Disputatio:Nagasacum

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

nova=>novas[fontem recensere]

Cupiditas novas iaponiam ducit ad bellos cum Sericis anno 1895 et Sarmata anno 1905.
The new ambitions of Japan led them to war with China in 1895 and Russia in 1905.--Jondel 08:30, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
tunc cupiditates novas Iaponiam ad bellos cumm Sericis anno 1895 et Sarmata anno 1905 duxerunt, nam cupiditas, -is et ergo nominativus pluralis cupiditates et vebum plurale duxERUNT--62.202.2.151 08:41, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Fas es. Me dolet errantium. Gratias vero ago.--Jondel 08:54, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Cassell's says 'ambition' is gloria or laudis studium or contentio honorum ; and in any event, cupiditates novas is accusative, but you want the nominative, novae cupiditates. However, the structure of the English may not appeal to the Latin mind, and it might be better to translate as if the original had a different construction, maybe something more like "The Japanese, newly desirous of glory, waged war against the Chinese in 1895 and the Russians in 1905." IacobusAmor 12:03, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

No! I see ambition in Traupman, please stop complicating things Iacobus.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:07, 6 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Come on, there's something in what he says. In this kind of context English freely uses abstract nouns and makes them subjects of verbs of action. In translating we can, and probably should, be more concrete.
"I see ambition in Traupman" is nicely ambiguous. I see ambition in Theresia May. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 6 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seem a bit crass. It seems that the sense in the context is 'desire(for more land and resources)' not in the sence of personal glory or praise or honor(eg to become the president etc). 'Cupiditas' covers the meanings for these desires. Quod opinaris?--Jondel (disputatio) 08:51, 6 Iulii 2016 (UTC)