Disputatio:Exploratio astrorum

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it really Mundi the best way to say "space", would sideralis work better?--Xaverius 10:01, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm open to the possibility of a better lemma, but on the question of mundus (universe, kosmos) vs. an adjective like sidereus (pertaining to stars), I prefer the former. Montivagus 10:42, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now see that the Pons Wörterbuch gives Raumfahrt as sideralis navigatio, Raumschiff as navis sideralis, etc., and that sideralis is attested in ancient writers. But since this article doesn't concern science fiction, until someone makes it reasonably close to a star outside our solar system, I think a sidus-based word is undesirable. Montivagus 17:54, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mundus is potentially ambiguous: some, e.g. those who named the journal of cartography "Imago Mundi", take it to mean "the world down here". I'm not sure whether I can think of anything better, however. Caelorum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hadn't thought about the ambiguity of mundus. It's true that caelorum clears that up, though it sounds vaguely ecclesiastical (especially the plural), which is one reason I had avoided it in the lemma. Is there any reason to prefer caelorum over caeli? Montivagus 17:54, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definetely see the religious tone in caelorum. Exploratio caeli seems apropriate for me!--Xaverius 19:36, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Caelorum is also ambiguous since it also means "the sky" as in "status caeli" = "the weather". Sidus primarily means constellation. Mea sententia the right word is astrorum, for "astrum" means all heavenly bodies: planets, moons, stars, constellations all included.--Rafaelgarcia 07:01, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also recall the quote: Per aspera ad astra describing the race to space exploration.--Rafaelgarcia 07:08, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any word we choose seems to offer similar problems: the Romans didn't make the distinctions necessary to modern astronauts. Mundus and caelus both include large areas that space exploration doesn't deal with. You're quite right, the ambiguity of astrum is productive for us here: it seems to cover everything on the dome of heaven, nothing inside it and nothing beyond it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:08, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a reason why this hasn't been changed with (or at least had included) the word astralis/astrorum? Because the discussion here seemed to point to this being the most reasonable thing to do. If someone looks at the link Exploratio mundi without any context, the first thing anyone would think is in caravels, Native-Americans being sighted for the first time or Portuguese people in the Indies. I know that the word Mundus can be universe lato sensu but stricto sensu it seems to clearly mean the world where humans live. So although you could use it in a phrase talking about the universe (similarly to how one can say someone saved the entire world and actually mean the universe), you can't really unambiguously use it in a title. So why not instead use Exploratio astrorum and have Exploratio mundi as an alternative? VABritto (disputatio) 18:21, 9 Maii 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed it to Exploratio astrorum but giving Exploratio mundi as an optional form. In my justification I said that the lexicographers were in consensus on this. This was an error on my part because I'm used to Wiktionary so it seems that in the middle of the edit I kinda confused to whom I was talking to lol What I meant is that a consensus seems to have been arrived here in the discussion by the Wikipedians. If I my actions weren't warranted, please undo them and forgive me for it. VABritto (disputatio) 23:03, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]