Disputatio:Liber (discretiva)

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

biblia[fontem recensere]

pagina dicit bibliam de creatione et vita narrare. ita vero. sed biblia narrat de creatione ab perspectiva Christiana/Iudeica. non credo hanc perspectivam esse neutralem. Zarfkitty 19:57, 25 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)zarfkitty

Biblia Sacra dicunt quidquid dicunt, et hic solum referre eorum fabulas indubitate est neutrale. IacobusAmor 01:18, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Veritatem dicis; sed haec sententia, in hac pagina, non mihi placet. Liber notissimus mundi Biblia est, qui de creatione Terrae et de exordio vitae narrat. Estne re vera optima omnium perorationum paginae de Libro? Non credo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Probe dicis, amice. Pro "Liber notissimus mundi Biblia est," fortasse melius: "Notissimus mundi liber est Biblia Sacra, varia librorum antiquorum collectio." Pro "qui de creatione Terrae et de exordio vitae narrat," fortasse: "qui de historia et cultura gentis Hebraicae et de origine religionis Christianae narrat." ??? IacobusAmor 12:34, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

--Rafaelgarcia 01:46, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

papyrus[fontem recensere]

papyrus non est arbuscula, sed gramen altum cum medulla, qua usi fuerunt Aegypti ad chartas papyraceas perficiendas. Teutonius 23:39, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Literal translation as best as I can make it:"papyrus is not arbuscula (small young tree), but gramen (grass) with medulla (marrow), which using were of egypt to make papyrus paper." You are not using the verb "uti" correctly. Also the locative is not used for countries (Aegypti if you meant the locative), but only for cities, towns, and certain special places.
The discretiva does not say papyrus is an arbuscula, it says "1. Interior pars corticis arboris, praesertim arbusculae quae Cyperus papyrus vocatur." ="the interior part of the bark of trees, especially of a small young tree, which is called Cyperus papyrus "--Rafaelgarcia 00:18, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Cyperus papyrus does indeed look more like a small tree rather than a grass, as it is mostly trunk and almost no leaf.--Rafaelgarcia 00:25, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
For Aegypti 'of Egypt', maybe he meant Aegyptii 'the Egyptians'. IacobusAmor 01:11, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
I think that Teutonius is right that the appropriate term is not arbuscula. Apparently the appropriate english term is sedge, latin ulva. sedge.--Rafaelgarcia 01:46, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Sedge (carex) is a rather small grassy plant of the same family (cyperaceae), papyprus is a tall "grass" (like bamboo) with a tuft of leaves only on its top (like palms). Papyrus has no bark, or cortex, but only pith (medulla) in its stems. (I wanted to say: qua Aegyptii usi sunt / utebantur ad...)
Ulva seems to be sea-lettuce (a green alga) but most dictionaries say its reed (harundo, phragmites, canna, calamus) Teutonius 12:22, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this is an instance of classical latin contradicting botanical latin usage?: see lewis and short ulva--Rafaelgarcia 12:37, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
I decided to avoid ulva and added a new layer to draw out the fine shade of meaning.--Rafaelgarcia 18:26, 14 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Cuticis=cutis+corticis!? Teutonius 03:06, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the mistake.--Rafaelgarcia 10:46, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Hae duae sententiae non pertinere ad verbum (thema) liber, sed ad papyrum solum opinor:

  1. Pars interior (medulla) plantae quae Cyperus papyrus vocatur.
  2. Folium rectiangulum, perlongum ex medulla plantae factum, quae papyrus vocatur.
Si pertinent; sine eis ultimae sensum non haberemus. Sine eis sensis quomodo umquam volumen (papyrus scroll) possum dicere liber?--Rafaelgarcia 10:39, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Isn't medulla the center or core of the plant, rather than the rind? I think it is the rind that the paper is made of not the center. The cortex is the bark or skin of the tree not the center of the trunk.--Rafaelgarcia 10:53, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
I guess the distinctions really don't matter so I left it like you did it. Those two senses are the most important ones anyway.--Rafaelgarcia 10:57, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, one day when an article on paper is extended. The following is how I would have added the above.
  1. Pars cutis plantae quae Cyperus papyrus vocatur.
  2. Folium perlongum e cortice vel cute plantae factum, quae etiam papyrus vocatur.
--Rafaelgarcia 11:01, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
According to Cassell's, the basic sense of the word is 'the inner bark of a tree' (apparently any tree). Hence, developing the senses from Cassell's:
Liber est:
  1. Interior arboris cortex
  2. Interior Cyperi papyri cortexmedulla [cut into strips (''chartae? folia? schedae?) so as to serve for writing]
  3. Volumen vel codex, chartis/foliis/schedis confectus
  4. Ars vel artificium voluminibus codicibus scriptum
  5. Index, vel tabula rerum perscriptarum; etiam libellus
  6. Epistola
Lexicography is a precise science, and even the preceding may not do the subject justice. IacobusAmor 12:12, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Papyrus (/pəˈpaɪrəs/) (Rhymes: -aɪrəs) is a thick paper-like material produced from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus, a wetland sedge that was once abundant in the Nile Delta of Egypt.

Pith is a light substance that is found in vascular plants. It consists of soft, spongy parenchyma cells, and is located in the center of the stem. It is encircled by a ring of xylem (woody tissue), and outside that, a ring of phloem (bark tissue).

ecce, pagina illustrata de perfectione papyrorum

OK; I've fixed gloss #2 accordingly. IacobusAmor 15:20, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Papyrus - Aerenchym: "... die Assimilation wird überwiegend durch die grünen Halme geleistet. Innerhalb dieser findet sich ein schwammiges Mark, das primär wohl dem Gasaustausch des sich im extrem sauerstoffarmen Schlamm befindlichen Rhizoms dient (sog. Aerenchym - "Luftgewebe"). Aus diesem Mark hat man im Alten ägypten Schreibmaterial hergestellt: ..." Teutonius 15:37, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Latine: .... Assimilatio ex magna parte facta est per arundines virides. Intra eos invenitur medulla spongiosa, quae primo loco inservire videtur ad commutationem gasi cum rhizomate, quod situm est in nimis oxygenii inopi luto (quae dicitur Aerenchyma - "tela aeria"). Ex ista medulla in Aegypto antiquo perfecta est materia scriptoria) Teutonius 16:19, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

You've inserted a term into the middle of the text I was proposing; I've deleted it here and put it into the text in the disambiguation page, where people can feel free to offer changes. IacobusAmor 16:25, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Iacobe I made some further changes to your propose before you told me not to do so here...Teutonius 16:38, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Changing the comments of other user's (in the disptatio) is highly discouraged. The idea is to avoid putting words in other people's mouths. Lots of advice is provided here en:Wikipedia:Vandalism. As a general rule, don't do it unless the user specifically invites you to do so, or unless the comments themselves constitute vandalism, or unless you are just adding formatting spaces or colon symbols.--Rafaelgarcia 17:11, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I hadn't noticed several of the changes, so I'm reverting them here. There's nothing wrong with making editorial changes in the article itself (unless of course the changes are inadvisable). IacobusAmor 17:51, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Where did you take the meaning no. 3 (art/craft written in books?) of liber (bark, book) from? Teutonius 18:02, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the interior part of papyrus is nowerdays commonly called "bast" but actually (botanically) its not bast, but bastlike fibrous "pith"! So I dont know if there is any evidence that Romans really called it "liber", how do you know? Teutonius 18:25, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
[Written while Rafael was writing below:] Cassell's says the basic, earliest sense of liber is 'the inner bark of a tree'. #3 above is 'book' in a physical sense; #4 above is 'book' as a concept, an artistic accomplishment, a work of art, a literary "opus." Senses #3 and #4 are distinct. IacobusAmor 21:17, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Iacobus said above that the senses he gave and the order he gave them came from the Cassell's latin dictionary. Teutonius seems not to understand about the order being important. I think the order is important and explains how the senses came about. On the other hand, this is a discretiva page not an article nor a dictionary entry (that's what Victionarium is all about). Thus, long several sentence explanations about the making of paper are out of place here. They should be on the charta or the papyrus page. --Rafaelgarcia 21:12, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Yes, standard lexicography lists the senses in historical order of their appearance (with fudging as necessary to accommodate developments for which no appropriately dated attestation has been found). ¶ Yes, disambiguation pages are (if we may borrow the distinction made in botanical taxonomy) for diagnoses; descriptions go into the articles. IacobusAmor 21:17, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add, is it really right to have a page on "Libera Aridade" in addition to Ariadne? WHat does that acccomplish? Isn't it overkill?--Rafaelgarcia 21:21, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point; but since Ariadne is Greek and Libera Roman, somebody, someday, could want to have separate articles for them (if enough information on distinctions between them is known). IacobusAmor 21:41, 15 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

1.bast (inner bark of a tree)
2.book (thing)
4.book (opus, artwork)
6.letter (written message)
Just as Cassell says: LIBER is the inner bark of a tree, but Papyrus is NOT the inner BARK of any TREE, so it does not belong here (to liber), but in a separate page
Teutonius 15:33, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC) Strange enough, just you created it already some month ago!? Teutonius 15:14, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)