Disputatio:Constantinus Samuel Rafinesque

Rafinesque is here categorized as an Auctor Latinus, but I have been unable to find any of his works which would justify the categorization; some of the titles are in Latin, but the text is in English for the most part, apart from the concise botanical descriptions, which are really a code rather than Latin writing (and, with the proper instruction, could be constructed by someone with no knowledge of Latin at all). If he actually did write one or more of his works in Latin, it would be helpful to point that out. CriticusFortuitus 13:33, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Evidently I was wrong in assuming from the titles that some of his works were in Latin. Thanks, I'll remove the category.

Incidentally, I don't agree with you about botanical Latin! It may be a strange form of Latin, and it may be easier to teach than the classical form, but it is a form of Latin none the less. However, I do strongly agree that if a writer merely embeds some Latin botanical descriptions in a work in a modern language, it isn't useful to categorise that writer as an auctor Latinus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Run-ons

Over here, we call sentences like "mortuus est fuit studiosus" run-ons: something has gone wrong with the structure or the punctuation. IacobusAmor 13:58, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

As you may realise, Hendricus's Latin is written in exactly the way Criticus Fortuitus describes above -- it is "a code ... constructed by someone with no knowledge of Latin at all". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Heh. (But if codes don't parse, they don't work!) IacobusAmor 18:10, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)