Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Civitates provectibiles insulanae" differant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia
Content deleted Content added
Linea 18: Linea 18:


Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion. Is it ok to use aerumnia(traupman)?[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 05:27, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion. Is it ok to use aerumnia(traupman)?[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 05:27, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

== Civitates provectibiles insulanae ==

This alternative name has been suggested. Please apply why this should be preferred.--[[Usor:Nicolaus Augurinus|Nicolaus Augurinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Nicolaus Augurinus|disputatio]]) 21:25, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Emendatio ex 21:25, 6 Februarii 2013

Fixing the table?

Can anyone please fix the table to something a la the English page? --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 02:03, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way is to delete the formulae (templates) in the table, and replace them with the required names of states. You could do that yourself ... Formulae (templates) are specific to each Wikipedia, unfortunately. Occasionally we have a direct equivalent of English templates here on Vicipaedia, but more often not. I myself think it would be a waste of time to localize these particular templates, but of course anyone can do that who wishes. Andrew Dalby 12:48, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 13:16, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give a source for civitaticula extra vicipaediam? Also also isnt small supposed to be modifying island and not state?42.73.36.62 04:21, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is used in a middle age work on page 667: [[1]]. But it seems to me that civitatula is far more common, and therefore I wouldn't mind it altered. It is attested in a work of Seneca: [[2]]. But regarding the second question, I'd say we would make the title very confusing if we were to include two nouns in the title; it's much more simple to have like: "(small) insular, developing states", or can you make up something better?--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 11:22, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe when multiple noun phrases are translated into latin it is normally rephrased using genitive,e.g.: Crescentes insularum parvarum civitates. But perhaps someone else more knowledgeable can comment first.--118.160.28.230 12:08, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Written before the change of title.] Yes, and as 118.160.28.230 indicates, the sense of the phrase small island developing states is obviously 'civitates crescentes quae parvae insulae sunt', not 'parvae civitates crescentes quae insulae sunt'. To the people who coined the phrase, this may be a distinction without a difference, but in expressing the thought in a case-marking language, the syntactical relationships among the words matter. In traditional English style, the phrase with the obvious meaning would bear a hyphen: Small-Island Developing States, but hyphens are usually omitted nowadays in proper nouns; hence, New York Harbor, not New-York Harbor, though traditional usage survives in the hyphen of the New-York Historical Society. If the states, not the islands, were meant to be small, the English name would have been Small Developing Island States. But against all that stands the fact that we can't trust bureaucrats to say what they mean. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why was it this should be better than Civitaticulae Insulanae Crescentes or Civitatulae Insulanae Crescentes? The meaning is nearly the same, and it seems to me you are just trying alternatives for their own sake. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 12:46, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The potential meanings of the English phrase are not at all the same, as explained above. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equidem Iacobo assentior. Cum titulum Anglicum his verbis, civitates crescentes quae parvae insulae sunt, aperuit, rem recte perspexit (nempe si titulum Anglicum respicimus). Hanc ideam quo modo in titulum aptum vertamus, alia quaestio est. Constat quidem civitates et crescentes hic artiore inter se nexu conceptuali teneri; itaque debeant etiam in confinio syntactico esse: civitates crescentes insulanae. Deminutivum insulae non est, sed eo vix opus est, nam parvitas hic levioris momenti esse videtur. Neander (disputatio) 20:11, 10 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problema

I made the mistake of using problema as a term describing problems of a state. This usage is of course wrong, and somebody has been so kind to correct this. But the very same person has written that problema isn't word in Latin, so I just wanted to point out that it is [[3]], but it means something like a puzzle.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 13:07, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that problemae is not a word in Latin. The word is neuter, not feminine, and Cassell's says to translate the English word 'problem' as quaestio, which indeed has a sense different from the one usually attached to problem these days. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the neuter, I see. Thank you. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 13:29, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion. Is it ok to use aerumnia(traupman)?Jondel (disputatio) 05:27, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civitates provectibiles insulanae

This alternative name has been suggested. Please apply why this should be preferred.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 21:25, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]