Disputatio:Tonsus Romanus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Iustine Daniellaque, puto locum optimum huius paginae esse Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium/Tonsus Romanus--Xaverius 10:02, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heu, me inscio Daniella hanc proscripsit, ergo suasum tuum non videram ante quam Vicipaedia:Taberna#Student Project scripsi! Hac de causa nesciveram iam controverti utrum in "spatio commentationum" ponendae sint. --Iustinus 07:23, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minimissimas mutationes feci in pagina: categorias, nexus atque lemma scripsi. Sed si miki non licet, eas delebo.--Xaverius 09:46, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Licet sanissume. Ut alibi dixi, non querimur de talibus, tantum de maioribus recensibus substantivis. Praeterea, credo Daniellam in pagina sua iam satisfactam mox formulam {{in progressu}} remoturam esse, {{tiro}} addituram.
Sed de rebus substantivis ecquid dicendum, vobis iudicibus?
--Iustinus 16:23, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowness[fontem recensere]

I suspect the article will get criticism for only covering one subtopic. But really I think this just means someone needs to write the other subtopics, because surely we're not going to create Tonsus Muliebris in tempore Imperii Romani? --Iustinus 18:16, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see not the point in criticizing narrowness. I've said time and time again, good Latin, correct facts, as neutral as possible point of view. That's what we need. Breadth is but a blessing for the size of our project. -- Ioscius 23:09, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Open Season" corrections[fontem recensere]

Iacobe, if you have questions I would really appreciate your posting them here instead of in the text: it makes it so much easier to have a conversation.

  • "ateate (Samoan for 'the beach sunflower', Wedelia sp.) ---> aetate (Latin for 'in the age') &c"

OK, I admit I laughed.

  • "tonsus valde implicatus erat,<!--'had been enfolded, entwined, entangled'-->"

See L&S s.v. implico ad fin. #1: "1. implĭcātus (inpl-), a, um, P. a., entangled, perplexed, confused, intricate"

  • "<!--not in Cassell's-->"

Item, see L&S s.v. concorporo. A perfectly good word, if perhaps not the best one. What do you suggest?

  • "<!--POV & should therefore be cut-->"

I believe Daniella means speciosa not in the sense of "beautiful" but "showy." I don't know if she's hanging around to watch this, but if she's here, perhaps she could clarify. --Iustinus 21:54, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean to use "speciosa" to say "showy" or "spectacular." "Beautiful" is true, the Romans considered the hair to be beautiful. These styles were spectacular from the POV of the Romans, being that the most elite women spent great amounts of time, effort and money on these styles. Also the Juvenal quote helps to support a claim on Roman perspective. --Daniella
Well, "showy" is not a huge issue, but "beautiful" is problematic. If that's what you want to emphasize, we should probably say something like "...was considered beautiful." Still, it seems to me that the way your writing is structured here, the sentence makes more sense if it is about complexity than beauty. --Iustinus 22:41, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus[fontem recensere]

Hmm, any ideas on where incoming links might be planted? --Iustinus 21:16, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index rerum de Roma antiqua? --UV 22:20, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cultus modus? Tonsura?--Xaverius 23:40, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macra[fontem recensere]

Haec in pagina macra sunt: Usor:Coemgenus5833/Tonsus Romanus. --UV 19:01, 19 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]