Disputatio Vicipaediae:Malefactor

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Protegendan Rolande?--Ioscius (disp) 17:37, 10 Novembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protecting the page would be a good idea, I think. --Rolandus 18:13, 10 Novembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destructor[fontem recensere]

I think corruptor would be better, as not all vandals destruunt. Harrissimo 14:22, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

From there there could also be useful terms like corrumpo (I vandalise)haec pagina corrupta est (this page has been vandalised), corruptio (vandalism), corruptivus, corruptibilis (liable to be vandalised - and of course corruptibilitas (the state of being liable to be vandalised)). Harrissimo 14:27, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Or how about this: If the general user is an usor, a vandal could be an abusor (attested). There is also abutor (I vandalise), abusus (vandalism). Not as many derivatives as corru(m)p(t)- but still should be considered. Harrissimo 22:18, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Abusor certainly makes a good deal of sense, but it sounds more scolding. Destructor has that nice, booming ring to it... I certainly see your point, but even vandalism that is just nugae and not deletion still destroys the spirit of the project. I don't see it as big a deal as you, but I'm certainly happy to consider what others have to say, and go with a change if necessary.--Ioscius (disp) 19:55, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like vandalus, even though it seems as if it was only applied to the ethnic group in classical Latin without a figurative sense. But since they seem to be extinct as such, why not benefit from their reputation in finding a suitable word? --Ceylon 22:36, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that would nurture vandalismus, vandalizo etc. which are not a good standard to be setting if we are to be sine fictione (sorry for being so tight about this). Harrissimo 22:43, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Then again vandalismus is in {{Helfer}}. Harrissimo 22:56, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Turbator? Sounds awkward, but is real classical Latin (as opposed to destructor which has quite another sense). But no better than corruptor. --Ceylon 23:00, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, turbator should work, but malefactor may be more widely & readily understood. IacobusAmor 00:20, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather maleficus then (malefactor not being too common a word)? Vicipaedia seems a little overkeen on nouns ending -or (usor, locutor, etc.). I think we should try to use them more sparingly and look for suitable participles or adjectives wherever possible (utens - I am aware that this has been discussed previously -, loquens, etc.). --Ceylon 06:52, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I suggested malefactor, rather than maleficus, is that the former is listed as a substantive in Cassell's, but the latter isn't; of course adjectives can easily become substantives, so the distinction may not matter. Also, malefactor has become a perfectly good word in English, but maleficus hasn't. IacobusAmor 12:35, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Perfidus" too can express the "mala fides" of the vandal.Lio 21:15, 21 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think now that we should have malefactor. Despite the fact that we may overuse -or nouns, malefactor still retains some of that boom which Ioscius speaks of above. There can be malefacio and maleficium for verbal and noun forms. Is that OK? Harrissimo 20:11, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]