Disputatio:Religio publica
'publica' seems to pertain more to 'public' in English sense. It can mean Public Religion. Religio Civitatis (Religion of the State)which is very specific or nearer in meaning to State Religion, eg. a State sponsored Religion.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:04, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- [Written before Andrew's comment:] For English 'state (adj.)', Cassell's gives publicus and nothing else. ¶ Classical examples in Cassell's include publicus 'of the State'; res publica 'the public thing' = 'the public interest' = 'the state'; and publicum 'the property of the state, the public revenue, the treasury'. ¶ The idea of "the English sense" is misleading because the word has several senses. Its commonest one in my experience might be something like "openly known or knowable by the people" ("general, universal"), which in Latin might be vulgus and vulgatus and the adverb propalam. Another important sense is "not private," in regard to which we have the example of universitas publica. ¶ For the lemma, another possibility might be religio civilis, as the basic sense of civilis is 'of the citizen(ry)', giving us terms like ratio civilis 'state planning, political science' and vir civilis 'statesman' (a concept that Vicipaedia often gives as vir publicus, though I'm not finding that in Cassell's, which for 'statesman' prefers vir reipublicae peritus). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- It's difficult to find a phrase that will have exactly the right implications, but I think "publica" works fairly well. Lewis & Short begins its definition of "publicus" thus: "of or belonging to the people, State, or community; that is done for the sake or at the expense of the community ..." That seems to be a fair approximation to how state religions function under those constitutions that allow for such a thing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- We've often observed that modern Latinists, working backward from modern languages, seem to prefer a genitive where native speakers of Latin might have preferred an adjective. So for example, we often see scriptor Italiae instead of scriptor Italicus. For convenience, Vicipaedia is using the genitive thus in its categories, but one worries that the natural idiom could be otherwise. A well-known model of which is Scipio Africanus, not Scipio Africae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- Likewise in later Latin. Thus we see names having the form of Adamus Bremensis, not Adamus Bremae (even though the English is "Adam of Bremen," with seemingly possessive syntax), and similarly zillions of other medieval and Renaissance characters. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, and hope that the phraseology used in our categories won't be taken by anyone as a model for text. It was a formulation adopted for convenience, as you say, to avoid any implication of ethnicity in what are meant as purely geographical categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- Likewise in later Latin. Thus we see names having the form of Adamus Bremensis, not Adamus Bremae (even though the English is "Adam of Bremen," with seemingly possessive syntax), and similarly zillions of other medieval and Renaissance characters. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
- We've often observed that modern Latinists, working backward from modern languages, seem to prefer a genitive where native speakers of Latin might have preferred an adjective. So for example, we often see scriptor Italiae instead of scriptor Italicus. For convenience, Vicipaedia is using the genitive thus in its categories, but one worries that the natural idiom could be otherwise. A well-known model of which is Scipio Africanus, not Scipio Africae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Iacobus and Andrew for your feedbck.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:06, 18 Octobris 2017 (UTC)