Disputatio Usoris:Thoma D./lexicum

Contre-amiral

Hispanice est Contra Almirante aut Contralmirante -- Thoma D. 16:23, 3 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Je ne parlez pas Francais.

I changed the capital Vs to Us and changed a few errors in your English (Just to let you know). --Harrissimo 16:59, 3 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

dictateur Latine Tyrannus

j'ai déjà introduit le nom latin Tyrannus, en effet j'ai recement lu qu'on doit eviter de traduire dictateur dans le sens moderne du mot avec dictator. A Rome la dictature était une charge legitime à temps, quelques choses de completement différent d'une dictature moderne. J'attends toute fois confirmations par les autres usages de la.wiki--Massimo Macconi 20:30, 3 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Je suis assez d'accord avec toi pour ce qui concerne la dictature, on peut, par exemple, penser à César, qui, si je ne m'abuse, l'a été (à moins que j'ai dormi en cours) mais il en est de meme pour le tyran. C'est le cas, par exemple du Tyran de Syracuse, qui a causé tant de souci à notre pauvre Damoclès et à tous les latinistes qui ont eu à étudier ce texte... Ricardus PS: vous pouvez me rappeler comment on signe, j'ai oublié. Merci...

Secundum omnia mea dictionaria, verbum rectum pro dictateur (Anglice: dictator) est dictator. Senatus Romanus Gaium Caesarem dictatorem perpetuum nominavit. IacobusAmor 12:36, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

coming from the page "disputatio" of IacobusAmor

that's what we were talking about. We got a problem because in Roma, a dictator wasn't what it is nowadays: Cesar was a dictator (that was a politic real function) but he wasn't a dictator like we imagine this man, nowadays. But the point is that in french and english and probably other language, we tell that Cesar was a dictator and that Staline was a dictator. Even if the idea is different, the word is the same. Why not in latin?? -- Thoma D. 12:55, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The standard technical term in Latin was dictator. That's what Romans called those rulers, and we have to respect their terminology. We wouldn't call Gaius Caesar a tyrant (tyrannus) unless we wanted to assert a point of view. We shouldn't do so for Stalin either, should we? The title he held was (I guess) Secretarius Generalis Factionis Communisticae Comitiae Centralis Consociationis Sovieticae, and that's what we should call him, no?—unless we call him something like dictator de facto? IacobusAmor 13:41, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

From the english wikipedia article on Tyrant:

In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions of a deme. The word "tyrant" carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power in a polis to engage in autocratic government.

And also from the same article concerning the modern meaning of the term:

A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his/her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which s/he governs or controls. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.

I think we should prefer the original Greek meaning to the second. Also I should point out that both points can be used without expressing a point of view as tyrannus just names a particular kind of political leader. That said, I don't think Tyrannus would apply to Caesar as he didn't sieze power illegally nor, as far as I am aware, did he rule in the interests of himself or a small oligarchy over the interests of the general population. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable of Caesar can comment on this. From what I know of Stalin, however, I would be inclined to say he was a Tyrannus, as he ruled in favor of the communists over the interests of the general population, he was an autocrat, and he used cruel measures to impose his view over the people.--Rafaelgarcia 14:06, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

if i've well understand what IacobusAmor told, you suppose that we must have three points of view: (i) some people in ancient Roma were called dictator (as Ceasar), so, we call them dictator, (ii) somme people in ancient world were called tyrant (as in Syracuse), so, we call them tyrant, (iii) some people are called dictator or tyrant (as Staline, Hitler, Castro) but this is not their real political function: we don't care about their surname: we just have to write their real function. All right?? -- Thoma D. 14:17, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Right! Probe dicis, amice! IacobusAmor 14:25, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Reflexion personnelle

I went on the Dictator page and I saw Hitler and Stalin and the others. I'd like they aren't there, according to what it's written upward. -- Thoma D. 14:42, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. We have to decide what we are making a list of, I guess, and then name the concept. The trouble is, there are many concepts involved in the present list:

• People who took power unconstitutionally (this corresponds roughly to ancient Tyrannus)
• People who took exceptional powers by a constitutional route (this corresponds roughly to ancient Dictator)
• People who used their power in one country to conquer others (to the Romans this was normal, I'm not sure if they had a word for it!)
• People who used their power to kill or expel (etc.) some of the population of their own country (I can't think of a Roman word for this, but there's a lot of it about)
• Maybe some others too? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the point People who took exceptional powers by a constitutional route (this corresponds roughly to ancient Dictator) because in the french constitution (1958) of the fifth republic, there is an article telling the president can obtain exceptionnal powers if the republic is in danger : Article 16 : *Lorsque les institutions de la République, l'indépendance de la nation, l'intégrité de son territoire ou l'exécution de ses engagements internationaux sont menacés d'une manière grave et immédiate et que le fonctionnement régulier des pouvoirs publics constitutionnels est interrompu, le Président de la République prend les mesures exigées par ces circonstances, après consultation officielle du Premier ministre, des présidents des assemblées ainsi que du Conseil constitutionnel. **Il en informe la Nation par un message. ***Ces mesures doivent être inspirées par la volonté d'assurer aux pouvoirs publics constitutionnels, dans les moindres délais, les moyens d'accomplir leur mission. Le Conseil constitutionnel est consulté à leur sujet. ****Le Parlement se réunit de plein droit. *****L'Assemblée nationale ne peut être dissoute pendant l'exercice des pouvoirs exceptionnels.. The french President Général de Brigade de Gaulle used those powers during the Guerre d'Algérie (War for the Independance of Algeria) during few days. Was he a dictator?? I don't think so. -- Thoma D. 11:17, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Salut Thomas. Je suis assez daccord avec toi. Mais c'est cependant la définition la plus logique que l on puuisse trouver de dictateur. Je l'ai trouvée sur wiki en francais pour dictature : "Une forme etatique dans lequel un homme seul ou un groupe plus ou moins grand de personnes (parti, famille, armée, caste, groupe religieux...) gouverne, sans limite , légale ou contitutionnelle, soit que la loi, ou la constitution, n'impose pas de limite (César, de Gaulle, Pétain,...) soit qu'ils ne les respectent pas (beaucoup d'autres que je ne peux pas citer).

"La dictature survient en cas de crise. Elle sert soit à précipiter le cours des choses (Terreur pendant la Révolution francaise) soit à le freiner voire le stopper (Pétain au début de la guerre, de Gaulle pendant la guerre d'algérie,...).

"Le propre de la dictature est la contraction de tous les pouvoirs (legislatif, executif, judiciaire) entre les mains d'un homme, d'un parti, d'un parlement,... Elle consiste egalement en l'absence de controle democratique et d'elections libres ainsi que l'abandon d'un Etat de droit."

Je suis désolé. Mes phrases ne sont pas toujours tres correctes mais c'est parce que j'ai deja traduit ce texte en latin et c'est cette traduction que je retraduit en francais... Sinon, j'attends votre approbation pour la mettre sur wiki.

Ricardus 11:05, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

les modifications de richard

Cest bizarre collier a disparu dans Ars militaris, sinonm j'avais trouvé phalerae, arum, f pl.

Sinon, je ne suis pas trop d accord avec Magna Charta pour Constitution. en effet, i lme semble que, en France, il y a eu une Grande Charte, en 1830, je crois, toujours de tete. Donc, ca risque de poser probleme. pourquoi ne pas prendre Constitutio, tout simplement, pour coller aux langues latines et a l annglais ou compositio, pour rejoindre j etymologie (ca montre la composition de l etat)...

Et pour les plantes, il faudrait rajouter liber et xyleme, ca pourrait t aider...

Et puis, pour dictateur et tyran, dans l acceptation actuelle, on doit dire quoi??? Je suis de l'avis de faire comme dans la plupart des langues: que les mots aient les 2 sens, ca nous simplifiera la vie...

Valete

Ricardus 10:53, 7 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Grades militaires

Je constate que nous allons avoir quelques soucis si nous persévérons à traduire les grades actuelles par des grades latins déjà existants (nous aurons le même que pour dictateur et tyran). Il me parait donc important de ne pas traduire une notion par une autre. Quand je vois Cohortium/Legionum praefectus, je pense plus facilement aux généraux de César qu'au Général de Gaulle. Qui plus est, pourquoi traduire les grades de généraux par ... Praefectus et Général par Dux. Ceci me semble denué de tout sens commun. Enfin et j'en aurais fini, quand je vois la proximité entre les terme dans les langues que j'ai choisi (français, anglais, allemand, italien et espagnol, soit 3 langues latines et 2 langues saxones), je ne comprends pas comment on peut ne pas retrouver la même éthymologie dans la langue de Cicéron. - I saw some problems in the way we use to translate the military grads (as to translate Dictator or Tyrant). When I see Cohortium/Legionum praefectus, I think about Cesar's generals and not about General Montgomery or Patton. Moreover, why do we have translated "... general" by ... praefectus and "general" by dux. to finish, when I see the words in the 3 languages coming from the Latin (french, spanish and italian) and in the 2 coming from Saxonia (english and german), i can't imagine why we don't find the same ethymology in the Cicero's language. -- Thoma D. 07:37, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

au sujet de la constitution

pourquoi tiens tu absolument a ton mot de charta. Moi, personnellement, je prefererais un mot comme constitutio, si pres de la plupart des langues, qui veut dire auelaue chose pour a peu pres tout le monde et aui ne risque pas de se heurter a des acceptations diverses: Il y a eu des chartes qui ont été signés et n etaient pas des contitutions. On parle de charte des travailleurs... Ricardus 11:05, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Ars militaris aut Grades militaires (2)

I've seen that, in most of languages, the same words were used to show a general: brigade / Brigadier / Brigade / Brigata / Brigada; division / divisione / división (for the latine languages) and Major / -major (for the saxonian ones) a.s.o. and i'm very surprised we don't find in all the latine language some words like Brigada or Brigata or Brigatta or smthg else and divisio to use for those ranks. I'm sure we should create some new associations of words from some words which already exist to talk about those people... I can't imagine to take the same word to design Pline l'ancien (I don't know what's his name in english but i think it's Plinius major in latin) and the rear admiral Chegwidden coming from a fiction (J.A.G.). Please, answer me... -- Thoma D. 17:11, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, we are not obliged to use some new words: e.g., we can use exercitus for general d'armée, like ejercito in spanish. -- Thoma D. 07:05, 20 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Your collection of military terms in Latin has been very useful in writing about Carolus Gustavus Aemilius Mannerheim. Did you make it up yourself, or is there some source? Don't you think it would be worth while putting it on the Res militaris page, or perhaps more aptly on a page on its own like Gradus militares moderni?--Iovis Fulmen 19:08, 27 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you but the thing is, as you can see if you read the whole discussion, you'll see there's a problem of translation (these words are worth for the latine troops but not for the current armies). It's difficult to see the correspondence between a general of Cesar and a general of the WWII!!! Therefore, it's just a question to be solved, we don't know what to do with it...Ricardus 09:12, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, there would be... Unfortunately my French is virtually non-existent so forgive me for ignoring parts of the discussion. On the other hand I consider it a challenging and interesting task to translate back the meaning of today's military ranks back to what it might be comparable to in Roman times. So if there is some consideration behind the lexicum (as I believe there is) it's fantastic for someone to have started it and why shouldn't we exploit that work.--Iovis Fulmen 13:01, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)