Disputatio:Physica electromagnetica

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pagina honorata Physica electromagnetica fuit pagina mensis Augusti 2007.

Sources[fontem recensere]

Rafael, this page is looking better and better... but there isn't a single citation!!! I don't disbelieve the content you have put on here, but a page of this size needs documentation for its assertions. Can I help in some way? I think this page is and can be even cooler, but if it's not cited it may as well be a fairy tale.--Ioshus (disp) 12:30, 21 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Ioshus, I'm certaintly plugging away at it. I was hoping to finish off the content before putting all the citations in.Rafaelgarcia 21:26, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)
Certainly I can respect a different style of work. I'm just accustomed to my own style, I guess, where if I don't put down my citation, I'll forget it. I assumed good faith, for sure, just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Keep plugging away at it, by all means, and I repeat my offer of assistance, if I can help in any way. Cheers.--Ioshus (disp) 21:56, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)
This is looking awesome, now, Rafael, great work. I'm going to nominate this for pagina mensis!--Ioshus (disp) 05:47, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

logging in[fontem recensere]

By the way, I must apologize that sometimes I seem to fail to log in when submitting my corrections. IP's,,, and others are all me, depending on where I connect using my laptop. I wish there was an simple automatic way to login by clicking on a button on my firefox browser. Sometimes I think I'm logged in but I'm not.Rafaelgarcia 18:34, 24 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links[fontem recensere]

Is it en:Electromagnetism? --Rolandus 16:44, 24 Martii 2007 (UTC)

I added this one as well. This page is a summary of a number of english language pages on subjects of electromagnetism and electromagnetic theory, with emphasis on the history for which there isn't any one english language page I can refer to.Rafaelgarcia 18:26, 24 Martii 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. --Rolandus 19:21, 24 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Unitatum vs. Unitatibus[fontem recensere]

Iacobus' revision to "Lex suarum unitatum in MKSA scripta est:... doesn't say the right thing. What is intended is to say"His law expressed in MKSA units is:..." Thus I would believe the correct thing is "Sua lex unitatibus MKSA scripta est:..."Rafaelgarcia 05:26, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. Sometimes it's fun to put on one's cognitive blinders and go where the grammar seems to want to take us. The original, talking about Lorentz, was: Lex eius unitatibus MKSA scripta est, which I took to mean 'The law for his* MKSA units has been written'. (*I.e., of someone other than Lorentz.) And that didn't make much sense, so I guessed the intended idea was 'The law of his [Lorentz's] MKSA units has been written', with a genitive, though that didn't make much sense either. A problem for beginners is that scripta est coheres as a unit, and it most likely therefore means 'has been written' or 'was written'; accordingly, the earlier part of the phrase must have had something to do with someone's MKSA units (whatever those might be). To say instead 'His law is expressed in MKSA units', it might be better to omit scripta, perhaps as: [In] unitatibus 'MKSA,' sua lex est. Or maybe est can somehow be gotten rid of. ¶ Also, the genitive tends to precede, so it was a safer bet that lex eius unitatibus meant 'the law for/in his units' than 'his law for/in units'. ¶ With the ablative of means, the original might have been 'The law in his MKSA units has been written', but that looked odd, so I went to bed! By all means diminish the possibility of misreadings and make it say what it wants to! IacobusAmor 12:34, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)
The mistake on my part seems be due to a misunderstanding about the default preferred word order. I had assumed that the prefered place of the genitive is after the word it modifies, except when it does not cause confusion. But it appears that what you are saying is that the preferred place is before the word it modifies, except where it causes confusion. (Is that right?)
The other issue is the confusion that arises due to est immediately following scripta. Would be correct to interpret "Sua lex unitatibus MKSA scripta est sicut:..." as "His law has been written with MKSA units as:..."? And do you think the original confusion would be illiminated if it was rewritten," Unitatibus MKSA scripta, sua lex est:.." somehow this last form seems to convey the original intended meaning most clearly to me.Rafaelgarcia 13:04, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)
"It appears that what you are saying is that the preferred place is before the word it modifies, except where it causes confusion. (Is that right?)"—Yes, I think it is, but of course it's only a tendency, not an absolute rule. I can offer two sources on this point. ¶ Here's one: "A specifying complement in the genitive may be placed either before or after the word to which it is related, but it is most often placed before" (Milena Minkova, Introduction to Latin Prose Composition [London, 2001], in the chapter "Word Order"). The first two examples of a preceding genitive in that source are studiorum ardor 'passion for studies' and doctor honoris causa 'honorary doctor'. Other familiar examples cited there are terrae motu 'earthquake' and Marci filius 'son of Marcus'. Familiar idiomatic examples of a postposed genitive cited there are pater familias 'head of the household' and tribunus plebis 'tribune of the people'. Note that the word order there isn't free (at least in prose), as those are idioms, petrified patterns. ¶ The other source is Devine & Stephens's massive book Latin Word Order, which I've cited in other threads. It has lots of pages on possessives, but a quick glance doesn't turn up a discussion exclusively of personal pronouns. (It lacks an index of Latin words—which would have greatly helped the reader.) One section looks at possessives relating to three nouns fines, castra, and copiae. The first two examples, illustrating a pattern that occurs five times in Caesar's Gallic War, are in eorum finibus and per eorum fines, and the authors' introductory comment here is (emphasis added): "Our data set consists of prepositional phrases in which fines plus possessive genitive is the complement of a preposition in Caesar. There are five instances with weak third person pronouns, all predictably raised to the left of the noun" (p. 361). ¶ So apparently we may predict that in the pattern A eius B, the eius goes with B, rather than with A. IacobusAmor 13:36, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Notio and Applico[fontem recensere]

Look if we really are serious about good latin there improvements are needed. Notio is something like investigation or examination, at least revert to idea (although thi is not the best since it is recent/nova latina) if you don't like cogitatio. Adhibeo is appropriate for apply or employ. Please feel free to discuss/email with me at my user page.--Jondel 04:44, 3 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

According to Cassell's, idea isn't a (classical) word, and suitable words for English idea are, in the order listed: notio, notitia, informatio, imago, forma ; "more generally = thought," cogitatio, opinio, sententia ; "= purpose, intention," consilium, sententia, institutum ; and "as philosoph. [technical term], the Platonic [idea]," species. Also according to Cassell's: applicare = 'apply to, place to or near, join to, put to,' and in a transferred sense, 'attach, connect,' and especially with a reflex object, se ad and se alicui, 'attach oneself to, devote oneself to'. IacobusAmor 11:44, 3 Septembris 2011 (UTC)