Disputatio:Ernestus Geisericus Gygax

Latin form of Gary[fontem recensere]

According to English wikip Gary comes from Ger=spear. I also thought, Gary is English for Gerhard (or Gerald, Gerard), Latin Gerhardus. --Alex1011 08:57, 5 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia is never to be trusted on unsourced etymologies. Also, while Gary may be an uncommon short form of those names (besides the more common 'Jerry'/'Gerry', pronounced alike), it may also be from unrelated, i.e. non-spear-containing, names such as Gareth. —Mucius Tever 12:08, 6 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow missed this conversation, though Ioscius hinted at it in an IM conversation. You're right, Gerhard does make a good deal of sense, especially pronounced as it is in German. But I confess I've grown somewhat fond of Geisericus, especially given Mr. Gygax's avowed fondness for the Dark Ages. This being the case, I hope my fellow wikipedians will indulge me on this one, at least for now. Keep in mind that the Geis- in Geisericus is in fact the same Germanic root as the Ger- in Gerhard, Gerald, Gerard, proto Germanic *gaiza- (medial *z becomes r in the Western and Northern Germanic languages, but stayed z or s in the Eastern family, which is now entirely extinct.) --Iustinus 03:03, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any additions or corrections?[fontem recensere]

Well, for "I was pretty much boxed out," you've got Fere exlusus sum, which seems pretty clever (boxing being a game and all), as I'd have expected exclusus. IacobusAmor 03:14, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For "Eventually, though, we got the cartoon show going (on CBS)," is the future perfect (Denique tamen emissionem animatum (apud CBS) suscitaverimus) more idiomatic than the perfect? I don't know, so I'm just asking. One never knows with idioms. + I thought emissio was feminine.IacobusAmor 03:19, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exlusus: yes, I meant exclusus as you well know :P

Well, actually, no: I really thought it was clever (exlusus 'gamed out' = 'boxed out'), though it doesn't seem to be attested in Classical times. IacobusAmor 09:20, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suscitaverimus: I think I meant suscitaveramus. You are right that Latin usage of the perfect system is often very different from English, but a future-perfect there would be just weird. Also no grounds for a perfect subjunctive.
Emissio: yes, it is feminine. I kept thinking "wasn't there a gender error in one of the quotes?" but couldn'rt remember where.

Year links: I used to make all years into links, but the practice on en seems to have changed to only linking years that... well basically years that are particularly relevant to the subject, or years where this article might need to be mentioned. So I've generally not been linking every year anymore.

I don't know how I managed to type infactus for infarctus twice in a row! Glad you spotted that. In any case, now that you're editing the article for me, feel free to make the changes you asked about above. --Iustinus 03:53, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest corrections:

Ernestus: His full name is Ernest Gary Gygax, but he is pretty universally called just "Gary Gygax" (in more formal settings he used "E. Gary Gygax.") I confess that I generally put articles under the fullest Latin name available, so I can accept that maybe the article does need to be under Ernestus Geisericus Gygax. However, I will point out that en (as presumably many other vernacular Wikis do), does have the article under Gary Gygax, despite giving his full name in the bold lemma, so this would not be without precident. It seems more extreme to me to add Ernestus to other occurences of the name in the text. THe bold lemma needs to be as complete as possible, but other mentions should be as ... well, as "usual" as possible, for lack of a better term.

It's inconceivable (to me) that in any rational world, the title of the article wouldn't be identical with the lemma: they're just two different typographies for the same information: one is a display title and the other is an in-text title. IacobusAmor 16:54, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the two are not necessarily meant to convey the same information. The article title is often (but not always) picked on the basis of what is the most common name, whereas the lemma is meant to be the fullest name. Consider, for example, titles like sanctus and doctor, which are generally given with the lemma (though not always bolded), but more-often-than-not not in the article title. Now, as I said, I am willing to concede this point, especially because I myself normally use the fuller names when linking to historical personages (though I have other reasons for that, that we can discuss some other time), but we do need to deal with my other point: Gygax was pretty universally known by the name "Gary," or more formally "E. Gary." But he was essentially never called "Ernest Gary" or "Ernest" (though I have been aware that this was what the E stood for for as long as I can recall, so clearly I saw it somewhere). Surely we don't have to use both praenomina every time we use any of them? --Iustinus 06:38, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lejendary: Yes, you're right, I don't know how to spell Legendary. Sorry, Iacobus, but if Mr. Gygax chose that obnoxious spelling, we have to use it. I notice that you did not "correct" Phabularia, which spelling was chosen to reflect the j in "Lejendary."

Oops. I was being hasty and must have missed that it was a quotation. IacobusAmor 16:54, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened at least twice in the English version too. --Iustinus 06:38, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichaela: she was born "Grace" but ended up using the unique name (by which she is now universally known) "Nichelle." The only source I could find that said anything useful about why she picked this name is Everything2, according to which "She also signed up with an agent who persuaded her to take the stage name "Lynn Mayfield." Grace hated this name, though, and with her mother's help came up with "Nichelle Nichols" so she could keep her family name and have "NN" for initials (and because her mother and wanted to name her Michelle originally.)" So the name was deliberately chosen to sound like "Michelle" but start with an n; it seems to me we need to keep it as Nichaela in Latin. Nichaela isn't exactly an attested name, but then neither is Nichelle.

In that case, we have sic in our arsenal, and should deploy it here, as nobody outside a small* number of aficionados will assume that it's anything but Vicipaedia's typo. *Relative to the 6.5 billions of us. IacobusAmor 16:54, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, small in that sense I suppose, but I think it's a little insulting to put sic. with someone's name. Perhaps a better solution would be to write the article on her and include an explanation therein. --Iustinus 06:38, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Se retulit: you listed this one in the edit summary but didn't make the change. See L&S s.v. rĕ-fĕro section I.A.b. Surely "it concerned him" would be sua retulit anyway? Or maybe you weren't refering to the se at all, but to the spelling retulit with a single medial t? OK, you may have me there, as L&S seems to indicate that the spelling with a double-t is much more common when the meaning is "bring back" rather than "be relevant" (i.e. rĕfert > rĕttulit, but rēfert > rētulit, presumably, as the book says, for metrical reasons).

I'd consulted Cassell's, which distinguishes starkly between rĕttulit 'he carried back, brought back, restored, answered' and rētulit 'it concerned, it mattered'. IacobusAmor 16:54, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L&S seems to say it's not as simple as that, but then L&S says that about everything. I shall endeavor to be more careful from now on. But I do repeat that se rētulit would have been (so far as I can analyze) nonsensical. --Iustinus 06:38, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you changed so many double-quotation-marks gto single-quotation-marks. Has there been some sort of referendum on which convention we should use?

--Iustinus 16:17, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See today's discussion with Andrew elsewhere. IacobusAmor 16:54, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, to be precise. My impression is that Wiki/vicipaedia has not up to now followed the convention that you describe, Iacobe, so you may have quite a lot of changes to make ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:25, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, oy vey. I've argued with you about this kind of thing before, Iacobe: the standards of one language don't necessarily apply to another, let alone the standards of a specific country (or a specific discipline, for that matter: I was totally unaware of this single-quote-glossing convention. I need to ask you some questions about that on the other page, if I remember tomorrow). Now of course I overwhelmingly just go with the standards of my own language, and my own country here, so I don't have a right to criticize. But it does seem to me that it is one thing to write that way, and another thing to make corrections this way. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you shouldn't make a policy of edits of that sort unless we have a good consensus usorum. --Iustinus 06:38, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]