Disputatio:Gulielmus Wordsworth
|
Gulielmus Wordsworth fuit pagina mensis Martii 2009. |
when my life began ~ cum in vita fui[fontem recensere]
Is there any way for the poet to say this using fui yet not to imply that he's dead, that he "has lived" (in the perfect sense, that he "has finished living")? Is in vitam fui possible? What works? (Cum mea vita coepit may be literally OK, but the idea [for aesthetic reasons] is to use a form of esse if possible.) IacobusAmor 16:13, 17 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Jacob, sorry it has taken me so long to have a look at this. I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here. Is it only the fragment "when my life began" what you want to translate? If so, I'm not sure see why grammatically or aesthetically we would want a form of to be. I'm also wondering about that "maior" in the first line... --Ioscius (disp) 03:35, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- That maior is a thoughtlessly direct gloss of the word in en: major. (As a poet, he seems to rank somewhere between merely magnus and truly maximus.) The only Latin that Cassell's gives for English major is maior. Maybe there's a more idiomatic word somewhere. ¶ As for the poem, I'm not trying for a literal gloss, which would there presumably be cum vita coepit, but consider in vita fui a stopgap, to be filled with something better when it arrives. Maybe what's needed is a word that will be parallel (in some aesthetic sense) with senescam, the phrase being something like cum primum spiravi (but that's aesthetically inadequate); cum primum erubui, from erubesco (see? parallel!), might be poetically "interesting," what with newborns' blushing to breathe, but it may not make the sense of "coming to life, begining to live" clear enough. Maybe a better stopgap would be cum primum fui. Don't worry: something will turn up! IacobusAmor 04:58, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- For "major", the ancient latin was "centurio primipilus" or simply "Primipilus". Referring to the modern military rank/position, "major" is rendered as "centurio maior". I suppose simply saying "maior" would be ok too.--Rafaelgarcia 17:30, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- That's major the noun. We're working with major the adjective here! He was never in the military, so far as I can tell. Maybe gravior gets at en:'s idea better. ¶ On a related but more general point: I've long thought that we should downplay these judgmental adjectives. (The claim-to-fame school of wiki editing of course likes them because they're, well, the very claim to fame!) Our articles may occasionally tell us that some personage that hardly anybody has ever heard of was a praeclarissimus resident of some even more obscure hamlet. Even with figures as important as Wordsworth, such adjectives convey a POV, often indeed in accord with historians' or critics' informed judgments, but still a POV. IacobusAmor 17:54, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- On the general point, yes, I feel sure you're right. We shouldn't normally assert that people are praeclari (etc.) -- there's no need to do so because the fact that they have an article on Vicipaedia ought to demonstrate it. Our job in the text is to say why they are praeclari.
- Nice article, by the way! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:16, 20 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- That's major the noun. We're working with major the adjective here! He was never in the military, so far as I can tell. Maybe gravior gets at en:'s idea better. ¶ On a related but more general point: I've long thought that we should downplay these judgmental adjectives. (The claim-to-fame school of wiki editing of course likes them because they're, well, the very claim to fame!) Our articles may occasionally tell us that some personage that hardly anybody has ever heard of was a praeclarissimus resident of some even more obscure hamlet. Even with figures as important as Wordsworth, such adjectives convey a POV, often indeed in accord with historians' or critics' informed judgments, but still a POV. IacobusAmor 17:54, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- For "major", the ancient latin was "centurio primipilus" or simply "Primipilus". Referring to the modern military rank/position, "major" is rendered as "centurio maior". I suppose simply saying "maior" would be ok too.--Rafaelgarcia 17:30, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- That maior is a thoughtlessly direct gloss of the word in en: major. (As a poet, he seems to rank somewhere between merely magnus and truly maximus.) The only Latin that Cassell's gives for English major is maior. Maybe there's a more idiomatic word somewhere. ¶ As for the poem, I'm not trying for a literal gloss, which would there presumably be cum vita coepit, but consider in vita fui a stopgap, to be filled with something better when it arrives. Maybe what's needed is a word that will be parallel (in some aesthetic sense) with senescam, the phrase being something like cum primum spiravi (but that's aesthetically inadequate); cum primum erubui, from erubesco (see? parallel!), might be poetically "interesting," what with newborns' blushing to breathe, but it may not make the sense of "coming to life, begining to live" clear enough. Maybe a better stopgap would be cum primum fui. Don't worry: something will turn up! IacobusAmor 04:58, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Iacobe, "so was it when..." is a typical case for cum inversum (à la Iam ver appetebat, cum Caesar castra movit): Sic erat, cum ... or Sic se habebat, cum .... Re "when my life began": the verb you're obviously looking for is vivesco but, unfortunately, its perfect is vixi, which makes it ambiguous with vivo. And cum vivescere coepi is a bit redundant, though cum vivere coepi would be ok. Or you could say: Sic erat, cum vitam inii (or -- perhaps with better rhythm -- cum vitam inivi). /// By the way, I don't think rainbows are seen in the aether. Of course, poets need their licence, but considering that aether tends to be compared with fire, the slightly oxymoronic expression may be stronger than Wordsworth has intended. Why not in caelo? --Neander 22:28, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- For the alliteration. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll digest them as time permits! IacobusAmor 03:28, 20 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- But why? There's no allitteration in the original locus. --Neander 13:50, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- Things like that presumably stem from a (perhaps misbegotten) desire to improve the sound of the text. ¶ Similarly, but with regard to the sense, I was keeping the heart in focus: "My heart leaps up, and it (my heart) did so, and it (my heart) does so, and may it (my heart) do so." Wordsworth, instead, prefers to shift the focus: "My heart leaps up, and it (the situation) was so, and it (the situation) is so, and may it (the situation) be so." (Or for "the situation," read "my tendency," or "my nature," or some such undefined mush.) The heart—a palpable organ, a beating, thumping, leaping piece of the poet's flesh!—thus vanishes into the incorporeality of an abstraction, and a vague one at that. ¶ Nevertheless, when presenting a translation next to an original text, especially a text built on plain words & short phrases, we should probably err on the side of literality, so feel free to accommodate Wordsworth's nebulousness by deploying forms of esse if you like! However, be sure not to use id for 'it', because that would automatically bring cor (a neuter noun) to mind, and Wordsworth manifestly wants this 'it' to be something other than that! ¶ Thanks for the corrections. I look forward to learning about other infelicities in the text. IacobusAmor 16:29, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- I won't take any stand on your first point. ¶ Yes, I saw that your focus is on heart whereas Wordsworth's, on situation or his behavioural disposition. It was mainly for the sake of piety, that I suggested sic erat, cum vitam ini(v)i / intravi. I don't fail to see the expressive power of the focus taken by you. Indeed, sic erat ... sic est ... sic sit ('this was <the case>', etc) is admittedly rather feeble. That's why I'm reluctant to interfere with your dynamic interpretation. But the fact is, as you said, that the translation stands next to the source text, which speaks for "err[ing] on the side of literality". ¶ Unless there's a clear case of grammatical Fehler, I'm not too eager to rush in. (But cum primo fui needs fixing, no matter how the poem is construed as a whole.) ¶ BTW, Or let me die! might be Ita moriar! [cf. the oath formula ita vivam!]). --Neander 22:20, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- Things like that presumably stem from a (perhaps misbegotten) desire to improve the sound of the text. ¶ Similarly, but with regard to the sense, I was keeping the heart in focus: "My heart leaps up, and it (my heart) did so, and it (my heart) does so, and may it (my heart) do so." Wordsworth, instead, prefers to shift the focus: "My heart leaps up, and it (the situation) was so, and it (the situation) is so, and may it (the situation) be so." (Or for "the situation," read "my tendency," or "my nature," or some such undefined mush.) The heart—a palpable organ, a beating, thumping, leaping piece of the poet's flesh!—thus vanishes into the incorporeality of an abstraction, and a vague one at that. ¶ Nevertheless, when presenting a translation next to an original text, especially a text built on plain words & short phrases, we should probably err on the side of literality, so feel free to accommodate Wordsworth's nebulousness by deploying forms of esse if you like! However, be sure not to use id for 'it', because that would automatically bring cor (a neuter noun) to mind, and Wordsworth manifestly wants this 'it' to be something other than that! ¶ Thanks for the corrections. I look forward to learning about other infelicities in the text. IacobusAmor 16:29, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- But why? There's no allitteration in the original locus. --Neander 13:50, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Honorary doctorates[fontem recensere]
The category "People associated with the University of Durham" was proposed (from en:wiki), on the grounds that Durham gave him an honorary doctorate. There's no other sign in our article or in the English one that he was associated with Durham, and by itself that seems a pretty tenuous association to me: lots of eminent people get honorary doctorates from lots of universities, for a variety of reasons (I'm sure Wordsworth deserved it more than most).
Therefore, tentatively, I suggest a category "Qui doctoratum honoris causa meruerunt" and I've included him in it. Do others think that this attribute is actually worth categorising? Remember how many politicians, good, bad and worse, will be included in it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- I do not have a particular preference about this. I would just like to point out that de:Kategorie:Ehrendoktor has been deleted from de.wikipedia following a deletion debate in 2006, and consensus on en.wikipedia is to not have such categories as well, see en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 14#Category:Honorary doctors. --UV 20:08, 28 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. No one else has commented. I agree with the people at de: and en: that honorary doctorates are not in themselves notable, so I'll delete the category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I don't particularly care what you do with this category! ¶ But let me use this occasion to requestion the usefulness of the (abstractly undefinable) concept of "notability." It's helpful for designing a printed product, limited by the physical reality of paper, but it may not be helpful as the touchstone for inclusion in an electronic encyclopedia. Many—or eventually perhaps most—people reach a wikipedia as the result of a search. The pertinent practical question, therefore, is whether, when somebody searches for (in whatever language) "list honorary degrees Oxford" or "list honorary degrees music" or "list alumni Harvard" or any of numerous similar configurations of these concepts, a wikipedia is going to provide it for them. Why should a reference work want to drive such potential readers away? IacobusAmor 14:33, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- The alumni issue is separate. We are rapidly building categories for them, so that's a question we will be able to answer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:32, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I don't particularly care what you do with this category! ¶ But let me use this occasion to requestion the usefulness of the (abstractly undefinable) concept of "notability." It's helpful for designing a printed product, limited by the physical reality of paper, but it may not be helpful as the touchstone for inclusion in an electronic encyclopedia. Many—or eventually perhaps most—people reach a wikipedia as the result of a search. The pertinent practical question, therefore, is whether, when somebody searches for (in whatever language) "list honorary degrees Oxford" or "list honorary degrees music" or "list alumni Harvard" or any of numerous similar configurations of these concepts, a wikipedia is going to provide it for them. Why should a reference work want to drive such potential readers away? IacobusAmor 14:33, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. No one else has commented. I agree with the people at de: and en: that honorary doctorates are not in themselves notable, so I'll delete the category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)