Disputatio:Iohannes Raginualdus Raguel Tolkien

munere fungebatur

Before I edited this article, it contained the words "munere fungebatur" right after the first paragraph. Anyone any idea where they belonged, if anywhere? --Agricola 18:46, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's clearly my fault, but I don't remember what I had in mind (and don't have time right now to ponder it over). --Iustinus 18:53, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis

Hello. I would like to say something to the effect that Tolkien was a friend of C.S. Lewis. Any suggestions as to the best way to do this? Thanks Arminius 21:05, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah.

Tolkien linguae fabulae facere amabat. Tolkien multos linguae faciebat, sed illustrissimus Quenya Sindarinque est. → Tolkien, linguas fabulosas excogitare diligens, multas linguas faciebat, quorum illustrissimae sunt Quenya et Sindarin. (Multa menda manent.) IacobusAmor 04:10, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De variis rebus

De questionibus a IacobusAmor praepositis. Haec puto responsiones esse: - Quenya formosissima lingua est (http://www.langmaker.com/top10.htm) - Morphologia Quenyae similis est Lingua Finnia (speciatim -solum?- declinationes) Cato censor 14:36, 20 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latinitas -5

-5? Really?? That seems a bit excessive to me. --Iustinus 08:50, 27 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it ain't great, but -5 is harsh.--Ioscius ^(disp) 05:09, 28 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuel

I'm entirely sure I'd mentioned this before, but apparently never onwiki — 'Reuel' is not here a surname, so per VP:TNP probably ought to be translated; it's an ordinary if uncommon Biblical name (given, for example, to Moses' father-in-law) which in Latin versions is rendered Raguel—or sometimes Rahuel in lists of generations. Any objection to a move to Iohannes Raginualdus Raguel Tolkien? —Mucius Tever 00:33, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon is putting it mildly: I have never encountered it anywhere else! You're right, we should use the Latin form. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oera Latina

I was disappointed to discover that "Natura Apis Morali Ricardi Eremite" from Songs for the Philologists is, despite the title, written in Modern English. So I guess "hoc opus Dominae amabili loscelinae in honorem inscripsit auctor Reginualdus" remains his only known Latin work! --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:22, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to mention Tolkien's edition of Gawain.

I'd be very grateful to anyone who can help me attempt to compose a simple mention of Tolkien's widely admired and used edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. It will no doubt be evident instantly that I have the weakest grasp of Latin, so if anyone can push me the right way I will be happy. I am trying to say something like "Tolkien and his friend and pupil E.V. Gordon edited the tale Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, composed in the fourteenth century in Middle English, in 1925. This edition, amended by Norman Davis in 1967, is still read and of value today.":

Anno 1925 Tolkien et amicus et discipulus suus E.V. Gordon fabulam ‘De Domino Gavino et Milite Viride’, quae saeculo quartodecimo lingua anglica mediaevale composita, ediderunt. Editio haec, anno 1967 Normanno Davis emendata, usque ad diem hodiernam valet et legitur. Fergus Wilde (disputatio) 10:33, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflict: written before the comments of 11:35, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC): ¶ Not bad, and hardly weak! Much better than many passages that get added to Vicipaedia! I have to run, so just some quick points. Put the complex appositive after Gordon's name (not even English used to prepose long, multiword appositives much until the past century, or even half-century). Haec usually precedes its noun. 'Middle English' is going to want to link to an article (which apparently hasn't been written yet), and anglica mediaevale may or may not be the best name for it; Vicipaedia would capitalize Anglica (but don't you want an adverb, Anglice?). The quae requires a verb (composita est), or delete quae and change to compositam. You need a before Normanno. Cut today from the English, as it conveys no new information, the date already being indicated by the tense of the verb. For 'still', look up iam (so: iam legitur et magni habetur 'is still read and highly valued'; or compress to iam legitur, magni habita). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad at all! Since the date and language of Sir Gawain is well handled with a participle (composita), there's no need for any relative (qua). There's no need for suus because in context we assume that Gordon is Tolkien's friend and student, not anyone else's. Norman Davies, being an animate agent, requires a preposition. 3rd declension nouns in the abl. sing. end in -e, but adjectives (normally) in -i. Unless there is a reliable source for a Latin title of Sir Gawain (which there may be), we privilege the English title (or whatever is the original language). "Fabula" is quite OK, but since Sir Gawain is in the epic zone, we can alternatively call it a "cantilena" (the same word used of the Roland poem that was sung before the Battle of Hastings). If you prefer brevity (some don't), you can say "usque adhuc" or "etiam nunc" for "until and including today". Hence these suggested changes:

Anno 1925 Tolkien amicusque et discipulus E. V. Gordon cantilenam Sir Gawain and the Green Knight ("De domino Gavino et equite viridi"), saeculo quartodecimo lingua Anglica media compositam, ediderunt. Editio haec, anno 1967 a Normanno Davis emendata, etiam nunc valet et legitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We distinctly agree, as we often do! I didn't use the adverb "Anglice" because I don't know any grammatical way to modify such an adverb. I think that if you want to say not "in English" but "in middle English" you can't use the adverb; you have to use the ablative of the language name instead, noun + adjective, which a further adjective can then qualify. If anyone has a better way to do this in Latin I'd love to know. (To make it clear that my words are ablatives, with long -a, I could optionally have written "linguá Anglicá mediá".) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I was trying for ablative in saying 'lingua anglica medievale' - but not doubt Andrew's is better in that it names 'Middle English' rather than just calling it 'medieval English'. I put 'miles' for knight, and probably included the un-needed 'suus' because almost all the Latin I read is in medieval chronicles, where both practices are normal. Thanks again, and I will revisit the sentence and ask you again for marks before posting it in the article Fergus Wilde (disputatio) 15:12, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ For the pattern heard in 'to speak English', Ainsworth's, Lewis & Short, Cassell's, and Traupman—that's four different dictionaries!—have the equivalent of Anglice loqui, so that's unquestionably right. Additionally, Cassell's offers the pattern of lingua Anglica uti, where uti, as usual, governs the ablative. 'To write' (scribere) and 'to put together' (componere) presumably follow the example of loqui and seek an adverb. So then if Anglica Media were the name of the language, typing "[[Anglica Media|Anglice medii aevi]] composita" might work. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:37, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Iacobe, but I don't find that persuasive. "Anglica Media" is not the name of the language (so far as I know). Even if it were, I don't see how you get from it to "Anglice medii aevi". It seems like juggling in which the juggler's dropped a ball or two. Find some parallel phraseology in some existing Latin philological text, and I'll believe it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: In case my comment on this wasn't clear, I don't see why you say that the name of the language is "Anglica Media" (rather than "lingua Anglica Media"). I don't know of an authority for dropping the noun. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:50, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any; the example might as well have used "XYZ" instead of a language name (and Neander's "lingua Medioanglica" seems fine), as the point wasn't the name of the language: it was the use of the "pipe trick," wherein one term links to another. It's seen, for example, in en:Ibrahim Babangida, where the text "military ruler" links to List of Presidents of Nigeria, thus: [[List of Presidents of Nigeria|military ruler]]. In this way, [[lingua Medioanglica|Anglice saeculi quarti decimi]] would be even more precise than [[lingua Medioanglica|Medioanglice]] (if that grammar is OK). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:39, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here's an attempt of mine, which I expect you will easily demolish :) "Lingua Latina" (nom.) has a partial synonym, "Latinitas". We can surely use that synonymity to say "Latinitate viva" (abl., in living Latin); there is a "lingua Latina classica", so I think we can say "Latinitate classica" (abl.) In modern Latin there seems to be a parallel form "Anglicitas" (found on Google, rarely I admit). So, if there is an accepted stage of that other language called "lingua Anglica Media", can we say "[[lingua Anglica Media|Anglicitate mediá]] composita"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:50, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Incidentally, dominus is better left for 'lord, master, mister', and suchlike. 'Sir' is ordinarily translated with an obligatorily postposed Eques. Thus Ronaldus Syme, Eques. And that pattern for 'About Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' gives you De Gavino Equite et Equite Viridi. But that's so odd-sounding, with the double equite, that it wouldn't be surprising to find that Latin sources use something different. Not all milites are knights. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:47, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have a source for Gavinus; it sounds plausible, but en:Gawain says "known in Latin as Walwen, Gualguanus, Waluanus", though I don't have access to the source cited there. Geoffrey of Monmouth uses "Walgannus" and "Walvanus" (at least according to this edition), and he doesn't use any title, though this is very early in the Arthurian tradition. The English Wikipedia also has a useful en:Category:Arthurian literature in Latin which might have other spellings.

¶ Russian has a similar way of talking about languages: either an adverb po-anglijski "Anglice", or a phrase na anglijskom iazyke "(in) linguá Anglicá". Unlike Latin, though, Russian commonly uses prefixes, which allows the adverb to be modified without any problems: po-sredneanglijski "?", na sredneanglijskom jazyke "linguá Anglicá mediá". Now "Neograece" suggests "Mesoanglice", but we probably shouldn't start Graecizing in that way without sources. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:16, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "Mesoanglice", we could perhaps say medio-anglice aut Medio-Anglice aut Medioanglice in the wake of an index professorum appended to De tragicorvm Graecorvm fragmentis commentatio by Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1893, p. 43); the text has "medio-anglica" (carmina, grammatica). The official name of the language is of course lingua Anglica media in accordance with the established pattern. Neander (disputatio) 21:40, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had just remembered to cite Du Cange (Lexicon mediae et infimae Graecitatis) in support of my suggested pattern above, but I think Wilamowitz trumps Du Cange, and he, what's more, is naming the language that we actually need here. As a compound, "medio-Anglice" seems OK on that authority. As to capitalization and hyphenation, those questions could sustain another symposium ...

It is salutary to be reminded by Du Cange that what we write here is infima Latinitas, "~~Latin of the most recent period~~ lowest Latin".

Based on what we've said so far I revise my suggested sentence from above:

Anno 1925 Tolkien amicusque et discipulus E. V. Gordon cantilenam Sir Gawain and the Green Knight ("De domino ~~Gavino~~ Gualguano et equite viridi"), saeculo quartodecimo ~~lingua Anglica media~~ medio-Anglice compositam, ediderunt. Editio haec, anno 1967 a Normanno Davis emendata, etiam nunc valet et legitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:15, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like "medio(-)Anglice" and I'm indifferent about the use of the hyphen and capitalization at this point, since we already have a lot of different styles. I should also like to encourage Fergus to be bold in contributing, especially to our articles about medieval literature, where there is much left to be written! Lesgles (disputatio) 19:26, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]