Disputatio:Stephanus Jobs
Jobs =?[fontem recensere]
Labores??? I thought the surname was derived from the biblical Job, so unless the original writer of the article offers an authoritative source attesting this Labores, I suggest we not translate the surname. IacobusAmor 00:16, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Part about his death[fontem recensere]
Why was the section about Jobs' death, i added, deleted? --Mystakuhl 17:00, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know. You were right, obviously. I'll adjust the Latin slightly (but it wasn't bad!) and put it back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not explaining my revert yesterday. I reverted because I saw at least four mistakes in the sentence that was added ("in die", "de Octobris", "amisi", "obit"). Thank you for improving the sentence, Andrew! --UV 19:56, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- And I in turn made one error, which Neander has corrected! That's Vicipaedia ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:06, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok. I have no problem with improving the style and correcting the miskates, thanks about that. But i didn't understand why it was deleted, but here it is again. And I see what my mistakes were...of course I didn't lose the fight angainst the disease, he did^^ But I am not quite sure, if you need the second i in obiit...it ist grammatically correct, but isn't it left out in some ancient latin textes?--Mystakuhl 09:25, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- "Obit" is a common form, certainly, and I think you're right that it is sometimes used for the perfect tense (I haven't checked). In pasting the text back in, I preferred "obiit" merely because it is unambiguous: it can only be the perfect tense. "Obit" can also be the present.
- Let me add that (in my experience) UV nearly always explains his edits, and nearly always has a very good reason for them. I think I guessed his reason here -- the fact of Jobs's death is already stated in the first sentence and (obviously working at speed) he thought it better to remove an ungrammatical sentence because it did not add any facts.
- As it happens, I nearly always seem to agree with UV! But this time, on reflection, I agreed with you, Mystakuhl, that the biographical text needed rounding off. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, the correct perfect form is always obiit. The contracted form obit is used only by some poets metri causa. E.g. Lucretius (3.1055) has ips(e) Epicurus obit decurso lumine vitae, because obiit would be metrically impossible. Neander 10:33, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that all makes sense. Although I know that "obiit" is the correct form, I didn't know that "obit" was only used for a correct metric. You never stop learning. --Mystakuhl 21:03, 19 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, the correct perfect form is always obiit. The contracted form obit is used only by some poets metri causa. E.g. Lucretius (3.1055) has ips(e) Epicurus obit decurso lumine vitae, because obiit would be metrically impossible. Neander 10:33, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok. I have no problem with improving the style and correcting the miskates, thanks about that. But i didn't understand why it was deleted, but here it is again. And I see what my mistakes were...of course I didn't lose the fight angainst the disease, he did^^ But I am not quite sure, if you need the second i in obiit...it ist grammatically correct, but isn't it left out in some ancient latin textes?--Mystakuhl 09:25, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- And I in turn made one error, which Neander has corrected! That's Vicipaedia ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:06, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not explaining my revert yesterday. I reverted because I saw at least four mistakes in the sentence that was added ("in die", "de Octobris", "amisi", "obit"). Thank you for improving the sentence, Andrew! --UV 19:56, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)