Disputatio:Transfusio sanguinis

accipendarum =>accipientis?[fontem recensere]

transfusion is the act of accepting blood or parts of blood. Is this correct? I feel comfortable with this form but your suggestion is welcome.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:09, 16 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transfusio est actio sanguinis vel partium sanguinis acceptarum. (Ubi est Neander?) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:22, 21 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. The -ing form in English can be translated by three separate parts of speech in Latin: the participle, the gerund, and the gerundive, but they are not interchangeable. Basically, the participle acts more like an adjective; the gerund (and sometimes gerundive) more like a noun; but I'd advise you to read the relevant sections in a Latin grammar, or at least this review. The gerundive is necessary here; it also usually goes after the object, as I wrote it. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:24, 16 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias responso tuo, Lesgles.

1) Why can't we use the supines, specifically the genitive supine here (accipientis) ? Right now I am changing accipientis sanguinis to accipientis sanguinem and change partium to the accusative partem. Is this ok now?

A similar grammar can be gleaned from the wiki article on en:Lorem ipsum, " iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium", this error is born of blaming pleasure and and praising pain (my interpretation). The genitive supine is not well documented in grammar books though.

I would like to use supine forms and for some reason I feel more comfortable with them.

2) Ok, lets say I would be using a gerundive. How is this?: actionis ~~accipendarum~~ sanguinem accipendarum et partem sanguinis'. the action of accepting blood or parts of blood.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:28, 17 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those latin links Lesgles!--Jondel (disputatio) 17:28, 17 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Accipientis" is not a supine, it is the present active participle in the genitive case; the supine is either acceptum or acceptu, and is irrelevant here.

Cicero uses the plural genitive of the present participle: "accusantium" = lit. "of (those) accusing". Here is how I translate Cicero, though others may want to verify it: "Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam..." = "But so that you will perceive, how that error was born of [those people] who denounce pleasure and praise pain, I will reveal the whole matter..."

So in the latest version of the article, I suppose we could read it as "Transfusio sanguinis est actio accipientis sanguinem vel partem sanguinis" = "Transfusion of blood is the action of a person receiving blood or a part of blood." But at least to my mind, that seems to indicate a specific person, which the gerund or gerundive would help you avoid. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:32, 17 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, not supine and supine is not relevant. My mistake. I would like to use the present form though(genitive present participle.). Would this current form be agreeable or satisfactorily correct latin wise?--Jondel (disputatio) 22:09, 20 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a gerundive would be better, but perhaps others will have opinions on the subject. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:07, 21 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the present participle doesn't work. It gives you a tense, which we don't want, and it expects a subject, which we don't need to have. Lesgles is right, Jondel.

This problem arises when one translates from English into Latin. If you look at the Spanish, you will see that they use a noun transferencia. English uses this -ing form which (unluckily for anyone trying to grasp the grammar of English) has more than one use. Here it is not a participle, it is a verbal noun. It is very often the Latin gerundive that matches it best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:46, 21 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoscatis quaeso, collegae, quod me infero in disputationem vestram. Hoc quidem propositum volui:

"… est modus supplendi sanguinis elementa, si qua deficiunt hominibus aegrotis vel graviter laesis. Infunditur patienti sanguis in venam apertam …" --Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:07, 21 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutabo mox ad morem Lesglis, cum 'accipiendarum ' nam non clarus mihi est quia 'tense' non est ~~propter~~^idoneus et investigans ego. Gratias ad Andrew Lesgles, Iacobus , Laurentius. Ad Laurentium, non potest 'modus supplendi' quia, ut fert wikipeda anglice 'Blood transfusion is generally the process of receiving blood ' ita, est actio sanguinem et partes(an elementa?) sanquinis accipendarum.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:36, 22 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Actio" autem patientis? Opinentur ita Vicipaediani Anglicani, Latine certe non est. Nostin hanc definitionem? --Laurentianus (disputatio) 08:33, 22 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optime, Laurentiane! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 22 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsworth's (saec. 18 & 19): "Actio . . . 1 An action, or operation. . . ." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 22 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sed pro operatio chirurgica, vide Cassell's: "operation . . . in surgery, render by verb" + "operate . . . in surgery, secare (= to cut), scalpellum admovere (Cels.)." + Traupman: "operation . . . (surgical) secti•o -onis f." + Vide L&S. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 22 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonne dicebant a minore ad maius non valere consequentiam? Neutro autem sensu, neve strictiore (medico) neve latiore (grammatico seu communi), illa actio sive operatio ab auctore citato definitur quasi actio cuiusdam recipientis sive patientis, sed ut "actio qua". Haec quidem difficultas causa fuit proponendi vocabulum "modus" ... --Laurentianus (disputatio) 13:30, 22 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certe, Laurentianus, fons tua quam optima est et admiror! Nam, istud pactum est vetus quia sanguis traducitur ex sarcina hodie (non directe ex vasa sanguifera). Certe insero prout fons. Etiam verbi 'operatio chirurgica' videtur mihi gravissimae. Nondum, quomodo reddere possumus 'process'. Emenda autem ut idoneus ~~videris~~^tibi videtur, si tibi placeat.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:09, 23 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's Arnold #395: "The gerundive construction is, in general, preferred to a gerund with an accusative. Epistulae scribendae studiosus is more frequent than epistulam scribendi studiosus." Ergo modus supplendorum sanguinis elementorum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 23 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probe. Licet haec regula generalis habeat exceptionem particularem in ipso casu genetivo numeri pluralis, tamen bene est, dummodo Latine.--Laurentianus (disputatio) 13:43, 23 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoad rem amabo, videas, Jondel, hanc recentissimam definitionem. --Laurentianus (disputatio) 14:26, 24 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qua est "Syntaxeos error fatalis" care Laurentianus? Est vero aliqua error?? Iam quoquo mostravi definitionem ex wikipedia anglice. Quae est dictionario macmillan melius quam wikipedia. Bene, quia transfusio est, nonne melius sit vox 'transfere ' vel 'translatio'. Nonne dixisti 'audacter restituas'? An offensum accipias?--Jondel (disputatio) 09:23, 25 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carissime Jondel, in dies propiores sumus. Missum faciamus illum errorem! Novo proposito tuo valde faveo. Vox enim transferendi et mihi placet, quia proximum est transfundendo. Iuxta eum sensum paginam mutabo sperans, ut mentem tuam bene conceperim. Sin minus, continuabimus patientissime disputantes. Recte mones novissimum decere morem gerere maioribus. Maximi autem illos veteres, quibus ut obtemperemus necesse est cuique nostrum. Laurentianus (disputatio) 11:54, 25 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]