Disputatio:Scythae

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Definitio falsa?[fontem recensere]

Vide definitionem a quodam Sturanos praeditam:

Scythae[1] (Graece Σκύθαι) fuere Turcus[2] gentes antiquae. . . .

Hic fons alter, Cahill 2008, est liber Elizabethano Angliae theatro dicatus, haud certe opus historiam antiquam tractans. Confer definitionem quam nunc suppeditavimus, plerumque ex vicipaedia Anglica conversam:

Proximi Scytharum fines intra regionem distributionis linguarum Iranicarum orientalium (colore aurantio pictarum) saeculo primo a.C.n.

Scythae[3] (Graece Σκύθης, Σκύθοι), etiam Scythoi, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, et Askuzai appellati, fuerunt magnus nomadum Iranicorum grex,[4][5][6][7][8][9] qui, apud scriptas nationum litteratarum quae circa eos antiquitate habitabant memorias, magnis regionibus in tesquis Eurasiae mediae a saeculo nono a.C.n. fere usque ad saeculum quartum p.C.n. imperabant.[10] Quae terra Scythia generatim nominabatur. Eorum linguae probabiliter ad ramum orientalem linguarum Iranicarum pertinebant.[11]

Qualis introductio est subtilior? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:03, 25 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Notae[fontem recensere]

  1. Iohannes Iacobus Hofmannus, Lexicon universale (1698) ~, p. 115
  2. Cahill, Patricia A. Unto the breach: martial formations, historical trauma, and the early modern stage (2008), Oxford University Press, sf. 45
  3. Iohannes Iacobus Hofmannus, Lexicon universale (1698) ~, p. 115.
  4. "Scythian". Encyclopædia Britannica Online .
  5. Waldman & Mason 2006, pp. 719–724.
  6. West 2009, pp. 713–717.
  7. "Scythia". Columbia University Press .
  8. "Saka". Great Soviet Encyclopedia. 1979 .
  9. Sinor 1990:97: "All contemporary historians, archeologists and linguists are agreed that since the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes were of the Iranian linguistic group."
  10. Bonfante 2011:110.
  11. Beckwith 2009:61.

Scientia dubia?[fontem recensere]

I haven't studied the above (and have only myself to blame). I came fresh to the article today. Since five of the footnotes led to no actual references, and one was to a book antipodean to ancient Scythia, they simply had to be deleted at once. Since six of them claimed to support one introductory sentence, they were clearly the result of playground battles on en:wiki. An introductory sentence should be uncontroversial and need no support, except, maybe, for the Latin term with which it begins!

As to the text of the article, the next editor might want to shorten that as well before writing something better. See how it looks now that the illusive notes have gone. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 12 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)