Disputatio:Gomburza

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I didn't quite understand the meaning of all the sentences. They haven't been deleted, I just put <!-- and --> around them. Maybe someone can help explain. Jondel? --Iovis Fulmen 11:38, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]

quem, semetipsum patietur iuditum falsum ut conducere su sclopetatus.
whom himself, was to suffer the false justice to be led to his execution by rifle.

The complete sentence is :Their death infuriated and left a profund effect on many filipinos, in particular, Jose Rizal, whom, himself(semetipsum ), was to about to suffer the false justice(juditum=>iuditum) that led to his execution by rifle. (future tense for this event but it is past already with respect to today.)

How is this?

Mors eorum vehementer movit multos Philippinos, praesertim Iosephum Recidivum, postea heroa publicum, qui ipse patietur iudititia falsa ut conducere carnuficina sclopeto.
Aliquae contra eos mendacis testificatus sunt cessit trinis sacerdotibus in damnatos moriri.
Some falsely (lying) testified resulting in (or causing the) the condemnation of the three priest to death.

To Iovis, thank you for your assistance.--Jondel 11:38, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]

Thanks to Iacobus Amor also --Jondel 13:41, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]

Genitum = 'national'?[fontem recensere]

De: "Pls allow the word genitum to mean national (heroe) as defined in Whitaker's word." That's a surprise! Could you quote here the whole entry in Whitaker's words? Ordinarily, genitum means 'born', as in the Nicene Creed ("Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum"). ¶ Are you thinking of genticum? It comes from gens, referring to 'clan, tribe'—and hence to 'nation' in the sense of 'a people descended from common ancestors'. Genitum and genticum are different words. Their basic idea, and that of other gen- words (which we ignore at our linguistic peril), is 'a being born'—a concept that gets stretched a great deal in application to modern nations made up of peoples who don't claim to descend from common ancestors (i.e., many of today's large nation-states, especially the immigrant-welcoming ones). IacobusAmor 13:59, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]

Yes genticum. Genitum is a mistake. Rizal created the idea of one nation in the modern sense with some concept of a race being different with reference to the colonizing power, including strengthening the concept of patriotism which was a bit novel then. Is genticum ok? Ancestors tended to be common and come from Malaysia and Indonesia. There were hardly any large numbers of immigrants, whose ancestors (the native's) where there for , say, 700 years.--Jondel 14:20, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]

hero genticus[fontem recensere]

Is this ok?--Jondel 14:21, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]

The nominative Hero in Latin is only a proper name. (It doesn't mean 'hero'.) Heros genticus is grammatical, but the syntax with which you're working requires the accusative: heroa genticum. Note that you're translating an English (or Spanish, or whatever) adj. + n. as a Latin adj. + n. That kind of simpleminded conversion doesn't always work: it could be OK, but maybe not, and more idiomatic Latin might put the reference in the dative, something like populo heroa 'a hero for the people, a hero in public opinion'. Or maybe there's yet some other way of saying it. Wait a while, and an expert more qualified than I may advise. IacobusAmor 14:32, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[]