Disputatio:Igo

Correcting Corrections[fontem recensere]

I just rolled back some emendations to the article. Here's why:

Lusor: The correct Latin for "player" is indeed lusor, and not *luditor. See Usor:Iustinus/Translator's Guide#Agents for details. Note that this is a well attested exception to my guideline about when to use the agent and when to use the participle.
Scachico: Note that the word for Chess is attested in just about every conceivable spelling. My research seemed to indicate that scacci is the most common spelling, so I put the article under that form, but when it occurs in other articles spelled differently, there really isn't any need to correct it, just so long as it links to the correct spelling. In this particular passage I had in mind Leibniz's Annotatio de quibusdam Ludis, so I used the same spelling he did. [ADDENDUM: Though it looks like I got that wrong at first too! ;) ]
Ludis scachico, damico: This is correct grammar. The idea is that the phrase stands for ludo schachico et ludo damico, but Latin tends to prefer compact sentences without much repetition, so you combine the two occurences of ludo into one. But now you're talking about more than one game, so you pluralize it. In other words, it's like saying "in games, such as [the game] of chess, and [the game] of checkers."

--Iustinus 03:20, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any of these changes. Why not make these changes of yours and then incorporate the changes I did make? While we're at it though, luditor seems odd to me, and Ainsworth's dictionary says the Latin noun for English 'a player' is lusor. I have no opinion on your other points, which I did not knowingly change. IacobusAmor 19:47, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right: they were originally made by Ioshus Rocchio, but when you made your corrections today, you (apparently accidentally) put them back in: see here. I rather carelessly forgot that it was Rocchio the first time, not you, so assumed you were sneakily trying to reinstate "your" corrections, when this was obviously just a mistake.

So, um, nevermind ;) --Iustinus 19:54, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget, that it is possible to - unintentionally - edit an old version of an article. Then all changes after that version are lost. Or changes are lost, when two users edit an article at the same time. All of these effects are mirrored by the article's history, but the history does not tell who intended what. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 20:09, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. --Iustinus 21:23, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time Iacobus and I have been confused...chalk it up to names beginning with I. AS for defense of edits... luditor I have seen apud Vici in more than one instance, so lusor=>luditor was just a mislearning on my part. Scacchico, Damico/Scacchicis, Damicis...Bennet has a good note on attraction of adjectives to number of nouns, seeming to defend either usage disputed here. Spelling of scacchi...as we have found before, Iustine, this is just an aesthetic preference of mine, which is also a bit phonologically more sound than scacci, but nonetheless the emend was an absent-minded one. As I was changing the grammar, just absentmindedly changed the spelling too. So it seems none of my edits, save the emendations to the vulgo list, were terribly useful (even if permissible), and as such, have no problem with the revert.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:31, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse, especially as my on username starts with I ;) I think the two-part nature of your names might have had something to do with it too. I haven't checked my grammar book, but attraction here seems like a bad idea... though attracting the noun into the adjectives might make some sense: ludo scachico, damico or something. And sorry about the confusion: I got a little irritated when I thought the original editor was getting in a sneaky edit war with me, when of course nothing of the sort was going on. And your edits, even if I shot down most of these ones, are useful and good for wikipedia ;) --Iustinus 23:02, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ait Ioshus: "This is not the first time Iacobus and I have been confused." Hey. I'm often confused! IacobusAmor 00:12, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, suppose I should speak for myself... I am often confused, but that was not the first time someone else was confused about me and Iacobus =]. As far as attraction goes, your suggestion here might be a good one, ludo scacchico damicoque or the like. I promise no sneaky little edit wars, fear not!--Ioshus Rocchio 00:19, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]