Disputatio:Diabolus typographi

De nomine

This is a nice term. Since it's also now the name of a category, we'd better decide whether it's the right term. Is there a Latin source? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:09, 1 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

No answer as yet forthcoming, I don't think we should build a category on this Latin term, or even use it as a pagename. We are apparently making it up, purely on the basis of an old-fashioned English metaphor which would hardly be understood in the real world. Given that pseudo-Caesar (a real classical author) uses "tirones gladiatores", can we use Tiro typographus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 28 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Diabolus typographicus cum alibi tum hic et apud Reijo Pitkäranta (Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum. WSOY, 2001 [s.v. painovirhepaholainen]) invenitur. ¶ Ad tironem: Suecice tryckfelsnisse dicitur, ubi tryckfel errorem typographicum, nisse plus minus tironem (cauponium) significat. Neander (disputatio) 18:01, 23 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Optime, Neander; painovirhepaholainen quomodo in aliam linguam vertis? An "tiro typographus"? Diabolus enim, apud Eclectica pictus, non est tiro sed errorum creator, nisi fallor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:41, 23 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Ah, obscurius scripsi. Painovirhepaholainen diabolum non tironem significat (painovirhe 'tryckfel; Druckfehler; misprint' + paholainen 'diabolus'). Etiam Suecice potius de quodam genio aut geniolo domestico (nisse < Nicolaus) agitur, qui errores typographicos (tryckfel) creabit, nisi bene tractatus erit. Neander (disputatio) 06:33, 24 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago. Ergo Latine, sicut in aliis linguis, "diabolus typographi" est ille archidiaboli discipulus qui errores typographicos distribuit, aut potius, per metaphorum, causa innominata omnium talium errorum. Inde apud Anglos per metaphorum alterum "printer's devil" est iuvenis typographorum servus. Si recte distinxi, commentatio rescripta, has res comprehendens, utilis erit. Si male intellegi, dicite. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 24 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Timewasting?

Maybe I'm unfair but this page now looks like timewasting. "Diabolus typographi" seems to be just made up, based on the English idiom. The external links are useless, irrelevant and/or unreliable (I'll specify which is which if anyone wants). The homonymous category created at the same time was used to add authors without adding any facts or references to their biographies. One of them, Aemilius Zola, when I tried to verify, turned out definitely not to belong. Do any of the others belong, or is the whole thing a hoax? Not caring to go further into this maze without a guide, I propose deletion.

The one thing that would save this page, as far as I'm concerned, would be a real reliable source that others can verify and that confirms these people worked as juniors in a printing-shop. We could then move the page to Tiro typographus (or whatever name is agreed). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:57, 23 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Or not move it at all, if Neander's examples confirm that "diabolus typographi" means "junior in a print-shop". Happy ending, in that case :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:41, 23 Novembris 2014 (UTC)