Disputatio Usoris:Sinister Petrus/Bellum falsum
Non certus de verbis sum. De casu: I use "casus" in two ways. And I don't like it. "Casus belli" is the right expression here, so I'm not too worried. But Smith and Hall say "casus" is also the word for casualty: mind you, I don't want to say "dead", but "dead and wounded." Because I think the numbers are figured that way. De vi: Is this really the word I want to show stregth of force? Or might "numerus militum" be better? I can live with the rest.
Also, do you think we should say "anno" and "loco" or "annus" and "locus"?
This has been very tricky from the formula syntax side to figure out which end is up, but the thing does work. I'm interested in the choice of words. Since it is so tricky, please don't go tinkering with the formula (unless you *know* how these things work). Once word choice is ironed out, I'll put it on a few pages and see how it looks for real, and maybe write a usage section so other people can figure out how to use it. Sinister Petrus 00:48, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Anno yes, but I would use locative for locus (loci) not ablative of place in. For casus you mean how many deaths? You want different numbers for casualties and deaths? I would also use copia instead of miles. Answer these, and I'll see what else I can offer.--Ioshus (disp) 01:10, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Don't use loci: locus, irony notwithstanding, does not occur in the locative. --Iustinus 02:02, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Mehercule...that's how I felt when my CALCULs teacher told me we couldn't use CALCULators in his class...--Ioshus (disp) 02:34, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- For annus and locus, I am unudecided. I guess nominative makes sense, since we don't have any explicit verb.
- For forces, yeah, I'm with Ioshus, do copiae.
- For consequences, ether consequentia (n. pl.) or exitus... or a whole slew of other words listed in Smith's.
- Not sure about "casualties" though. --Iustinus 02:02, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Duh mihi. copiae is the right word. And it probably should be annus and locus just to keep things straight.
- Yes, I want a word for casualties that includes both dead and wounded, or at the least is ambiguious. See some of the English language battle pages to see how it's handled. For an example, look here to get an idea of what I'm aiming at. I'll nose into my copy of Smith's for a better word for consequences. Sinister Petrus 04:42, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps damnum or damna?--Iovis Fulmen 15:51, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I want a word for casualties that includes both dead and wounded, or at the least is ambiguious. See some of the English language battle pages to see how it's handled. For an example, look here to get an idea of what I'm aiming at. I'll nose into my copy of Smith's for a better word for consequences. Sinister Petrus 04:42, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Mutationes novae
[fontem recensere]Ecce mutationes! Dic mihi, quaeso, sententias tuas:
Consequentio => consequentia (chose this after looking at Smith and Hall's various entries) vis => copia (mutatum propter disputationem, duh mihi!) Casus => Mortui sauciique (Conveys both dead *and* wounded, nonne?) anno => annus (mutatum propter disputationem) loco => locus (mutatum propter disputationem)
I really liked damnatus for casualties, but in the end decided for the exactness (and less charged words) of "mortui sauciique." The rest should be obvious. Thanks for giving me the time to get to this (I'm in the middle of moving). Sinister Petrus 00:54, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
- Inspice, quaeso, Usor:Iovis Fulmen/Talvisota, qua pagina formula tua usus sum. Suntne terroriae mutatae nationes, cuius partes auctae vel minutae sunt aut partes ipsae, quae nationi demptae sunt? Notam illic relinques. --Iovis Fulmen 20:11, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)