Disputatio:Accius Watanabeus

"Background"

Jondel, regarding our conversation in the edit history: abscedentia is generally used at the Conventiculum when we describe images. Morgan's Silva cites Levine's Latin Dictionary for this meaning. I suspect this comes ultimately from Vitruvius, who uses the word in a similar, if not identical sense; e.g. 1.2.2 "frontis et laterum abscedentium adumbratio," 7.0.11 "quae in directis planisque frontibus sint figurata, alia abscedentia, alia prominentia esse videantur." --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:07, 14 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vide etiam hic (et passim) --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:15, 14 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you do that search? I never knew you could do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well for works that are on archive.org (e.g. http://archive.org/details/deideafelicitat01menggoog), there are several options in the "View the book" box. Click on "Read online" to get the view I was using, and from there you can just enter text in the search box. --Iustinus (disputatio) 05:34, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly always use "read online", but I never saw the search box. I'm a fool Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. In the image, ~~abscentibus~~ not abscedentia is used. I think there is a grammar rule for things that are not countable(air, sugar, background etc). Jondel (disputatio) 05:24, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. You may have to explain in more detail what you mean. But in any case, abscedentibus is just the dat/abl of abscedentia, i.e. the neuter plural present active participle of abscedere "to recede." --Iustinus (disputatio) 05:34, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant abscedentibus. Shouldn't it be singular ablative (not dative although they have the same forms)(and neutral)? ~~E.g. abscedentia. (in the background= in abscendentia)~~?

In other words, you're thinking of abscedentia -ae f. which, so far as I know, is not attested, but is a perfectly good formation for "recession," "state of receding" or the like. But it's actually the plural of abscedens... in other words, in abscedentibus literally means "among the receding things." Perhaps in abscedentiā makes more intuitive sense, but so far as I know it is not used. --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:11, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry again. shouldn't it be (--singular ablative--, thus ) abscedenti or abscedente (I didn't check the grammar form). But I got what your saying , among the receding things (thus plural). I guess I should make effort to find out if certain words were ever used.Jondel (disputatio) 06:50, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that's how I tend to or try to do things, intuitively.Jondel (disputatio) 07:08, 18 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"natione Iapo"

= 'by race a Jap' (ex Iapo, -onis)? Is that a conventicular usage? Just checking. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:23, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesuits called the country Iapo -nis and the people Iaponii, but modern usage has overwhelmingly changed those to Iaponia and Iapones respectively (with the additional adjective Iaponicus). I have no idea when, or how, this change came about. It is true that in English ethnic nouns are almost invariably insulting, especially in the singular, if a separate ethnic adjective also exists (compare, for example, the complexities of "Jew" vs. "Jewish".) And it so happens that the only ethnic nouns for Japan in English are slurs from the WWII era. This does not mean that it is the case in Latin, and Accius does in fact refer to himself as a Iapo, so I think it's safe to use here. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:19, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept Nuada's names for the inhabitants of each of hundreds of Italian hamlets, examples that prove the productivity of the pattern, we couldn't go wrong with Iaponiensis 'a Japanese person'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:58, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, we could say Brittaniensis or Italiensis and no one could say we were wrong, but why would we do such a thing? Ethnics in -o -onis are hardly unusual either: Cicones, Macedones, Teutones, Francones, Gothones, Mygdones, Vascones, Brittones etc etc etc. It seems to me you have a frisson at this name simply because the ethnic nouns in English happen to be offensive, but not every such rule ports from one language to another. And even if it did, if anyone is in a position to judge whether Iapones is offensive or not, it is Accius himself, and he has at least two works that use this form in the title alone. --Iustinus (disputatio) 18:18, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Brit(t)o, similarly, is not offensive or indecently colloquial (unlike "Brit", which carries baggage). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"mythistoriae Graecae studet"

= 'he's keen on the Greek novel'? The brain first registered it as mythologiae Graecae, but then reality set in. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:34, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are being flippantly literal here, because studere for "study" is hardly a new invention. But, if you must, you could translate it "his academic interest is...." And yes, I am referring to the en:Ancient Greek novel. Again, as we've discussed before, mythistoria is a Conventiculum usage, and definitely what Accius uses. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:19, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point was the field of study, not the translation of the verb studere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:33, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then are we square, or did you have a further issue? --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:46, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

OK, Iacobe, our usual game begins ;) I need to argue or at least ask about some of your changes:

Studuit quoque → Studuit etiam: why? What's wrong with quoque?

Cassell's: "placed after the word which it emphasizes": he studies A, B, and C too v. he studies too A, B, C. Not worth worrying over. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:32, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need further clarification. Are you saying Cassell's says etiam is used this way, but quoque isn't? --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:46, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By way of clarification: Etiam tu, Brute! = Tu quoque, Brute! Neander (disputatio) 17:47, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had capitalized Linguis Peregrinis as being the name of the degree (since different schools and different departments style their degrees differently), but I don't think I was consistent about this, and it's a minor point anyway.

The names of fields of study, even in English, are lowercased, except when they're proper nouns in their own right: PhD in mathematics, PhD in modern languages, PhD in English, PhD in English literature. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:32, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then fair enough. --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:46, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[Universitas Californiae Davis|Universitatis Californianae Davisii]]: fair enough, and TNP and all, but I'm not convinced Universitas Californiae Davis is any less fictum than Aki's Universitas Californiana Davisii. After all, almost every University with a name of the form "University of {PLACENAME}" ends up in Latin as Universitas {TOPONYM-}ensis, except in cases like "University of {ADJECTIVE} {PLACENAME}" etc. Davis is, of course, a place name as well, so it makes sense to put it in the locative ("The California-University at Davis," so to speak). Yes, this is unattested, but I'd rather we either leave this one unlinked until we can find something official, or just use Aki's form: it may not be what the University itself uses, but he did work there as a Classics professor. What the classics department uses is not, by my standards, good enough in itself for Nomina universitatum Latina decreto adoptata, but if we're going to write an article about a school then that's better than nothing.

--Iustinus (disputatio) 19:19, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, where we get Universitas Kentu(c)kiana [1] (cf. etiam [2]) and Universitas Tokiensis [3] --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:56, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others have already established the Universitas Californiensis (Angelopolis), the Universitas Californiensis (Berkeley), and the Universitas Californiensis (Davis). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:32, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then fair enough. --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:46, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we have only a tiro's page and no citation (so far as I know) for UCD, so if Accius published a Latin name it should certainly be cited on our page. Whether it should prevail and give us a new lemma, you had better decide. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure he's used that name *in print*, I'll have to check. --Iustinus (disputatio) 21:56, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but now I see you modified it *in this article*... and didn't even remove the <ref name="ipsedixit"/>. I have reverted that change, and I hope you won't mind. Yes, an uncitable email from a classics professor who used to work at the department in question is not very good grounds for the official name of an article, but I think the form it takes in an article *about that professor* is an entirely different amphora of garum. --Iustinus (disputatio) 22:02, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I see, so I did. Thanks, that was careless of me. Greetings from chilly France Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that's all it was. Greetings from even chillier Chicago! We should talk one of these days. --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:25, 17 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]