Disputatio:Bomba atomica

Bomba atomica fuit pagina mensis Februarii 2006.

Bomba vs Pyrobolus

It has been my impression that the pseudo-classical pyrobolus or pyrobolum is in much greater use among modern Latinists than the Medieval bomba.

Morgan gives the following citations:

.bmb bomb / bomba* [Apinus, Glossarium, 1728; Vox Lat.] (Helf.) ]] pyrobolus, missile ignivomum, (ignei) globi dirumpentes (v. displodentes) (m. pl.) (LRL) ]] missile ignivomum dirumpens (or displodens or diruens), globus igneus dirumpens (Lev.)

.bmb bomb subst. pyrobolus, i* m. (Anc. Gr.; Bonon. Acad. I, p. 291; Eg. D.L. 24; Eg. R.A. 117); v.t. pyrobolis* verberare (Eg. D.L. 59: "bellicae aeronaves Bagdatum ... aliasque hostium urbes verberarunt"; Eg. S.L. 8: "dum aeronaves loca pyrobolis verberant"), pyrobolos* deicere (Eg. R.A. 117: "ex aëronavibus Americanis pyroboli sunt deiecti, quibus haec basilica ... est dire verberata")

bmb nuclear: hydrogen bomb / bomba* hydrogenica* [Vox Lat.] (Helf.) ]] pyrobolum ab hydrogeno, atomicum ab hydrogenio pyrobolum (Lev.)

.bmb atom bomb pyrobolus* atomicus* (Eg. D.L. 27)

To which I would add the following gloss from Koller, Orbis Pictus Latinus, p. 50 s.v. atomus -i, f.:

***pyrobolum vi atomica explodens terrificantem vim destructionis obtinet.

(*** indicates a modern term)

What are your opinions? --Iustinus 17:37, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Bomba non solum verbum veterius est, sed etiam multis linguis hodiernis adhibitum. Inde ego hoc nomen malim. -- W. B. 19 Kal. Febr. 2006 21.18 UTC

A Canticle for Leibowitz

I'm surprised not to see an article in this Wikipedia for A Canticle for Leibowitz, which, after all, involves both Latina and the bomba atomica. 192.12.88.7 03:24, 7 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

See here. 192.12.88.7 03:28, 7 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, perhaps. 192.12.88.7 03:31, 7 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

How about writing it, then? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 7 Octobris 2009 (UTC)