Disputatio:Medicina succursoria
English[fontem recensere]
- Medicina succursoria est disciplina qua exigentiam affirmat curationis acuto vulnerati enim aegroti hominis.
- Emergency medicine is the discipline that emphasizes the urgency of treatment of acutely ill or injured individuals.--Jondel (disputatio) 17:46, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- For starters, the qua is wrong. It's ablative singular, so a translation might be 'a discipline by which', and then the subject of affirmat is unknown. (Check the forms of the relative pronouns.) Then, of the last five words in the sentence, the four other than enim are wrong (three are singular where the model is plural [though maybe you deliberately changed the meaning, and doing so is sometimes OK], and acuto is wrong for acute), and enim is an odd way of saying 'or'. Hope this helps. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:00, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Iacobe! There are also problems with selecting proper words and phrases. From the Latin point of view, English sentence structure is often very wordy and cumbersome, and therefore a dynamic translation (= translation of propositional content) is often called for. Cases in point are the sentences that follow in which word by word (or phrase by phrase) translation will not do. I couldn't but rewrite the entire acticle in the hope that also Cicero, the virtual one, could get an inkling about what's going on. Neander (disputatio) 09:09, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone should be aware of the general linguistic problem of translation, but the question of retranslation might be pertinent here. Should we be able to translate a translated text back into the original language, and then back & forth a hundred times, and at the end of the experiment still be presenting the same information? For an enterprise whose purpose is the conveying of information, rather than the enjoyment of literary style, or even the comfort of familiar diction, the answer may be some form of yes, and that may lead to some form of phrase-for-phrase—though of course not word-for-word!—glossing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- It's an important question, but I'd say the answer for us is no. We're the destination: people come to Latin not from necessity but because they choose to. Let us write so that those people enjoy their encounter with us and with Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- When I was at the school, I translated just for fun a good deal of Tacitus' Germania from the Finnish translation back to Latin. The result didn't resemble the Tacitean text at all, and as a naive schoolboy I was kind of disappointed. Perhaps I was a believer of retranslation, though I hadn't given a thought to such fine idea(l)s. But seriously, I think that retranslatability may be an asset when we're dealing with rather stereotypic texts such as weather reports. In the case at hand, I don't consider phrase by phrase retranslatability necessary. Why should the Latin version of a Wikipedia article signal by its phrasings or other aspects of syntactic structure that it has been translated from English or any other language? It's the information contents that count, isn't it? On the other hand, if phrasings play a part in creating an esthetic experience (notably in a novel), it's clear that phrase by phrase translation may be in order. Neander (disputatio) 16:06, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- It's an important question, but I'd say the answer for us is no. We're the destination: people come to Latin not from necessity but because they choose to. Let us write so that those people enjoy their encounter with us and with Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone should be aware of the general linguistic problem of translation, but the question of retranslation might be pertinent here. Should we be able to translate a translated text back into the original language, and then back & forth a hundred times, and at the end of the experiment still be presenting the same information? For an enterprise whose purpose is the conveying of information, rather than the enjoyment of literary style, or even the comfort of familiar diction, the answer may be some form of yes, and that may lead to some form of phrase-for-phrase—though of course not word-for-word!—glossing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Iacobe! There are also problems with selecting proper words and phrases. From the Latin point of view, English sentence structure is often very wordy and cumbersome, and therefore a dynamic translation (= translation of propositional content) is often called for. Cases in point are the sentences that follow in which word by word (or phrase by phrase) translation will not do. I couldn't but rewrite the entire acticle in the hope that also Cicero, the virtual one, could get an inkling about what's going on. Neander (disputatio) 09:09, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- For starters, the qua is wrong. It's ablative singular, so a translation might be 'a discipline by which', and then the subject of affirmat is unknown. (Check the forms of the relative pronouns.) Then, of the last five words in the sentence, the four other than enim are wrong (three are singular where the model is plural [though maybe you deliberately changed the meaning, and doing so is sometimes OK], and acuto is wrong for acute), and enim is an odd way of saying 'or'. Hope this helps. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:00, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
They didn't have emergency rooms in Cicero's time so it would be understandable, he wouldn't have understood. If there are doctors who know Latin, they would probably use medieval latin .Jondel (disputatio) 10:49, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Res excolentis apud causas incrementi medicinae succursoriae fuit incrementum in sollertia praecipua(specializatio) in aliis disciplinis medicinis.
- Translated directly.A developing factor among causes that influenced the growth of emergency medicine was the increase of specialization in other areas of medicine. (Original or preferred sentence)Among the factors that influenced the growth of emergency medicine was the increasing specialization in other areas of medicine.
- Alia causa fuit assumptio rationarum rerum subitariarum sicut attentio medici ad vulnus grave et vectura rapida ad valetudinarium quae in legione medica militaris excoluit.
- Another (factor/cause) was the adoption of a number of standard emergency procedures—such as immediate paramedic attention to severe wounds and the rapid transportation of the ill or injured to a hospital—that had evolved in the military medical corps.
- Medicina subitaria ministeria perexpeditas et machinas provisas ante paratu comprehendit ad res subitarias.
- Emergency medicine includes a well-prepared office/room, equipment prepared beforehand, for emergencies.
--Jondel (disputatio) 17:46, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Gratias Neander et Iacobus, ! What would be a good word for acute then Iacobus? I should look this up right?Jondel (disputatio) 10:49, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Acutus is a fine word. The problem is grammatical, not lexical. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- I'm taking a risk here, but I disagree with both Iacobus and Jondel (on different issues).
- Acutus is OK for "acute" when speaking of diseases. Celsus, who wrote a medical textbook not long after Cicero's death, used "acutus" in this sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing is wrong with acutus (the vocabulary word). The problem is that Jondel's grammar seems to suggest that acuto is an adverb (it can't be an adjective modifying vulnerati or aegroti). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
- Plenty of medieval medical Latin exists, but modern Latin (medical etc.) tends to aim at the classical standard, not the medieval variant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to chill, pause for a while. Acutus like a really good word, except I get anxious when somebody gets anxious about the usage. There seems to be changes to accommodate new meanings. 1 is for wrist, there is a classical word (primus manus), but it seems carpus is a better word. 2 for Tendons , tendo is medieval (nova latina) , however, the classical word is nervus. I've been meaning to leave a nota bene. Jondel (disputatio) 13:22, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
>Let me expression your (Andrew) involvement here a well.Jondel (disputatio) 13:23, 14 Februarii 2016 (UTC)