Disputatio:Servitus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Movenda[fontem recensere]

Secundum Lewis and Short, servitus multum usitatior videtur; s.v. "servitudo" dicunt, "perhaps only in the following passages". Quia slavery/esclavage primarius vocabuli sensus videtur, suadeo hanc paginam ad Servitus moveatur et paginam nunc "Servitus" appellatam ad Servitus (discretiva) moveatur. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:46, 26 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Traupman gives "servitude" as servitus and "slavery" as servitudo. Different things! See en:Servitude (the broader concept) and en:Slavery. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 27 Maii 2014 (UTC).
Yes, it looks as if Traupman was misled by the existence of the two English words into steering the Latin words towards different meanings. Curious that he reverses them, though -- one might have expected him to equate "servitudo" with servitude! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 27 Maii 2014 (UTC)
The Latin–English section may back up the idea that servitus is the broader concept: servitudo = 'servitude, slavery' ; servitus = 'slavery; slaves; property liability, easement'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:26, 27 Maii 2014 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Latin Synonymes says, not the most helpfully, "Servitus, the situation of a slave, slavery; servitudo, the condition of this state, inasmuch as it is connected with disgrace, oppression, hard labor". Whatever that means, it doesn't seem to be the same distinction Traupman is making. I would still argue for servitus as the main lemma here, because it was used by the other "good authors" besides Livy, as well as in the Vulgate, where "domus servitutis" = "house of bondage". Of course, it seems Latin didn't have a clear word for "free servant", so it would be good to have a way to distinguish that, but I'd like to see more evidence for Traupman's distinction. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:31, 27 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Servitudo, like eritudo, is attested only as a gloss, which points to its being an arcane word. Livius 24.22.2 doesn't count because it's a textually corrupt locus. Servitus is the word frequently used not only by Caesar, Cicero and Livius, but by all pre-Medieval Latin authors. Neander (disputatio) 04:59, 28 Maii 2014 (UTC)
If then, as seems likely, servitus will do for 'slavery' (Slavery), what's the best Latin lemma for the page that will correspond with the English wiki's Servitude? (Not to mention French Servitude and Spanish Servidumbre.) The concepts differ in their reach: all slaves can be said to be in servitude, but not all people or things in servitude are slaves. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:20, 28 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a question that will face the person who wants to translate that English page. Myself, I recognise servitude as an English word, but I don't yet recognise it as a current concept, different from all other current concepts, and requiring an encyclopaedia article. It seems to me an old-fashioned poetic expression, vaguely synonymous with slavery and some other terms. You obviously didn't look at the French and Spanish articles that you linked: they are disambiguation pages.
As to the English word, others might differ from me, but, if they do, they'd have to express the concept represented in English by "servitude", as they see it and from reliable sources, making clear its difference from English "slavery" and its relevance to Latin. What we know so far (I think) is that the difference between "servitus" and "servitudo" wouldn't suffice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 28 Maii 2014 (UTC)
No, I did look at the linked French and Spanish articles, and I did observe that they're disambiguation pages—which is why, at a minimum, I thought Vicipaedia might want to have a discretiva page of some sort, so as to accommodate senses (of servitus ?) not usually understood to be slavery. Meanwhile, see another sense that servitus will bear (according to the OED):
Servitude . . . In Civil Law (= L. servitus), and hence in Scots Law : a subjection or subserviency of property either: (1) to some definite person other than its owner ('personal servitude'), or (2) to some definite property other than that of its owner for the benefit of the dominant property ('prædial servitude'). In Scots Law the term is now in practice restricted to prædial servitude, which includes both the 'easement' and the 'profit à prendre' of English Law; it has been sometimes used by English lawyers to include both these kinds of rights. ¶ A personal servitude (of which usufruct is an example) could be constituted either over movables or immovables; a prædial servitude (e.g. a right of way) could only be constituted over an immovable in favour of another immovable.
That's practically the text of a stub right there (hardly "an old-fashioned poetic expression"), and a fine set piece for translators moved by the topic! (Not yours truly.)
And then there's penal servitude, loosely defined as imprisonment at hard labor. It deserves its own article, but what's its lemma? Servitus poenalis ? Other wikis seem to favor something that might slide into Labor poenalis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:26, 28 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Now that I look at the English page, to find out in what way English Wikipedians differ from my view of the word "servitude", I see that it also is a disambiguation page! There is no article to translate! Iacobe, you knew that from the start and you've been trolling here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 28 Maii 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, the discretiva page you are proposing already exists, and was already linked to the English, French and Spanish disambig. pages to which you refer: it is Servitus (discretiva).
So far as I can see, the legal senses of English servitude, on which you've inserted the (really interesting!) note above, correspond to Latin "servitus". See in the first place Justinian, Digest book 8, "De servitutibus", whichcites earlier jurists who all seem to use that same form of the word. That sense indeed could give rise to another Vicipaedia article, maybe Servitus (iurisprudentia)? I don't propose to write it, and it seems you don't either, but maybe another Vicipaedian now will! That would, I must confess, fully demonstrate the utility of such debates as this.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)

De etymologia[fontem recensere]

Partem de etymologia addi, quam quaeso ut inspiciatis. Res de servitudine praediale, etc., ab Iacobe notatae, vero sint utiles, si interpetes apte moti perveniant (amatores duliologiae??). Lesgles (disputatio) 23:04, 29 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Ita, severius iudicavi. Iacobus et ego, e galaxiis longe inter se distantibus orti, nihilominus Latinitatem et Vicipaediam ambo amamus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 30 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Dubito an dici possit servitudo vocabulum post-classicum esse, et dixerim equidem illud vocabulum a Latinitate (litteraria) omnino alienum esse. Cum nusquam nisi in Pauli Diaconi excerptis (ex Pompeii Festi excerptis ex Verrii Flacci priscis verbis factis) inveniatur, constat fieri posse, ut iam antiquitus attestatum sit in dialectis rusticis, sed in Latinitate litteraria repudiatum. ¶ Omnia fere lexica etymologica (sicut CNRTL fin.) hanc notitiam praebent, Fr. servitude esse a Lat. servitudine mutuatum. Quod, si verum est, ita intellegi debet: servitudinem supervixisse in dialectis arcanis et ex his emersisse in aliquot dialectis Romanicis. Alia cogitandi ratio haec est: Fr. servitude < Fr.antiqua servitute. Quod, si verum est, mutationem phoneticam indicare possit. Neander (disputatio) 18:02, 30 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Nescio an verba tua recte intellegi. Usus verbi servitude in lingua Francogallica hodierna nihil nobis dicit de dialectis Romanicis. Verbum enim a scriptoribus mediaevalibus e Latina mutuatum est. Illi in textibus Latinis fortasse verba "servitus" et "servitudo" reppererunt, sed "servitudo" tulerunt retinuerunt.
Verbum "servitudo" in lexico Romanico Meyer-Lübke non reperitur. Inde scimus (nisi error sit) verbum locutoribus dialectorum Romanicarum popularium ignotum fuisse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 30 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Credo equidem te recte loqui, cum verbum q.e. servitudo locutoribus dialectorum Romanicarum ignotum fuisse dicis. Dixisti etiam: "Verbum enim a scriptoribus mediaevalibus e Latina mutuatum est." Sed quomodo potuerunt verbum servitude ex textibus Latinis sumere, cum servitudo apud auctores Latinos (exceptis Pauli excerptis arcanis) non inveniatur? Servitus in forma servitute in Francogallica antiqua invenitur. Ideo putabam etiam servitude per servitute(m) a verbo Latino q.e. servitus deductum esse. Sed fortasse hanc rem male intellexi. Neander (disputatio) 19:11, 30 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Volui commentationem meam cito scriptam iam heri emendare. Servituit in uno textu Francogallico religioso saec. XII reperitur, sicut in lexico a te citato reperimus; servitute in uno tantum manuscripto carminum Anglonormannicorum Mariae "de France" (auctricis saec. XII, manuscripto saec. XIII); "servitude" saepe a saec. XIII, et primum in Le roman de la rose, opere Ioannis de Meung optime cognito et a multis perlecto. Ita, si Ioannes de Meung ita scripsit, scimus cur haec orthographia ab aliis postea adhibita sit. Sed ille cur ita scripsit? (Tant sunt d'avarice lié / Qu'il ont leur naturel franchise / A vils servitude soumise ...). Verbum Latinum servitudo e fonte religioso saec. V citatur; verbum Francogallicum servituit, si Ioannes de Meung cognovit, in hoc versu aegrius inserere potuit; verbum servitute fortasse nemo re vera adhibuit nisi scriba Anglonormannicus aliquis. ... ?? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Gratias ago de responsione iucundissima! Adhuc restant quaestiones (nam stultus plus quaeritat quam sapienti respondere vacat :-) ). In Romantia de Rosa non solum servitude sed etiam servitute invenitur; v. versus 9493-6 (ed. Poirion, 1974): "Por ce, compains, li ancien, / Sans servitute et sans lien, / Pesiblement, sans vilonnie / S'entreportoient compaignie, / ..." Nonne consentaneum sit ambo a verbo Latino q.e. servitus/servitute(m) deducere (cf. Hisp.antiqua servitud)? Nescio. ¶ Dixisti autem: "Verbum Latinum servitudo e fonte religioso saec. V citatur". Velim scire: ex quo fonte religioso? Ex Augustino? Neander (disputatio) 16:20, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Quaestioni ultimae primum respondeo: e pagina quam tu citavisti repeto "déb. 5e s. ds Blaise Lat. chrét.", sed an recte haec interpretavi, nescio!
Romantiae de Rosa indicem verborum plenum non habui. Bene! Ipse igitur Ioannes de Meung incertus fortasse erat de orthographia optima eius verbi quod Francogallice scribere voluit. Sed (si res ita stat) bene videmus cur lectores huius poëmatis formam quam primum viderunt, et quae facilius in lingua sua accommodatur, praetulerunt: sunt enim multa verba erudita -tude, pauca -tute. Ad rem: verbum "virtus/-tutem" per dialectos Romanicos transmissum est: Dacoromanice vărtute, Occitanice virtut sed Francogallice vertu, Anglice ex Anglonormannico virtue sonat.
An formae ambae a verbo Latino servitus/servitute(m) deducere possumus, dicere haud valeo -- id confiteor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Dum haec disputatio erudita continuat, "servitudo, vocabulum linguae recentioris" scripsi. Ut videtur, aliquando servitudo in usum venit (fortasse propter lectionem erroneam Livii et aliorum), sed quando, difficile est confirmare, fortasse non ante Novum aevum. Servitus semper usitatior videtur: in libris Google sunt fere 1060 exempli servitudinis et fere 337,000 exempli servitutis. ¶ Anglice praeter servitude fuit servitute quoque, e.g. apud Chaucer (in OED, 1386), "In gret lordshipe, if I wel avyse, Ther is gret servitute in sondry wyse." Primum exemplum servitude est apud Caxton, 1473: "Or that we shall be ledde in seruytude & bondage in to strange contreyes." Lesgles (disputatio) 17:41, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Chaucer Romantiam Rosae perlegit et partim Anglice vertit. Ibi fortasse verbum "servitute" repperit. Minime autem in illa versione, sed in Fabulis Cantuariensibus, citatio tua occurritur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 2 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Blaise mihi praesto non est, sed "déb. 5e s." saltem cum Augustino congruere videtur. Sed servitudo in indice lemmatum Augustinianorum non invenitur. Nebulo haeremus. Constat quidem servitudinem in verbo Fr.anc. servitune (Chrétien de Troyes, Le chevalier à la charrette 642 "En servitune et en essil") latere: servitudine(m) > servitud'ne > servitune (?). Quod meam opinionem, servitute ~ servitude, formas apud Meung variantes, ambas a Lat. servitute originem trahere (servitute simpliciter, servitude euphoniae causa), corroborare videtur. Sed nescio. Neander (disputatio) 18:58, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Res gravior[fontem recensere]

Supra de termino technico satis disputavimus. Res gravior est natura huius commentationis, verbis Anglicis celatis fartae, fontibus Anglicis plenae in bibliographia et inter nexus externos, Quis inter nos emendabit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 28 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Quaestio de bibliographia non parvi momenti: quomodo generaliter iudicare debemus, qualia et quanta opera linguis non Latinis scriptis paginae addere? Lesgles (disputatio) 13:39, 2 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Id quod dicere supra volui, brevissime evolvo. Fontes Anglici non mali sunt; de rebus hodiernis et recentibus fontes Latinos aegre reperimus; sed si de re gravi et universali nihil nisi fontes Anglicos citaverimus, bibliographiam aut augere aut emendare oportet. Lectorum enim Vicipaediae sunt qui Anglice legere possunt, sunt qui aliis linguis malunt. Saepe sine difficultate libros utiles Francogallicos, Theodiscos, Hispanicos ex Vicipaediis fraternalibus selectos citare possumus. Sed tu quid dicis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 2 Iunii 2014 (UTC)