Disputatio:Et tu Brute
Question mark?[fontem recensere]
De rogatione "nonne punctum interrogationis est pars necessaria locutionis?" For the record: some critics hold that the sentence is a statement (about Brutus's future), rather than a question. Punctuating it with a question mark forecloses that interpretation. Also, readers ignorant of Greek are going to think that the Greek question mark is a semicolon. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- The point about the ambiguity is important, I think. When the source texts were written no such punctuation was in use, so inserting it is bound to reflect a later interpretation.
- I made and added an image of the Shakespeare line from the first folio, which does have a question mark. Since I was editing the page, I also removed the Greek question mark, but if others conclude it should go back in, that's fine by me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- That makes two of us who have removed it. (Anyone want to make it three?) Surely Shakespeare's is the prevailing interpretation in Western culture, but it's not the only one possible. Anyway, we don't put periods (full stops) after lemmata that are statements, so why should we deploy question marks and exclamation points, especially when they're editorial additions to the original texts? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Editores, quorum opiniones magni facere soleo, puncto interrogationis uti videntur. (Quo dicto confiteor me ipsum semper credidisse, Caesarem haec verba potius exclamasse quam interrogasse.) Itaque mea sententia anceps est. Per me sine ullo puncto sit. Neander (disputatio) 13:58, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps the present solution is best then, with no punctuation in the lemma but question marks in the quotes (as in the modern editions)? If someone wants to write something about the different interpretations, that would be useful as well. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:58, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- You're quite right, the quoted texts have it, and that's because they are copied from editions which have it. Yes, it will be better still when we say something about the question/exclamation issue in our text, but I don't have time even to look for sources right now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:19, 11 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps the present solution is best then, with no punctuation in the lemma but question marks in the quotes (as in the modern editions)? If someone wants to write something about the different interpretations, that would be useful as well. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:58, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Editores, quorum opiniones magni facere soleo, puncto interrogationis uti videntur. (Quo dicto confiteor me ipsum semper credidisse, Caesarem haec verba potius exclamasse quam interrogasse.) Itaque mea sententia anceps est. Per me sine ullo puncto sit. Neander (disputatio) 13:58, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- That makes two of us who have removed it. (Anyone want to make it three?) Surely Shakespeare's is the prevailing interpretation in Western culture, but it's not the only one possible. Anyway, we don't put periods (full stops) after lemmata that are statements, so why should we deploy question marks and exclamation points, especially when they're editorial additions to the original texts? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)