Disputatio:Du Fu
De pronominibus possessivis[fontem recensere]
Gratias ago Neandro et Iacobo de eorum laboris emendationis et vicificationis. But my one quibble is with the change from eius to suus. These pronouns all refer to Du Fu, of course, but he is not the grammatical subject of the sentences, and from what I have seen that should be the primary consideration. Now Gildersleeve does say that suus is frequently used in reference to the "actual" subject of the sentence in a dative construction like "suos rex reginae placet", but I don't think that is the case here. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:27, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- I would comment, but I can't find where this change was made. Over-use of suus is a common fault on Vicipaedia, and I think you should feel free to change back. [Added later: I am perhaps disqualified from commenting, in any case, because I don't understand Gildersleeve's example.]
- Iacobus, after working though the text, changed the Latinitas to -1. He didn't explain why. It seems as if he must be criticising himself, and, if so, unfairly, so I have reverted this change. By all means explain, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Maximi momenti est, utrum Du Fu an narrator describatur opinionem dicens (aut cogitans) in hac commentatione. Quoniam a narratore hic de Du Fu verba fiunt, non est, cur pronominibus reflexivis utamur. Itaque tibi, Lesges, Andreae consilium secuto tua verba restituere licet. Neander (disputatio) 16:50, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Restitui. (Andrew, with Gildersleeve you may have been confused, as I was, by his use of "suos", which is not suōs pl., but suŏs sing.; I suppose he had some manuscriptal reason for choosing this spelling. So it's "suus rex reginae placet" = "every queen likes her king", a use of suus despite the fact that the referent reginae is not the grammatical subject.) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:06, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was exactly my problem. Well, now that I understand it, I only hope it's true :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Restitui. (Andrew, with Gildersleeve you may have been confused, as I was, by his use of "suos", which is not suōs pl., but suŏs sing.; I suppose he had some manuscriptal reason for choosing this spelling. So it's "suus rex reginae placet" = "every queen likes her king", a use of suus despite the fact that the referent reginae is not the grammatical subject.) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:06, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Maximi momenti est, utrum Du Fu an narrator describatur opinionem dicens (aut cogitans) in hac commentatione. Quoniam a narratore hic de Du Fu verba fiunt, non est, cur pronominibus reflexivis utamur. Itaque tibi, Lesges, Andreae consilium secuto tua verba restituere licet. Neander (disputatio) 16:50, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
De aemulatione poetarum[fontem recensere]
Commentationem admiro, sententia praefationis ultima excepta. Est nimis officiosus -- et inutilis -- Du Fu cum decem vel duodecim poetas valde inter se differentes assimilare. Tales assimilationes fere omnes oportet delere, dico ego. Alii quid censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:16, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Ita quidem, Anglicum convertens hanc sententiam aliquantum stultam censui. Rescribere conatus sum; quid nunc censetis? Lesgles (disputatio) 01:55, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
- Optime. Pro certo inter poetas praecipuos enumerandus est. Sed apud vicipaediam Anglicam, si res una hoc modo ab uno editore inseritur (e.g. ... nescio quid ... comparatio cum Horatio) editores alii statim omnes tales res addere volunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)