius se celet = that by this color it may better hide itself? IacobusAmor 00:30, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
As for your other question, fontium is the genitive plural of fons, and fontarum is the genitive plural of the non-existant word *fonta. I notice that in this article you used a word *mararum similarly. Do realize that -arum is the genitive plural suffix for the first declension only. For the third declension, the genitive plural ends in -um or -ium (and the rules governing which ending you get are a) tricky b) not always accurate, alas!). --Iustinus 00:13, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Mensura insectorum volatilium[fontem recensere]

"Dryococelus Australis longus est fere 100—120 millimetra. . . . Id creditur maximum insectum volatile esse." Sed fortasse maiora sunt mantides, insecta volatilia: "Mantids generally are large, ranging in size from just under 0.4 in (1 cm) to more than 6.7 in (17 cm) [=170 millimetra]" (answers.com); "Mantids range in size from 1 cm to 25 cm's [=250 millimetra]" (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en507/papers_1999/feldman.htm). IacobusAmor 11:28, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

25 cm?! Mehercle, ne tali mantidi umquam obeam! --Iustinus 16:53, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Up until when was it thought to be extinct?[fontem recensere]

Thanks for the most excellent corrections, Neander. On one point, you may have missed the thought: "quod quidem anno 1930 tenus exstinctum esse putabatur, iterum autem repertum est anno 2001 in perparva insula Ball's Pyramid appellata superstes." Does this say that it was thought extinct until 1930? The sense of the English version is that it was thought extinct until 2001, and it was thought that the extinction had occurred before 1930. IacobusAmor 04:38, 9 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

According to my reading of the English text, it was thought that the extinction had occurred by 1930 (at the latest) which I rendered by means of "anno 1930 tenus". Methinks, "anno 1930 tenus" (as an adverbial modifying "exstinctum") is a bit preciser than "ante annum 1930". What do you think? --Neander 15:11, 9 Decembris 2008 (UTC)