Disputatio:Civitas

State

sed Civitas non est "State" , town est urbs?

Ita. Haec definitio est puerilis et ieiuna. Anglice, civitas recte est: (1) citizenship; (2) citizens united in a body politic [e.g., a city]; (3) a state or commonwealth. IacobusAmor 18:13, 20 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

There is a note: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/State. --Rolandus 09:20, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Linguae plures ("Stato, Estado, State, Etat...") verbum de Thomasio Hobbes acceperunt; latine rectius puto dicendi fuerit "Status", non "Civitas", quae aliud significat. -21:05, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)-Jfilipemo 21:05, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Ecclesia Catholica usa est "Status": http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Città_del_Vaticano - Jfilipemo 21:52, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Perperam dicis. Hobbes numquam state per status nec sensu civitatis nec rei publicae reddit. Status autem sensu solum state (of being) reddidit. Quaeso ut legas.--Rafaelgarcia 00:35, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Mos Vaticanus multis videtur mirabilis. IacobusAmor 22:00, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Videas quoque quomodo latine dicitur USA: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appendicis-Dioecesibus-Foederatorum-Septentrionalis-Congregationis/dp/B000RO4BUO -Jfilipemo 22:07, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Immo ex ore Reginaldi ipsius audi risum usus istius verbi pro state parvae s, autem magnae S State fortasse liceat. Ergo "The 50 states (civitates) of America form the State (status)." Hoc de uso est status civitatis Vaticanae.

Quoque rideri auditur Latinitas Vaticanae fere universaliter foras officino litterarum Latinarum.

--Ioscius ^∞ 22:11, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)

--Fortasse, verbi gratia, hic liber anno MDCCIV scritpus placeat -- Samuel von Pufendorf: "Introductio ad Historiam praecipuorum Regnorum et Statuum modernorum in Europa" (in Google Books) -Jfilipemo 14:32, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Videatur quoque (in Google Books) Johann Jakob Mascov (MDCCXXIX): "Principia juris publici imperii romano-germanic", maxime Liber VI. Est mos dicendi et scribendi "Status" per 3 saeculos; complures sunt libri qui hoc verbum usi sunt. Cur non potest Vicipaediam hunc morem sequi? -Jfilipemo 14:59, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Hic morem classicum coluimus ubi res publica et civitas reddunt state/public affairs et state/the citizenship, idem ut fecit Hobbius in loco dato supra. Caesar e.g. numquam status diceret loco state. Vicipaedia linguam classicam coluit et amat. Status civitatis Latine tantum dicit "citizenship status" (vel fortasse "state status" aut "state constitution"). Pessimos mores hodiernos non sequimur, sed possumus describere --130.215.96.180 17:02, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Fortasse in Mathematica quoque potius numeris romanis quam numeris arabicis utemur... nunquam more classico 5³ = 125, sicut legimus in http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentia_(mathematica). A contrario! Post Ciceronem, lingua latina per saeculos usa est ad res novas discendas et docendas. Verba nova inventa est. Tunc quid est mos classicus? - Jfilipemo 22:06, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)

De re politica, verbum status hoc sensu nihil disambiguat. Status hoc usu novo obfuscat res. Confer quo modo anglice et status et state ut verba politica necessario usurpatur.--24.107.235.195 00:37, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Hoc modo dixit Plinius Secundus de Sicilia: "coloniae ibi V, urbes aut civitates LXIII", unde intellego "urbs" et "civitas" eamdem rem fuisse. -194.65.239.198 13:25, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)

gen. pl.

I've just changed several genitive plural forms in various articles (but not this one) to civitatum, in the belief, partly from Wiktionary, that this is the correct spelling. But now I think I'm more or less wrong, and should probably revert my changes. Would anyone like to comment on this grammatical point? Montivagus 22:41, 20 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Allen and Greenough paragraph 71 on "mixed -i stems" includes "4. Nouns in -tas, -tatis (genitive plural usually -um): as, civitas". So I guess my heavy-handed changes were basically unjustified, though not altogether incorrect. Maybe I should do the research first next time... Montivagus 22:51, 20 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

The Romans must have tolerated both forms, as some of the most highly regarded authors—Cicero, Julius Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Suetonius, and others listed in Lewis & Short—used civitatium: "I. gen. plur. civitatium, Cic. Rep. 1, 34, 51; id. Leg. 2, 4, 9; Caes. B. G. 4, 3; 5, 22; Sall. C. 40, 2; Liv. 1, 17, 4; 2, 6, 5; 33, 20, 11 Drak.; 42, 30, 6; 42, 44, 1; 45, 34, 1; Vell. 2, 42, 2; Quint. 2, 16, 4 N. cr.; Suet. Tit. 8 Oud.; Cornut. ap. Charis. p. 100 P.; cf. Varr. L. L. 8, § 66; Prisc. p. 771 P.; Neue, Formenl. 1, 268), f. [civis]." So I wouldn't worry about it. IacobusAmor 00:03, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Iacobus. There appears to have been no fixed norm regarding the correctness of civitatum / civitatium. The mixed declension was really in a long-term process of finding a state of equilibrium (which was never found, because the time kind of run out). Various authors probably had their personal preferences based on individual aesthetic feelings of euphony and sentential rhythm. Neue (adduced by Iacobus) discusses the variation, from a philological point of view, in 1, 408-409. So, don't worry about which one is the correct form. They're both correct enough. --Neander 02:18, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for your sensible observations. Montivagus 02:39, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Like Montivagus, I had previously thought that civitatium was simply wrong. I've just checked the PHI CD-ROM. It contains 27 civitatium (of which a majority were caught by Lewis & Short, see above) and 111 civitatum. According to Varro, De lingua Latina 8.66, both forms were sanctioned by usage. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

According to Packard's concordance, there are 3 occurrences of civitatum, more than 60 occurrences of civitatium in Livy. It's my impression that because there was no fixed norm (which is typical of change in progress), everybody had their personal preferences. --Neander 20:45, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/State

Civitas is probably best. That's currently a disambig. --Iustinus 07:29, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

There is a note: Disputatio:Civitas#State. --Rolandus 09:19, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)