Disputatio:The Wall Street Journal

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Coinages[fontem recensere]

Correct my coinages as you will: pro commentaribus quae investigant (for articles that investigate) morem (the practice) diem retrosignandi (of backward-marking the date) optionum quae attinent (of options that pertain) ad sortes pecuniarias (to stocks) = for articles on the practice of backdating stock options. IacobusAmor 13:43, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Gratias[fontem recensere]

Thanks, Iustine, for the most excellent corrections, both in vocabulary & in syntax! Since you emailed me a heads-up, it was a fair guess that you'd come in and change a few things around, and I could learn from the changes. One thing that's a surprise: the tense of your 'surpassed'. On the basis of B&A #440 and its example—In senatu fuit quoad (or donec) senatus dimissus est. He was in the senate till the moment when it was adjourned.—I had edebat, donec . . . superavit, and you've changed that to edebat, dum . . . superaverit. The only temporal difference between these independent clauses is that mine was imperfect and B&A's is perfect. Could you point to a place in A&G or B&A that discusses these temporalities? IacobusAmor 15:10, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I confess that that change was not based on any grammatical error, but just that it usually seems safer to use dum+subj. than donec. However, perhaps I was a little overzealous here, because I bet if we look in the grammar books we'll find out that since this was an event that actually happened, rather than a potential future, donec+ind. is more correct.
Ha! You were taking superaverit as perfect subjunctive, and I was taking it as future perfect indicative! I suppose I conceived it as nonsubjunctive because the event really happened. IacobusAmor 19:55, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
But another matter:
pro commentariis quae investigaverunt morem optionum, quae pertinent ad sortes pecuniarias, diem retrosignandi,
You removed those commas on the grounds that they imply a restrictive relative. But my intention was rather to set off the relative clause to make the syntax more clear. Investigaverunt morem optionum diem retrosignandi, nempe optionum quae pertinent ad sortes pecuniarias. It seems to me that without some sort of punctuation, most readers will lose track of the sentence: when they hit sortes pecuniarias diem retrosignandi they'll have already forgotten optionum and wonder what's going on. And of course punctuation customs vary from language to language, so I'm not sure we can say with 100% authority that commas should only be used in restrictive clauses. (Just so long as we don't use German commas! ;) ) --Iustinus 19:26, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
To my eye, writers don't use enough commas. Maybe the latest rewrite (right here) is better yet. IacobusAmor 19:58, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Diurni nomen Latinizans[fontem recensere]

Iustine, elsewhere you say our lemma for The New York Times "Should be: 'The New York Times (Tempora Novieboracensia)' -- adjective not genitive!" Therefore, so as to make the WSJ's lemma parallel, do we want an adjective for Wall Street? and if so, what should it be? Fill in the blank: The Wall Street Journal (Diurnum ......... )! IacobusAmor 15:55, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Murivicense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Factum est! Gratias! IacobusAmor 16:23, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)