Disputatio Categoriae:Litterae Anglicae
Subcategoriae?[fontem recensere]
Categoria confusa videtur. Fortasse in saltem quattuor subcategorias dividi debet: Critici (iudices litterarum), Opera, Praemia (et dignitates similes), Scriptores. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:45, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Haec categoria paginas de litteris scriptis continere debet, neque de criticis neque de scriptoribus.
- Sed recte mones: continet etiam subcategorias de auctoribus. [
Si confusionem interficere vis, eas subcategorias potes in novam categoriam segregare, e.g. Categoria:Categoriae ex auctoribus appellatae.Hanc categoriam iam habemus.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC) - OK, I see it all now, and you're right, it's far from ideal. The quick solution is to separate them first into one subcategory -- Categoria:Categoriae ex auctoribus Anglicis appellatae -- and then subdivide further if you wish. Would that be a reasonable start? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
Campus huius categoriae[fontem recensere]
Campus huius categoriae est "Litterae Anglice scriptae"? Just checking. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:51, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly so. All the "Litterae ..." categories relate to language in which the text is written. The "Britanniae scripta", "Civitatum Foederatarum scripta" etc. categories relate to the country where the text was written. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- So then for articles dealing with "Tongan Literature in English," which is the apter lemma: Litterae Tonganae or Litterae Tongae? And does a word for "English" want to be specified? (It's not in the English wikipedia, which assumes that literature = English literature.) For the Pacific Islands, two such articles were born today, and more are gestating. Their lemmata tentatively use the adjectival form, but the pattern can easily be changed. Planning might include the possibility that articles having the pattern of "Tongan Literature in Tongan" will someday come into existence. (Tongan is less likely than, say, Samoan to warrant such an article, but the point is the pattern, not the particular language.) ¶ And on a related note, how about translations? For example, Robert Louis Stevenson's story "The Bottle Imp" appeared in Samoa in a Samoan translation only two to three months after it appeared in English in New York & London. The English Wikipedia doesn't seem to know this (or care about it), but since the story is set in Hawaii, its categories do include "Hawaiiana" and "Hawaii in fiction." ¶ A possibly pertinent point is that, for languages, the concepts of "Oceanic languages" and "languages of Oceania" are distinct and will require separate articles and separate categorical trees: the former is linguistically based (in a taxonomy where many languages indigenously spoken in Oceania are not "Oceanic"), and the latter is pragmatically based ("languages spoken in Oceania"). If the pattern has implications elsewhere, we might expect "Oceanic languages" to be Linguae Oceanicae and "languages of Oceania" to be Linguae Oceaniae. The former is a subset of the latter. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:05, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew that about the languages. I think that's a separate issue (and not a problem, so far as I know). We do have separate category trees for languages-by-family and languages-by-country (in the latter, if required, languages-by-continent can be intercalated). Phew!
- I believe yours are the first articles we have had on the theme of the literature of a particular modern place/region/country. So, that's really good, and you are free to work out what you want to call them. I have only tried to devise a category structure; I have not speculated on names for potential articles.
- Because there have been no articles, there are also not yet any categories covering the literary culture of particular places. The "Litterae" category tree is definitely language-related, not place-related.
- We do have categories for specific texts written/published in specific countries (Categoria:Australiae scripta etc.). Now that you have given the impulse, I suggest that these should become sub-categories of whatever categories we now devise for the literary culture of specific countries; which should be sub-categories of the general culture of each country. [Afterthought: the languages-by-country categories that we mentioned above could also then become subcategories of those general culture categories.] How does that look to you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:44, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Good, but alas, it's time to run. More tomorrow! ¶ Would an article on the Samoan translation of "The Bottle Imp" go under "Categoria:Samoae scripta" or "Categoria:Samoae libri conversi" or what? Among famous works available in Samoan is, IIRC, King Solomon's Mines. A propos Rider Haggard, since the third-person pronoun in Polynesian has no gender, it would be interesting to know how the mysterious she of "She who must be obeyed" would be rendered. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:03, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll leave you to work that out. As to question one, that article would surely be a first among the wikipedias! and it would fit under Categoria:Litterae Samoane versae (compare Categoria:Litterae Latine versae). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:18, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Good, but alas, it's time to run. More tomorrow! ¶ Would an article on the Samoan translation of "The Bottle Imp" go under "Categoria:Samoae scripta" or "Categoria:Samoae libri conversi" or what? Among famous works available in Samoan is, IIRC, King Solomon's Mines. A propos Rider Haggard, since the third-person pronoun in Polynesian has no gender, it would be interesting to know how the mysterious she of "She who must be obeyed" would be rendered. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:03, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- So then for articles dealing with "Tongan Literature in English," which is the apter lemma: Litterae Tonganae or Litterae Tongae? And does a word for "English" want to be specified? (It's not in the English wikipedia, which assumes that literature = English literature.) For the Pacific Islands, two such articles were born today, and more are gestating. Their lemmata tentatively use the adjectival form, but the pattern can easily be changed. Planning might include the possibility that articles having the pattern of "Tongan Literature in Tongan" will someday come into existence. (Tongan is less likely than, say, Samoan to warrant such an article, but the point is the pattern, not the particular language.) ¶ And on a related note, how about translations? For example, Robert Louis Stevenson's story "The Bottle Imp" appeared in Samoa in a Samoan translation only two to three months after it appeared in English in New York & London. The English Wikipedia doesn't seem to know this (or care about it), but since the story is set in Hawaii, its categories do include "Hawaiiana" and "Hawaii in fiction." ¶ A possibly pertinent point is that, for languages, the concepts of "Oceanic languages" and "languages of Oceania" are distinct and will require separate articles and separate categorical trees: the former is linguistically based (in a taxonomy where many languages indigenously spoken in Oceania are not "Oceanic"), and the latter is pragmatically based ("languages spoken in Oceania"). If the pattern has implications elsewhere, we might expect "Oceanic languages" to be Linguae Oceanicae and "languages of Oceania" to be Linguae Oceaniae. The former is a subset of the latter. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:05, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
Fauna et Mammalia[fontem recensere]
Re: which is the apter lemma: Litterae Tonganae or Litterae Tongae? I was just about, Iacobe, to ask you the same question concerning the following categories (half of which were created by Hendricus, and about the other half by you):
Just tell me which lemma you prefer and I can do the rest … Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:20, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about these; I'll sort them out them soon. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:15, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)