Disputatio:Hispania Visigothica

Hispania Visigothica fuit pagina mensis Septembris 2007.

Vide etiam Disputatio Usoris:Xaverius/Hispania Visigothica

Well, concerning the architecture I think I have made up most of the words, such as criciforme and fornix in omega for Horse-shoe arch. Has anyone got a better transltion/adaptation? Vitruvius did not write about this things...--Xaverius 08:24, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another matter. Is this sentence properly made?:

In the 7th century the bishops in/during the Councils of Toledo advised the king (dat) laws (acc) against the jews (up to there, fine, but...) and [they] blamed/were blaming the jews (dat/acc?) of the bad situation (gen/abl?) of the kingdom.

Saeculo VII episcopi in conciliis Toletanis regi leges adveros iudaeos suadebant et iudaeos/eos malorum regni culpabant.

Heeeelp!--Xaverius 17:23, 1 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just having a try here -- I bet someone else will come along and correct me.

Episcopi in conciliis Toletanis saeculi VII congregati Iudaeos ob mala regni culpabant regique suadebant ut leges adversus istos statueret.

The imperfect tenses imply that this happened repeatedly at more than one Council, but the singular regi that only one king was involved: is that right? I didn't feel sure about using the plain ablative for something that happened at certain unspecified dates during a century; that's why I have turned it to the genitive. It also seemed to me that the blaming of the Jews might logically precede the urging of legislation against them: is it OK to put it that way round? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 2 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Certainly this happened in most of the councils from the IV onwards. I had used the singular "regi" because it was generally to the king, but they were indeed several of them, so probably we should have "regibus" instead. And about the other way round makes more sense. Thanks again!--Xaverius 12:15, 2 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

titulus + lemma[fontem recensere]

Salve, Xaveri. Rogationem recepi et quippe auxilium feram. At primum solvenda est res tituli lemmatisque. Congruant. Si haec est de Hispania Visigothica, prima sit sententia "Hispania Visigothica fuit..." Si est de regno, sit "Regnum Hispaniae Visigothicae fuit..." et pagina movenda ut eodem modo titulus legatur.--Ioshus ^(disp) 19:12, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visigothi in Hispania intraverunt[fontem recensere]

Recte in Hispaniam? or just plain Hispaniam? IacobusAmor 19:40, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had in most cases in Hispania, but then I realised that it implied movement, so I added the m. Now I do not really know...--Xaverius 21:37, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hispaniam" essendum "in Hispaniam" est.

I changed it to "in Hispaniam" in the two places on the page. --Rafaelgarcia 15:13, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

foedus[fontem recensere]

Re: "Attila superato, Valentinianus III foedus Visigothorum icerunt"

1. Valentinianus est verbum singulare, sed -erunt est plurale.

2. foedus Visigothorum: melior: societatem foedere confirmavit 'he confirmed an alliance with a treaty' (Cicero: Phil. 2, 35, 89). Etiam Valentinianus et Visigothi foedus fecerunt ~ inierunt etc. IacobusAmor 21:45, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from my mistake in the agreement subject-verb, I guess that Valentinian confirmed the aliance with the treaty is closer to what I meant. Basically, Valentinian asked the goths to invade Spain because of the treaty of 418, in which the Goths had to offer auxilium militare to Rome. That's why I had originally used "the emperors summoned the treaty of the Visigoths (so they may invade Spain)"--Xaverius 21:51, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Pero "the emperors summoned the treaty of the Visigoths" no indica nada en inglés, porque 'to summon a treaty' no es posible: se puede hacer acopio de hombres, de ejércitos, aún de animales, pero si llamas a un tratado, ¡no vendrá! ¿Qué quieres decir aquí? IacobusAmor 03:00, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"invocar un tratado" es demandar ayuda acogiéndose a dicho tratado. Es decir, los romanos les exigen a los godos que como parte del tratado, invadan España--Xaverius 09:12, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, claro, entonces ellos invocaron el tratado quiere decir en inglés 'they invoked the treaty'; no se dice 'they summoned the treaty'. La idea ordinaria de 'they summoned the treaty' sería que ellos lo llamaron al tratado para que el tratado se venga a ellos (y no es posible). IacobusAmor 11:55, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¿Entonces como sería la expresión Latina?--Xaverius 12:04, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sé. Quizás como en senso I.B. in L&S: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2324809. IacobusAmor 14:10, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regna Livigildi Recaredique[fontem recensere]

"Regnum Visigothorum anno mortis Liuvigildi,"

Liuvigildi ~ Livigildi? (vide titulum)

Liuvigildus et filius eius

et filius suus

Which is exactly the difference between eius and suus?--Xaverius 18:45, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suus refers to the subject of a clause or a sentence; eius refers to somebody else. In L et filius suus, you're referring to L and his own son; in L et filius eius, you're referring to L and somebody else's son. This distinction may have gotten obscured in Vulgar and Medieval Latin; you'd have to ask an expert on that. IacobusAmor 19:18, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recaredus Hispaniam regebant 560-601.

annos 560-601 regebant? (accusative for duration?)

Liuvigildus rebelles superavit in Corduba, Sabaria et Orospedia.

Did he overcome them in C, S, and O? or were they rebels in C, S, and O (and he happened to overcome them, perhaps even elsewhere)? Possibly the same thing, but there may be stylistic considerations. As it stands, I'd gloss it 'L. overcame rebels in C, S, and O'.

Would it be more suitable then Rebelles Cordubae, Sabariae et Orospediae a Liuvigildo superati sunt?--Xaverius 18:45, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax in regno restituta,

Pace (ablative absolute)

Liuvigildus contra Byzantinos pugnavit. Tunc, contraS uevos.

contra Suevos

Seneci regi Suevorum ullos filios non erant,

Seni (< senex, -is?)

~ Seneco (<Senecus, -i?)

ulli filii (casus nominativus) ---> melius: remove "ulli"?

et fratres eius

sui

Etc. . . .

se rege Suebroum coronavit.

se usually goes just before its verb, almost as if it were attached to the verb; it seldom wanders off like this.

rege ---> rex? IacobusAmor 17:03, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say regem, Iacobe. I have brought up many of these points too at Disputatio Usoris:Xaverius/Hispania Visigothica#Regnum Livigildi.--Ioshus ^(disp) 17:14, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possibly regem. I supposed it depends on whether it's an appositive of 'he' (the subject) or se (the object). A quick search of a similar construction, se fecit, shows that the accusative is commoner : Caesar ingressus consulem ipse se fecit (Livy); quia Filium Dei se fecit (John 19:7); Filius se fecit illum hominem (Anselmus Cantuariensis); Dominus pro nobis se fecit pauperem (Sanctus Clarus Assisiensis) : but then there's a nineteenth-century satire (mostly in Germanlike English) that says Deus se fecit olim homo, et nahm dis irds'che Leben. IacobusAmor 19:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-verb agreement[fontem recensere]

"Valentinianus III foedus Visigothorum icerunt." Ahem. IacobusAmor 00:41, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

circiter governs the accusative[fontem recensere]

"Terras suis dedit circiter Toleto, Emerita Augusta et vallis Durii." [1] As it stands, it means 'He gave the lands around T, EA, and VD to his friends'. Is that what you mean? Just checking. (All by itself, sui can mean 'his/her/its friends/associates/people'.) [2] This Toleto, Emerita Augusta, and vallis Durii are in the wrong case. IacobusAmor 00:48, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, He gave lands to his men/soldiers so they could settle there. Regarding the case, I'll ghange that--Xaverius 08:08, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eius[fontem recensere]

"Liuvigildus et filius eius Recaredus Hispaniam regebant annos 560-601."—et Recaredus filius might suffice; if necessary: et Recaredus filius suus. I see that you've indicated above that you've fixed this, but you haven't. (Actually, IIRC, by the Middle Ages or earlier, this distinction had become confused, and eius might have been considered OK.) + The lack of a comma in that phrase means L had other sons (but they don't deserve mentioning here). Is that right? IacobusAmor 00:54, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L had another son, Hermenegild who rebelled against L in 580. H has a paragraph a bit later. Concerning my {{ok}}, I had changed the verb from rexerunt to rexebant. I'll have Recaredus filius then--Xaverius 08:11, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina mensis[fontem recensere]

(I'm back from my excavations) Gratias omnibus ago ob contributiones in hac pagina! I want this page to be ready for September. I think it is ready both in grammar and pictures, although I know it still lacks footnotes, but I am working on it. If you can and want, please, could you read it through once just in case? Cheers!--Xaverius 11:15, 29 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following culled from different parts of the article? BTW I changed Odoacer Romulo Agustulo sustulit to Odoacer Romulum Agustulum sustulit--isn't that right?--Rafaelgarcia 15:41, 31 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visigothi Hispaniam intraverunt anno 416 amici Romanis, contra Suevos pugnandi causa. Anno 476, cum Odoacer Romulum Augustulum ex imperium sustulit, Dux Visigothorum Euricus parvis copiis in maximis urbibus (Emerita Augusta, Toletum, Pompaelo, Tarraco, Corduba) territoria Romana Hispanica annexuit.

Saeculo VII rex Suinthila, qui erat dux strenuus, Byzantinos superavit et totius Hispaniae reunit in monarchia Visigothica. Reges huius saeculi linguam Latinam fecerunt linguam francam et sibi dederunt nomen "Flavius"; ita Ervigius se appellabat "Flavius Ervigius", "Flavius Chindasvinthus," et caetera.

Isidorus Hispalensis, sanctus et doctor Ecclesiae, dum hoc saeculo vivebat (†636). Plurimos libros scripsit et prologium Historiae Gothorum descriptione sua de Hispania et Gothis dixit:

Omnium terrarum, quaeque sunt ab occiduo usque ad Indos, pulcherrima es, o sacra, semperque felix principum, gentiumque mater Hispania. Iure tu nunc omnium regina provinciarum, a qua non Occasus tantum, sed etiam Oriens lumina mutuat. Tu decus, atque ornamentum orbis, illustrior portio terrae: in qua gaudet multum ac largiter floret Geticae gentis gloriosa fecunditas.

Saeculo VIII, ultimi reges Visigothorum continenter pugnabant contra usurpatores et Vascones. Mense Maio 711, Mauri Fretum Gaditanum navigaverunt et invasio Hispaniae inciperunt. Spatium annorum novem (711-720) regnum Visigothorum fumum fecerunt: Toletum ceperunt, tum Caesaraugustam, tum Tarraconam et tandem Septimaniam.

I just made a minor change to the above.--Rafaelgarcia 17:14, 31 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a shorter version leaving out the quote from Hispanlensis (I hope the addition of monstrum isn't too colorful):

Visigothi Hispaniam intraverunt anno 416 amici Romanis, contra Suevos pugnandi causa. Anno 476, cum Odoacer Romulum Augustulum ex imperium sustulit, Dux Visigothorum Euricus parvis copiis in maximis urbibus (Emerita Augusta, Toletum, Pompaelo, Tarraco, Corduba) territoria Romana Hispanica sibi annexuit.

Denique saeculo VII rex Suinthila, qui erat dux strenuus, Byzantinos superavit et tota Hispaniae in monarchia Visigothica reunit. Reges huius saeculi linguam Latinam fecerunt linguam francam et sibi dederunt nomen "Flavius"; ita Ervigius se appellabat "Flavius Ervigius", "Flavius Chindasvinthus," et caetera.

Ultimi reges Visigothorum saeculo VIII, continenter pugnabant contra usurpatores et Vascones. Mense Maio 711 fuit monstrum novum: Mauri Fretum Gaditanum navigaverunt et invasio Hispaniae inciperunt. Spatium annorum novem (711-720) regnum Visigothorum fumum fecerunt: Toletum ceperunt, tum Caesaraugustam, tum Tarraconam et tandem Septimaniam. --Rafaelgarcia 17:22, 31 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even shorter version:

Visigothi Hispaniam intraverunt anno 416 amici Romanis. Sed cum Odoacer Romulum Augustulum ex imperium sustulit, Visigothus Euricus anno 476 territoria Romana Hispanica Visigothis annexuit. Annos subsequentes, Visigothi in fidem Catholicam conversi sunt. Reges saeculi VII linguam Latinam fecerunt linguam francam et sibi dederunt nomen Latine: ita Ervigius se appellabat "Flavius Ervigius", et caetera. Anno 622 rex Visigothus Suinthila, qui erat dux strenuus, denique Byzantinos superavit et integram paeninsulam Ibericam in Regnum Visigothorum reunivit. Saeculo VIII Regnum Visigothorum desivit. Ultimi reges Visigothorum continenter pugnabant contra usurpatores et Vascones. Mense Maio 711 fuit monstrum novum: Mauri Fretum Gaditanum navigaverunt et invasio Hispaniae inciperunt. Spatium annorum novem (711-720) regnum Visigothorum fumum fecerunt: Toletum ceperunt, tum Caesaraugustam, tum Tarraconam et tandem Septimaniam.

Errores corrigens[fontem recensere]

oportetne "cum Odoacer...sustulit" esse "cum Odoacer...sustulerit" quia "cum" subiunctivum casum requirit?

Recte dicis. Subiunctivum adhibetur.--Rafaelgarcia 16:30, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quid hoc significat?[fontem recensere]

Spatium annorum novem (711-720) regnum Visigothorum fumum fecerunt? --Ioscius ^(disp) 23:58, 5 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Artibus archaeologiisque[fontem recensere]

Quomodo scribitur, aquilimorfa aut aquilimorpha? --Daniel bg 13:54, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]