Disputatio:Statio Spatialis Internationalis
Spatialis
[fontem recensere]What's to be done with this mysterious word? IacobusAmor 13:56, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- I think the meaning is evident, at least. What can replace it? Pantocrator 14:10, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that the adjective spatialis is a Latin word? Moreover, spatium in Latin, without any adjective, means only 'distance, room, interval', and has nothing to do with 'space between stars'; so, an adjective deduced from spatium can't have that meaning. I'd rather suggest something like statio sideralis (or siderea) or at least Statio spatii cosmici.--Poecus 14:24, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not that's the best equivalent of the English, that's good thinking. Automatically translating an English word by a similar-looking (and even cognate) Latin word in the same case can mislead the style. IacobusAmor 15:07, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Haec nomina adiectiva considerari possunt, ut scio:
spatialis, cosmica, sideralis - non classica (vel tempore classico rara)
caelestis - tempore classico crebrum, sed fortasse nimis religiosum ("celestial; divine; heavenly, of heavens/sky, from heaven/sky; of the_Gods")
siderea - tempore classico crebrum et significatio non mala videtur ("heavenly; relating to stars; star-like; starry")
Itaque Stationem Sideream Gentium / inter Gentes praeferro. --Gabriel Svoboda 16:11, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)- Omnes termini et Anglice et Latine mihi videntur corrupti; quia statio illa non in spatio cosmico esse, sed quidem in demissa Telluris orbita. Opinor illam melius stationem orbitalem vocari, sed habemus morem quem habemus.--24.107.235.195 03:12, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Haec nomina adiectiva considerari possunt, ut scio:
- Whether or not that's the best equivalent of the English, that's good thinking. Automatically translating an English word by a similar-looking (and even cognate) Latin word in the same case can mislead the style. IacobusAmor 15:07, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that the adjective spatialis is a Latin word? Moreover, spatium in Latin, without any adjective, means only 'distance, room, interval', and has nothing to do with 'space between stars'; so, an adjective deduced from spatium can't have that meaning. I'd rather suggest something like statio sideralis (or siderea) or at least Statio spatii cosmici.--Poecus 14:24, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Artificialis
[fontem recensere]Recte artificiosus. IacobusAmor 13:56, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Artificialis was recorded classically to mean specifically 'artificial' (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dartificialis) while artificiosus has the primary senses 'according to the rules of the art' and 'accomplished, skillful'. Both artificialis and spatialis were good New Latin words according to Google and Whitaker's. Pantocrator 14:10, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- The entry in L&S says "perh. only in Quint."—and the difficulty there, if only he used it, is that he's just one author, and from the silver age. Citing a single source as the criterion for preferring one form to another might be like saying that the "proper" spelling of the English name Melville is Melvil because a librarian, Melvil Dewey, spelled it that way. IacobusAmor 15:24, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Remember that Lewis and Short were writing over a hundred years ago—the use of the word "artificial" in their age was not the same as ours. Hence, the elaborations of definitions given are helpful to gauge whether language has changed—and that they also subgloss "artificial" under artificialis as "according to the rules of art" clearly suggests the sense is not the modern one of "manmade". If you look at the passages in Quintilian cited it appears that he uses inartificialis and artificialis (as translations of the Greek terms ατεχνος and εντεχνος, incidentally) in reference to the evidence an orator uses to support his case, as to whether they are the the physical evidence that came with the case, witness testimony, etc., or whether they are the means of persuasion that the rhetorical art produces: logical arguments, similar examples, etc.—certainly a different beast altogether; I suspect a modern translation wouldn't render it by 'artificial' at all. (A bit of Googling suggests the modern translation of the concepts may be "technical" and "non-technical", cf. [1] which discusses Quintilian's use of these concepts.) —Mucius Tever 02:22, 11 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- That's helpful information, and from a different angle than I'd thought of; but then my own experience with the word, in the famous phrase artificial curiosities—which English-speakers gave to artifacts that began to be brought to Europe from the Pacific Ocean in the late eighteenth century (and there's a book about those artifacts under that title)—would have led me to give the basic definition of artificial, off the top of my head, as 'made through artifice, full of artifice' (i.e., not natural). ¶ So are you saying that artificialis might have been an acceptable translation of 'artificial' in the nineteenth century, but it isn't now? IacobusAmor 05:25, 11 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Well, 'made by art' was certainly a meaning of artificial around that time; it's what I had started out thinking might have been meant when I set out to write my previous comment, until the facts I looked up contradicted it. It is the first sense given in Webster 1913. But 'artificialis' as Quintilian used it was just a different sense, which in fact Webster 1913 also lists in a subentry: "Artificial arguments (Rhet.), arguments invented by the speaker, in distinction from laws, authorities, and the like, which are called inartificial arguments or proofs." — and that sense doesn't sound current to my ear anyway, because if someone spoke of "artificial arguments" to me today it wouldn't, I think, be in Quintilian's sense. (But then, I never studied oratory.) ¶ As for the acceptability of translating artificial as artificialis, I suppose that depends on what sort of standard we're aiming for; I think we can safely say neither the sense 'full of art' nor the sense 'manmade' are classical usages of artificialis, and they may not even be Roman—the soonest and only other Roman usage after Quintilian I have of the word in my files is in Augustine of Hippo. It's too late for me to hunt down a translation to double-check but it doesn't appear he uses the word in the English way either. Certainly on the classical standard, though, 'artificial' and 'artificialis' are faux-amis, but I won't deny it's possible later writers conflated them. —Mucius Tever 05:53, 11 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- That's helpful information, and from a different angle than I'd thought of; but then my own experience with the word, in the famous phrase artificial curiosities—which English-speakers gave to artifacts that began to be brought to Europe from the Pacific Ocean in the late eighteenth century (and there's a book about those artifacts under that title)—would have led me to give the basic definition of artificial, off the top of my head, as 'made through artifice, full of artifice' (i.e., not natural). ¶ So are you saying that artificialis might have been an acceptable translation of 'artificial' in the nineteenth century, but it isn't now? IacobusAmor 05:25, 11 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Remember that Lewis and Short were writing over a hundred years ago—the use of the word "artificial" in their age was not the same as ours. Hence, the elaborations of definitions given are helpful to gauge whether language has changed—and that they also subgloss "artificial" under artificialis as "according to the rules of art" clearly suggests the sense is not the modern one of "manmade". If you look at the passages in Quintilian cited it appears that he uses inartificialis and artificialis (as translations of the Greek terms ατεχνος and εντεχνος, incidentally) in reference to the evidence an orator uses to support his case, as to whether they are the the physical evidence that came with the case, witness testimony, etc., or whether they are the means of persuasion that the rhetorical art produces: logical arguments, similar examples, etc.—certainly a different beast altogether; I suspect a modern translation wouldn't render it by 'artificial' at all. (A bit of Googling suggests the modern translation of the concepts may be "technical" and "non-technical", cf. [1] which discusses Quintilian's use of these concepts.) —Mucius Tever 02:22, 11 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- The entry in L&S says "perh. only in Quint."—and the difficulty there, if only he used it, is that he's just one author, and from the silver age. Citing a single source as the criterion for preferring one form to another might be like saying that the "proper" spelling of the English name Melville is Melvil because a librarian, Melvil Dewey, spelled it that way. IacobusAmor 15:24, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- Just because a word is in a dictionary doesn't mean it's the best word for a given use. Register must come into play.IacobusAmor 15:07, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
"you wrecked the links"
[fontem recensere]Pantocrator, I was in the process of fixing all these problems comprehensively (they have questionable to bizarre words, phrases, and titles), but now you've intruded into the process and made them questionable to bizarre again, and my time's up for the day, so they're yours now. Enjoy! IacobusAmor 13:56, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- I did not change any of your textual corrections not involving these words and phrases. Pantocrator 14:11, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
- You reverted lemmata. Many Latin words & phrases relating to the general topic of "space exploration" probably require more discussion, including advice from more experienced contributors than yours truly. That certain expressions are wrong, or at least not quite right, is often obvious, but what their best replacements should be is another matter. Take the category name Res Artificiosae Spatii. According to Bradley's Arnold, and according to patterns I've noticed in the B.G., the order of those words is unusual (or perhaps even "not quite right"). Maybe it's OK for a category, since category-names can be regarded as a special register; or maybe not. IacobusAmor 15:07, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)