Disputatio:Principia theoriae M

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Theoria M, super theoria chordarum fundat, notionem de materia funda universae proponit." Quam sententiam pessimam! ne grammaticae Anglicae obtemperat.-- 12:19, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

My original sentence was "Theoria M, in terminologia vulga, notionem..." but it got changed. --Robert.Baruch 00:59, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Also: quae esse? fundamentum? minimum rerum corporum tam diu credita est... is there a problem with my use of the infinitive + acc. for tam dui credita est? Clearly I'm not so good at Latin yet, so some help would be appreciated :) --Robert.Baruch 01:09, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
(1)well at least in this case the beginning of the clause is indicated by a relative pronoun. What language inserts relative clauses so arbitrarily? or permits multiple predicates slapped together like this? even chinese has a structure to them. The above first sentence is just an example; it is not an exception since more such examples can be found in the body of the text.
quae had atomus (-i, f.) as its antecedent. --Robert.Baruch 02:39, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
(2) first of all fundamentum minimum rerum corporum = "the smallest foundation of bodies of things"--what is this supposed to mean??
Oops, I read Cassell's wrong. He has matter = res corporeae, so I should have said fundamentum minimum rerum corporearum. --Robert.Baruch 02:39, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
(3) in "in parte primo" (="in the first half ") the noun and adjective don't agree; "componeri" isn't a word....-- 10:06, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
To get the idea of 'half', instead of in parte, it might be clearer to have in dimidia parte. IacobusAmor 13:36, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
(4) "esse" is ok as part of (A_nom B_nom+esse+creditur = A is believed to be B, both in nominative case (not accusative))-- 10:06, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Vulga seems not to be a word. Vulgus, -i, is a noun, and available adjectives seem to be vulgaris and vulgata. IacobusAmor 13:32, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Introductio de theoria M[fontem recensere]

= 'A leading inside (a bringing in) from the M theory'? An introduction to a book is prooemium, exordium, praefatio. Or maybe, in this instance, "introduction" isn't the best place to start from? IacobusAmor 13:36, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Cassell's does have introductio meaning both a bringing in and an introduction, but you are right—Cassell's also specifically lists prooemium, exordium, praefatio as an introduction to a book. I'll change to prooemium. --Robert.Baruch 00:59, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Proeemium? I think the figure's more supposed to be introduction in the sense of a lead-in or induction (to the mysteries, as it were, of the subject matter; Webster 1913's sense 4) rather than a preface or prelude (to some other article; Webster's sense 3). Nicot points out the metaphor of 'introduction' in this sense is also found in ancient Greek εἰσαγωγή but he does refrain from assigning the sense to introductio itself. Of course it might be better to abandon the idea of 'introduction' altogether—if the figure's missing from Latin, it may be more natural to render it more loosely as principia theoriae M or some such. —Mucius Tever 04:32, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
(1)If the lemma of the page is "Theoria M" why should the name of the page be any different?; if this is expected to be a subpage of a future "theoria M" page, then shouldn't it be named "Theoria M (prooemium)"? (2) The "de" here is unexpected: de usually means "down from" especially in a spatial or motion context, but otherwise as in a title means "concerning or about" so that "Prooemium de theoria M" means "An introduction concerning theory M" whereas I would suppose the intended meaning would be "introduction to theory M" which could be rendered by the genetive or a prepositional phrase such as "in" or "ad" plus accusative. In sum it is hard to make out what this title is all about.-- 09:41, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
I agree that, as a glance at en:M-Theory suggests, an apt title is something like Theoria M, and likewise therefore the lemma. The text would parallel that of most articles by beginning with a definition (e.g. "In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified"), followed by perhaps a couple of sentences putting the theory into its intellectual context; and then a more detailed treatment of the subject would become the body of the article, perhaps beginning with an introduction, howsoever named. IacobusAmor 13:32, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
This page is meant to be a translation of English 'Introduction to M-Theory', which is apparently supposed to be a less technical overview compared to the article 'M-Theory'. Given that 'Pincipia' seems a little odd. This is not the same 'introduction' as the introduction (preface) of a book, so I think introductio would be fine, although it does seem to be post-classical. The preposition, though, was dubious - Google shows it used with in, ad, and the genitive; I think following the famous Introductio in analysin infinitorum, in is most logical, as the 'to' in English 'introduction to' certainly has the sense of 'into and not that of ad. Pantocrator 01:01, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

"You don't find "decennium" in Cassell's"[fontem recensere]

Yeah, but you find it here: Decennium. And here: Decennium 199. And here: Decennium 198. And here: Decennium 197. And so on, in more than 400 articles. :) IacobusAmor 20:19, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

... all of which appear to stem from those early days, when Vicipaedia was taking its first, shaking steps. We know better, <tag question>? (I always stumble over "do we" / "don't we") :-) Neander 20:37, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, it is in L+S, but as post-classical. --Robert.Baruch 20:54, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
What is so bad about "decennium"? Cicero didn’t use it, that’s true, but there is biennium, triennium, quinquennium – why not decennium? You’ll find it in the dictionaries of Georges and, of course, in Kirschii Cornu Copiae. A "Ciceronianus" won’t use the word, nor will Laurentius Valla – but Apuleius used it (Apul., de deo Socr. 18), and so did Ammianus (Historiae 21, 16) and many others after them. – If we reject decennium, we have to sort millennium, too (and thousands of other words).--Utilo 21:14, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
My pointing to Cassell's was a friendly teaser to Iacobus who's always keen on finding mots justes in Cassell's. (Sorry, Iacobe!) I don't shun post-classical words. On the contrary, I like all kinds of words, whether borrowed or newly formed (according to rules, of course). I could use even "centennium" to denote "spatium centum annorum". Utilo, when saying "in the 1960's" &c, don't you know the construction "annis millesimis nongentesimis sexagesimis"? I must confess I'm not accustomed to using "decennio" in that construction. (NB: I didn't delete the link to "Decennium 196") To me, decennio = decem annorum spatio (as in Codex Iustiniani 3.34.13 "ut omnes servitutes non utendo amittantur non biennio, ... , sed decennio contra praesentes vel viginti annorum spatio contra absentes"). Neander 23:39, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have no system of links for decades of the form "annis 1960," and the link in "annis 1960" goes to the wrong place (the year, not the decade), but we do have a system of links through decennia, so we can easily get to the nineteen-sixties via "decennio 197," whose interwiki link takes us to the English article that begins "The 1960s was the decade that started on January 1, 1960, and ended on December 31, 1969. It was the seventh decade of the 20th century." IacobusAmor 12:08, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
I think, I've got your point now, Neander! Although "decennio 197" looks strange to me, too, it seems to be rather near to the original meaning: "within the ten-years-period from 1970-1979", isn't it?--Utilo 14:51, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I wrote "[[Decennium 196|Annis 1960]]", which links to the category "Decennium 196" but uses the construction that I personally find preferable. Others may use other constructions. Neander 15:27, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but Decennium 196 links to the 1950s, so you really want Decennium 197. :) IacobusAmor 15:37, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my short math in the school strikes back again! :-) Neander 16:05, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, "the 1960's" means 1960-1969, and not decennium 197 (1961-1970) :( But I suppose it's close enough to make no big difference. After all, many people believe the 21st century began in 2000. And if indeed the English wikipedia is correct in that the 1960's (1960-1969) were "the seventh decade of the 20th century" then that would mean the 2000's (2000-2009) were "the first decade of the 21st century", which isn't correct, because the 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, making the first decade nine years long... :P (--Robert.Baruch 17:06, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Answering my own confusion: EN decided to remove references to "the first decade of the Xth century" because of this issue. --Robert.Baruch 17:20, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

A decennium is simply a 10-year period. In English, a century has two definitions: an arbitrary 100-year period, and a specific 100-year period after the birth of Christ. Is there any source that insists a decennium must start with the birth of Christ? If not, can we simply equate decennium X with the years X*100 to X*100 + 9? --Robert.Baruch 17:23, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Answering your first question: If there's a Latin source, it must be medieval. In those sources accessible to me, "decennium" denotes a non-specific 10-year period. That was my unsourced intuition, too, and therefore I felt "decennio 197" etc a bit strange. Neander 19:47, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical question about relative clause[fontem recensere]

I bring your attention to the following from the article:

Atomus, tam diu minimum putata rerum corporearum elementum, ineunte saeculo XX demonstrata est ...

My confusion stems from this exhortation found in Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar:

308 a. The relative is never omitted in Latin, as it often is in English:
liber quem mihi dedisti, the book you gave me.

So does this mean that the phrase tam diu minimum putata rerum corporearum elementum requires a relative? --Robert.Baruch 21:00, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

(If I have understood correctly:) No, because there is no verb and no subordinate clause here: you are working entirely with adjectives. But what does "putata" agree with? If with "elementum", then it has to be "putatum". The chain of adjectives doesn't make for clarity, so it would maybe be better to rephrase and use a relative clause after all, "elementum quod tam diu rerum corporearum minimum putatur". A suggestion which others will now reject or improve ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
"putata" agrees with "atomus": Atomus, tam diu minimum putata rerum corporearum elementum, ineunte saeculo XX demonstrata est ....--Utilo 21:24, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! In that case it's OK, nice word order, and no need for a relative because (as I said) there is no clause: you're working on adjectives. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:43, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
I see. I suppose the decision to use an adjective phrase or a relative clause is a matter of clarity, then. Thanks! --Robert.Baruch 22:17, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would say so; it can be more or less free choice. Allen & Greenough are doing contrastive linguistics but focusing on the narrow case in which both languages use a relative clause; in which case, in English, the relative pronoun who/which/that can sometimes be omitted, but in Latin the equivalent pronoun can't be. English is the odd one: most European languages are like Latin in this (I think). But if you focus more widely on the semantics, both languages have several options to get these meanings across, including not using a subordinate clause at all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

So in the next paragraph, we have:

Annis 1980, nova theoria mathematica physicae theoreticae, theoriam chordarum dicitur, emersit.

Here we have a clause with a verb, dicitur, which is not introduced by a relative. I wrote this, so I'm not holding it up as good Latin, but should it be quae theoria chordarum dicitur ("which is called string theory"), or quae theoria chordarum appellatur ("which is named string theory"), or as an appositive (i.e. just theoria chordarum set off by commas), or maybe theoria chordarum appellata? --Robert.Baruch 22:29, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

You may write: quae theoria chordarum dicitur or quae theoria chordarum appellatur or theoria chordarum appellata or even nomine theoria chordarum--Utilo 22:42, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)