Aperire sectionem principem


Cur nomen "Columbia" est non "Colombia"? -- Secundus Zephyrus 22:35, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Ambas formas vidimus, sicut aves. Rectam autem utendam nescio...--Ioshus (disp) 22:37, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)


...et Caribbaeo migrantibus incultum est... No hay referencia que sostenga la afirmación que la tribu Caribes, o que los migrantes de las zonas limitrofes con el mar caribe eran incultos. Debe ser cambiado el termino, así sea significativo de otro adjetivo como "agreste, salvaje" o similares porque no hay sustentación de ello, y en todo caso representaría una visión europea de la epoca en vez de una reconstrucción histórica y antropologica. [Ait usor die 27 Augusti 2019 21:12.]

Thanks for your comment. It is a bad choice of words, though not for the reason you give. The sentence is written in the passive, probably because it is a literal translation from some other language e.g. English, and "incultum" is intended as the past participle of "incolere" to inhabit (a form that scarcely exists). So, anyway, I'll rewrite the sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 28 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
It now says "American Indian peoples from Central America and the Caribbean islands were the first to inhabit the region now called Colombia." There is no comment on their level of culture. Personally I prefer to write "Americani indigenae" native Americans, avoiding the misnomer "Indi" Indians, but I don't have that choice here because the point is that (at the time and place under discussion) they were not indigenous, they migrated from further north. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 28 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
For the record: that incultum seems to have come from the keyboard of our taciturn geographer (then using the IP at 08:16 on 8 Aprilis 2009‎. From probably the same source (using the IP at 11:07 on 13 Aprilis 2009 came the nonword incultio(nis). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:53, 28 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Columbia".