Disputatio:Nosocomus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Actually, I think properly a nutrix is someone who takes care of children. A wetnurse, nanny, or the like. What we usually mean by nurse is nosocoma. I haven't just changed this because I'm not 100% sure that nutrix NEVER means someone who takes care of the sick. --Iustinus 22:56 iun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mihi quoque videtur nutrix apud Romanos antiquos custos infantum fuisse. Fortasse hac in pagina recentiores auctores consultabantur. Magnopere malo mores maiorum. Doops 16:47 nov 6, 2005 (UTC)

Latinitas[fontem recensere]

Can I ask what is dubius or unintelligible in this article?--Jondel (disputatio) 17:04, 6 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be able to catch some of these on your own if you check it word by word, but here is what I noticed:
  • Nosocomus et nosocoma est homo - subject-verb agreement[1]
  • ut permissus est ex medico - doesn't seem quite right; what are you trying to say?[2]
  • prius fieri - should be prius quam with a finite verb, I think[3]
  • studiendae est ars et scientia - spelling and agreement, but studeo usually takes dative[4]
  • consuetudine - what does this mean here?[5]
  • Munera vel opera est, nosocomo, - genitive nosocomi may be better[6]
  • sanitas - declension[7]
  • mandatos - declension[8]
  • roborem - declension[9]
  • aegribus - declension[10]
  • illorum - what is it doing here?[11]
Others may have other suggestions. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:21, 7 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lesgles! I agree with a lot for your corrections although 'ut permissus est ex medico' was meant to say 'as permitted from a doctor'. I will certainly be working on these corrections with the leads you provided.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:44, 9 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Neander for the changes. However I would like to make the following changes based on Lesgles suggestions above.

  1. Let's put 'sunt' here.
  2. as permitted by the doctor
  3. Not necessarily.=>as in Quem Juppiter destruat dementat prius.
  4. Correct. My mistake
  5. by custom
  6. Correct/agreed. My mistake.
  7. Agreed.change to satitatem. This is the object of aestimare, 'to diagnose the health'
  8. But this is the object of per, 'through the orders of the doctor'
    Mandatos is a nonword. Gender. ~~~~
    Mandata? (eg per mandata)--Jondel (disputatio) 19:24, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
  9. But this is the object of aestimare, 'to estimate the efficacy/strength of the medicine. Let me change this though to efficacitates
    Roborem is also a nonword. Gender. ~~~~
    Agreed! My mistake.
  10. Agreed. Changing to 'aegris'. I want to say 'for the benefit of the patients'
  11. 'their' customs==> suorum as corrected by Neander

---Jondel (disputatio) 18:12, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Alii quid dicitis? Suntne mutationes a Jondel propositae tales, quae textum quem rescripsi in melius vertant? Neander (disputatio) 18:42, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Recenseo. Ita fors non opus est emendare et iam bene est. Autem, crenam ('/') mutare possimus cum 'aut' et 'est' cum 'sunt'? Tibi?--Jondel (disputatio) 18:53, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's pretty good now :)
I don't think we have ever discussed how to express our gender-neutrality in writing. Or, if we have, I don't know where. I guess the paradoxical reason for doing it here, more than in 100,000 other articles, is that this profession is very often practised by women (and, if one may speak this judgment without falling into mortal sin, we are lucky that it is so). OK, anyway, how to indicate gender-neutrality? The oblique stroke is a novelty I don't specially like, but I don't think "et" and "sunt" would improve things. I am just wondering whether "vel" would do what we need? Latin is one of the few languages that has three different words corresponding to "or", and you'd think one of them would suit the case ... But I bet you thought of that and rejected it, Neander. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:22, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Of disjunctive conjunctions, vel is definitely the best one, because it relates freely interchangeable members of a set. The reason why I didn't choose vel was the wish to keep the syntax as easily parsable as possible. Somehow "Nosocomus / nosocoma est aegrorum minister / ministra" looks easier to process than "Nosocomus vel nosocoma est aegrorum minister vel ministra". But of course I am open to better proposals. Neander (disputatio) 20:16, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
How are we to pronounce "/" in Latin? North American English-speakers would tend to pronounce it 'slash'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:51, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Once again, Iacobe, we seem to be of the same mind. I also was going to ask how to pronounce "/" (we'll need to know this when someone cares to voice Vicipaedia articles) -- and I was going to add that "vel" has the advantage that it certainly is pronounceable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:06, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Pronounce? Clearly, this relates to the question of how are we to pronounce " . , : ; ( ) [ ] → / * — " etc in our written texts. My answer is that we do not pronounce them. We interpret them mentally. Or am I really the only one who does not read aloud our articles?! Neander (disputatio) 21:36, 18 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4qii8S3gw. :D IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:51, 19 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Excellent advices for the oralists among us. :–) Neander (disputatio) 06:28, 19 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken, mi Neander, in saying that we don't pronounce . , : ; ( ) – when we speak a text. I'm not saying that these are seven phonemes, but our pronunciation of sentences reflects our understanding of their structure, to which, in modern orthography, these signs guide us. (And I know you already know that!) So, for that reason, "nosocomus nosocoma est ..." won't really do. Jondel's right. "Nosocomus nosocoma sunt ..." would be OK -- Pliny the Elder (e.g.) has many sentences of that kind -- but in Pliny's sentences of that kind the items in the lists would be joined by "et" if anything.
But I think (as I sometimes do, and am sometimes shown to be wrong) that this discussion isn't going to get far. I think it may well be best to state the alternatives "nosocomus" and "nosocoma", but as an exceptional case, oddly similar to "fadus" and "fada" (there, too, many people would first think of the feminine, and need a nudge to remember that the masculine also exists). In our first sentence here, "minister" and "ministra" don't both need to be there: "minister" does the work on its own. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 19 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
You and Iacobus were wondering how to pronounce "/". Well, the obvious Latin pronunciation is, of course, vel. And A vel B requires est, not sunt. But you're right in saying that ministra is not needed — owing to the hegemonic masculinity embodied in Latin morphosyntax. This being so, the sentence becomes easier to parse, and I have nothing against writing "Nosocomus vel nosocoma est aegrorum minister". Neander (disputatio) 11:21, 19 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
An excellent solution! Now if we can just get contributors to write out their numbers, so people don't mentally read saeculo XX as saeculo ex-ex ! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 19 Iunii 2014 (UTC)