Disputatio:Civitates provectibiles insulanae

Fixing the table?

Can anyone please fix the table to something a la the English page? --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 02:03, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way is to delete the formulae (templates) in the table, and replace them with the required names of states. You could do that yourself ... Formulae (templates) are specific to each Wikipedia, unfortunately. Occasionally we have a direct equivalent of English templates here on Vicipaedia, but more often not. I myself think it would be a waste of time to localize these particular templates, but of course anyone can do that who wishes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:48, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 13:16, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Can someone give a source for civitaticula extra vicipaediam? Also also isnt small supposed to be modifying island and not state?42.73.36.62 04:21, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is used in a middle age work on page 667: [[1]]. But it seems to me that civitatula is far more common, and therefore I wouldn't mind it altered. It is attested in a work of Seneca: [[2]]. But regarding the second question, I'd say we would make the title very confusing if we were to include two nouns in the title; it's much more simple to have like: "(small) insular, developing states", or can you make up something better?--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 11:22, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

I believe when multiple noun phrases are translated into latin it is normally rephrased using genitive,e.g.: Crescentes insularum parvarum civitates. But perhaps someone else more knowledgeable can comment first.--118.160.28.230 12:08, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

[Written before the change of title.] Yes, and as 118.160.28.230 indicates, the sense of the phrase small island developing states is obviously 'civitates crescentes quae parvae insulae sunt', not 'parvae civitates crescentes quae insulae sunt'. To the people who coined the phrase, this may be a distinction without a difference, but in expressing the thought in a case-marking language, the syntactical relationships among the words matter. In traditional English style, the phrase with the obvious meaning would bear a hyphen: Small-Island Developing States, but hyphens are usually omitted nowadays in proper nouns; hence, New York Harbor, not New-York Harbor, though traditional usage survives in the hyphen of the New-York Historical Society. If the states, not the islands, were meant to be small, the English name would have been Small Developing Island States. But against all that stands the fact that we can't trust bureaucrats to say what they mean. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

And why was it this should be better than Civitaticulae Insulanae Crescentes or Civitatulae Insulanae Crescentes? The meaning is nearly the same, and it seems to me you are just trying alternatives for their own sake. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 12:46, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

The potential meanings of the English phrase are not at all the same, as explained above. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Equidem Iacobo assentior. Cum titulum Anglicum his verbis, civitates crescentes quae parvae insulae sunt, aperuit, rem recte perspexit (nempe si titulum Anglicum respicimus). Hanc ideam quo modo in titulum aptum vertamus, alia quaestio est. Constat quidem civitates et crescentes hic artiore inter se nexu conceptuali teneri; itaque debeant etiam in confinio syntactico esse: civitates crescentes insulanae. Deminutivum insulae non est, sed eo vix opus est, nam parvitas hic levioris momenti esse videtur. Neander (disputatio) 20:11, 10 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Problema

I made the mistake of using problema as a term describing problems of a state. This usage is of course wrong, and somebody has been so kind to correct this. But the very same person has written that problema isn't word in Latin, so I just wanted to point out that it is [[3]], but it means something like a puzzle.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 13:07, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that problemae is not a word in Latin. The word is neuter, not feminine, and Cassell's says to translate the English word 'problem' as quaestio, which indeed has a sense different from the one usually attached to problem these days. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the neuter, I see. Thank you. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 13:29, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion. Is it ok to use aerumnia(traupman)?Jondel (disputatio) 05:27, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Civitates provectibiles insulanae

This alternative name has been suggested. Please apply why this should be preferred.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 21:25, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

The very first title, suggested by me as a contribution to translatio hebdomadis (31 Decembris 2012), was Parvae civitates insulares crescentes, which was redirected by Nicolaus Augurinus to Civitaticulae Insulanae Crescentes (3 Ian. 2013). No reason for the change was given. Next change, also by Nicolaus Augurinus, was Civitatulae Insulanae Crescentes (5 Ian.), with the reason stated as "Romani verbo "civitatula" usi sunt." 11 Ianuarii, the title was changed by me into Civitates provectibiles insulanae. Against my manners and principles, I didn't state the reason. Maybe I thought that enough reason was given in my contribution to this talk page (see above). Now I see that I should've given a fuller account. But before that, a couple of comments on Nicolaus Augurinus's previous redirects: Parvae civitates insulares crescentes → Civitaticulae Insulanae Crescentes (because this isn't a proper noun, initial caps go against mores philologorum; no explanation was given why insulanae is preferable to insulares) → Civitatulae Insulanae Crescentes (yes, civitatula does occur a few times in antiquity but not in the meaning 'small state' but 'small city' [e.g. in Apuleius, Met. 10.1]).

The reason why I chose the title Civitates provectibiles insulanae are as follows: First, it was pointed out by IacobusAmor (above) that the proper way of parsing the original English title is Small-Island Developing States, i.e. 'Developing States that are small islands'. I think this is a reasonable analysis. In the adjective small-island, I take it, small is above all an element needed for the making of such an adjective. It'd scarcely be a grave category error to say developing states that are islands, esp. as the contrastive category developing states that are big islands appears to be non-existent. Second, it's not easy to find a Latin counterpart to Engl. developing. I first chose crescentes but wasn't too satisfied with the choice. What civitates crescentes brings into mind is either states that are coming into existence, or states that are growing in size and/or number of people. Therefore I changed the title into Civitates provectibiles insulanae in order to stress the developmental outlook of the island states in question. (Not all of them are developing as a matter of actual fact, though they may be growing in number of people.) So, I thought civitates provectibiles insulanae might give a more adequate idea of what it is all about to be a "developing" (in optimistic PC terminology) a.k.a. "under-developed" (in pessimistic non-PC terminology) country. But I admit that the term civitas provectibilis is well worth discussing. I'm open to better proposals. It's an important term, so all well-argued ideas are welcome. Neander (disputatio) 15:21, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Since it's not inconceivable that linguistically inept bureaucrats are using island as an adjective, what would you do with small, insular, developing states (developing states that are both small & insular)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:51, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Re "it's not easy to find a Latin counterpart to Engl. developing." Likewise in Samoan, which relies on ati 'build (with stones or concrete)', to which it adds a deictic particle for upwardness, resulting in the notion of "building up." That in turn suggests the constellation of meanings seen in Latin aedificari, (ex)strui, construi, condi, but I don't see why crescere shouldn't be OK; also perhaps amplificari and augeri. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:51, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

For terms related to socioeconomic development, the late David Morgan records:

developing, underdeveloped (of country) / ad progressionem nitens, nondum satis progressus (LRL)

developing: uderdeveloped [sic] parum cultus (Lev.)

development / incrementum (mercaturae v. doctrinarum artiumque) [s.20] | developing countries, third world populi egentiores [Acta Apost. Sedis, s.20]; nationes quae ad progressionem nituntur [Latinitas] (Helf.)

These seem to equate development with "stepping forward" (progress). (Let's hope that Morgan's site stays up. Has anyone thought of archiving it?) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:51, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Those terms listed by Morgan are valuable extra-Vicipaedian sources. The term to be picked up should be tolerably short (e.g. civitates ad progressionem nitentes insulanae looks prohibitively cumbersome). Populi egentiores looks more promising, and in line with civitas egentior (Ebbe Vilborg) and terra egentior (Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta). Neander (disputatio) 16:22, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

But the latter phrases are old-fashioned, if they correspond rather to English "underdeveloped" (now deprecated) rather than "developing" (positive, Whiggish and politically correct for the time being). But, anyway, Latin is old-fashioned ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:29, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)