E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Licet genocidium ineptissime factum sit, equidem nihilo minus hoc utar verbo, si quando usus veniat mihi de gentis occidione scribere. "Generis" displicet, nam nimis generale videtur. --Neander 22:10, 25 Iulii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ita vero, probabiliter constat inter omnes verbum genocidium facillime intellegi posse. Petebam autem verbum quod Cicero non oderit. Primum gentis internecio scripsi, sed commentario Anglico lecto (vide en:Genocide), animo concepi nobis opus esse terminum generalius, quod verba Anglica ethnic, racial, religious, national comprehendat. Infeliciter, praefixum Graecum geno- in genocidium notiones hodiernas "religious" et "national" manifesto non complectitur. Praeterea, Cassell's, s.v. (Anglice) race, ait: "family, stock, people, genus (-eris, n.); gens (usually smaller)." Sic videtur genus sensu esse maius generaliusque, et fortasse ergo hic optabilius. IacobusAmor 02:00, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nos hic notionem describimus a Raphael Lemkin anno 1943 "inventam", ab eo aliisque postea definitam, nunc legibus internationalibus statutam. Si verbis antiquis paraphrasin facimus, notionem et definitionem perdimus. Igitur, fortasse, neologismum "genocidium" accipere licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sero respondeo:) Consentio; dicatur melius genoctonia nisi *genticidium. —Mucius Tever 13:42, 27 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Etiam serius respondeo: et ego consentio genocidii nomen nobis adhibendum esse, etsi, ut Neander scribit, ineptissime factum est. Quis tandem paginam movebit? --Fabullus 12:29, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moneo quidem aliarum wikipediarum plerasque hunc neologismum in sua idiomata vertisse, ut ang:Folcmorðor, ar:إبادة جماعية, az:Soyqırım, br:Gouennlazh, cy:Hil-laddiad,da:Folkedrab, de:Völkermord, el:Γενοκτονία, fa:نسل‌کشی, ga:Cinedhíothú, he:רצח עם, hu:Népirtás, ms:Pembasmian kaum, no:Folkemord, nn:Folkemord, pl:Ludobójstwo, fi:Kansanmurha, sv:Folkmord, sw:Mauaji ya kimbari, tl:Pagpatay ng lahi, tr:Soykırım, yi:פעלקער מארד, zh:种族灭绝 (de ko:학살,hy:Ցեղասպանություն, ka:გენოციდი, ja:ジェノサイド, ta:இனக்கொலை, th:พันธุฆาต iudicare nequisse libenter profiteor). Haecne exempla et in nostra vicipaedia conscribenda sequamur?--Ceylon 10:58, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haec omnia non versiones tantum sed etiam termini technici iuris internationalis se praebent. Nos tamen vertere quidem possumus, sed novos terminos technicos fingere nequimus ("Noli fingere!"): quos nobis usus tantum praecipere potest. Quare fontes nobis adhibendi sunt. --Fabullus 12:08, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

genocidium ?[fontem recensere]

I find it a lot on Google as a latinization of English genocide based on the model of parricidium > geno-cidium --Diligent 09:20, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, but it should be spelled genicidium on that model, as the stem of genus is gene- and e weakens to i in open syllables. Pantocrator 12:35, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am no linguistic, but I'd suppose, the thing is more complicated. Of course, there is a lot of (Greek and Latin) words from a stem *g(e)n, one of them being genus with the Gen. generis < *genesis (because of Rhotazismus); so the exact stem should be *genes- resp. *gener---Utilo 17:03, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the discussion above — it's geno- because it's a Greek element, not a Latin one, and by the rules of compounding Greek elements, it would be 'genocidium'. (But it'd be a macaronic compound, so ceteris paribus we might prefer a form with a better etymology.) As Utilo says, the stem of genus you would use here is gener-, thus 'genericidium' would be the form to look for, though I doubt it would be any more common. —Mucius Tever 23:28, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does not homicidium (not hominicidium) give a precedent for throwing out the end of the stem? Pantocrator 12:01, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily. Exon's law would predict an early syncope in the sequence of short vowels involved in 'hominicīd-', and the resulting homnicīd- (or possibly homuncīd-) might easily be remodelled; cf. 'lapicidinae'/'lapidicinae' for what should probably be *labdicīdinae from *lapidicīdinae, and 'homullus' where the -nl- assimilation gives precedent for derivatives of 'homo' not having a visible 'n'. If that is the case, Exon's law no longer being in effect would limit the applicability of this precedent. Whether it is the case or not, the standard compounding rules would give 'generi-', as in the attested corporicida from 'corpus'; while exceptional cases will always exist, their use to us is to allow us to explain other unusual forms we find, not give us license to needlessly multiply them. Mucius Tever 23:16, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but then we should replace also hybrid forms like "Autocurrus armatus", "Autovia" or "Sociologia" by other words!--Utilo 09:37, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't reject them all. Sociologia is a technical term that can hardly be changed and auto- has become (in many languages) a free prefix relating to automobiles. The first is pretty ugly though. Pantocrator 12:01, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis" has currus loricatus and currus cataphractus instead of autocurrus armatus (is auto- necessary in this context?); the proposals for autovia (latior via vehicularis) and sociologia (humanae conformandae communitatis ratio / Bacci), however, seem to be rather clumsy!--Utilo 12:22, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that there is of course no way we can use the LRL's circumlocutions. No, I don't think we need the auto- in the name for tank. Isn't it interesting that none of those free prefixes existed in classical times; yet they've now popped up all over Europe, many Latin-based? Pantocrator 00:13, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currus armatus = armed chariot (pulled by horses); autocurrus armatus = selfpropelled armed chariot; follows the pattern of raeda =buggy/carriage with four wheels and autoraeda=automobile/self propelled carriage.Re:"No, I don't think we need the auto- in the name for tank." You never give a reason for an opinion; just state it like you're some kind of authority on latin, which obviously you aren't.-- 00:53, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they exist and they're established, we can't just throw them out. Even Roman Latin had paraveredus. But if we have a more etymologically sound word that has equal footing with an etymologically unsound one, then we might prefer the more correct term. —Mucius Tever 06:47, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summarizing our options[fontem recensere]

We seem to have two basic options for translating this term:

  • A back-formation of the technical term de:Genozid/en:genocide. The following variants have been suggested or mentioned:
    • genocidium: of dubious latinity, but much used, for instance in the Latin periodical Ephemeris ([1]): favoured by Neander, Andrew Dalby, Diligent and myself.
    • genicidium: not attested; violation of "Noli fingere".
    • genericidium: not attested; violation of "Noli fingere", and causing ambiguity with (already ambiguous) en:genericide.
  • A translation of the kind we see in many modern languages (as pointed out by Ceylon). This would require an expression of two words, one being a genetive singular of a word conveying the meaning of 'people'/'nation', and the other conveying the meaning of 'murder'/'massacre'/'slaughter'. For the first word we might consider:
    • generis: too general, as Neander rightly points out
    • gentis:
    • populi: cf. Ephemeris "genocidium, id est populi occisionem"
  • For the second we might consider:
    • occidio:
    • occisio: cf. Ephemeris "genocidium, id est populi occisionem"
    • internecio: cf. Ephemeris "totalis internecio seu genocidium"

What say you? --Fabullus 11:44, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the present term is really OK - it translates the two parts pretty exactly. Pantocrator 22:07, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gentis & populi are so specific that they miss part of the definition, and the reason generis is so general is that it has to include concepts "populi, gentis, religionis, vel civitatis." The sense of genus is perhaps the sense of 'kind' in English in a famous song in West Side Story, where a character is advised to "stick to your own kind." Again, the sense of populi occisio ("id est populi occisionem," and why accusative?) restricts genocide to politics (Cassell's, 'populus' = "a people, as forming a political community, a nation"), omitting, for example, religious motives. Maybe genocidium, as an obvious back-formation, is best after all. IacobusAmor 12:56, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Latin sources for a term denoting 'genocide' do not exist (which seems to be the general assumption here) we cannot but translate the meaning of the word into Latin. Now, using a back-formation like 'genocidium' could be argued to be in violation of the 'Noli fingere' rule more convincingly than translating 'genocide', for instance, as 'exstinctio nationis' or 'gentis'.--Ceylon 19:59, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deutera phrontis: Of course, there are Neo-Latin sources for 'genocidium'. One wonders sometimes, however, whether some Latin can be too neo to qualify as an authority for us. Is there not a difference between renaissance scientific writing, when Latin was employed as a serious means of communication, and our colleagues at 'Ephemeris' who are faced with exactly the same predicament as we are. Why should their choice, however rash, prevail and ours go to the dogs? Only because we are a lexicon and they are a periodical? Do not we have some relevance, too?--Ceylon 20:33, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think so also. But the purists here want to act as if no secular Latin betwen 200 and 1950 exists. We should remember, in addition to what I've already said on the topic, that most of the published words in Latin that we have are from the Renaissance and later! Pantocrator 22:07, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't help that the Latin of that age is not part of the common culture. When people study Latin, they get Cicero and the other classical Roman authors, and they get the neo-Latin works—Regulus, Winnie Ille Pu, Harrius Potter. The medieval items, the Renaissance items, the early modern items, are important, but apparently there was a break with them (or perhaps a reconnection consciously not made) that took place between Latin's fading from common use and the rise of Neolatinity as we know it, and people have to dig to even find many of the moderately old texts—so many are out of print or hiding behind snippet view in Google—and what there is, it's not easy to make an estimation of the relevance of: maybe it was written in 1700, but was it something people read and learned from and respected, or was it something small and discredited that just happened to end up on a library shelf that got scanned? There is still a lot to relearn. —Mucius Tever 00:50, 11 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Why should their choice, however rash, prevail and ours go to the dogs? Only because we are a lexicon and they are a periodical? Do not we have some relevance, too?" In brief, because they got there first, or at least so far as we know, as no-one has cited anyone else; in full — A newspaper, or some other author writing about things that have not been written about before in a language, has the option to make a choice between various ways to render words into that language, and will do so in various ways depending on their level of linguistic conservatism, treatment of similar terms or, if they are not native speakers, their competence with the language. If there are several authors writing on the topic, there may be variation at first, but usually a consensus will emerge, following the most common usage—because writers want, under normal circumstances, to be understood. Departing from existing usage and making up new terms is not a matter of asserting one's relevance as it is a matter of choosing not to write in the vocabulary one's audience is using. We can easily say that the term in common use is poorly formed, poorly chosen, from a new or unreliable source, or whatever, but to ignore the most common usage in an encyclopedia would be ludicrous; imagine an English encyclopedia that put its article on Tiananmen Square under 'Gate of Heavenly Peace Square', or its article on Red Square under 'Krasnaya Square'—or, more to the point, its article on 'genocide' under 'folkmurder', following related languages like German Völkermord and Swedish folkmord—and imagine such an encyclopedia making similar comments about their relevance! —Mucius Tever 00:37, 11 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]