Disputatio:Conversio industrialis

I removed Revolutio Industrialis because this is absolutely wrong. Politically a revolutio is a backwards or counter revolution, a literal "turningrolling back", as the French Revolution was perceived by the Catholics in France, since it was associated with a turning back or against the Catholic Church in favor of secular science. Although Revolutio is the source of the english, etc. revolution by generalization, you have to keep in mind the meaning of the word in latin and that the industrial revolution is an advance not a turning back.--Rafaelgarcia 02:19, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Technically wrong, as it is in every other language, but not absolutely wrong since it is the popular usage. Revolutio Industrialis appears in hitherto red links all over vicipaedia and has the advantage of being instantly recognisable. Conversio and commutatio might be more accurate, but I don't think Revolutio ought to be completely disallowed, or pedantry get too much in the way of producing a useful encyclopaedia. By the way, I am just translating this article from the one in Spanish Wikipaedia. Please help me out and continue it if you've got time! Its a bit more concise than the English one. 82.36.94.228 12:36, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Recognizable to who? A Latin reader, or a Romance one? This is after all a latin encyclopedia....right?

It's Latin, yes, but it's also an encyclopedia, which means not to make up new facts, even if we don't like the existing ones. 'Conversio industrialis' doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia, while there's at least a couple instances of 'revolutio industrialis' (e.g. "Industrialis revolutio, quae circa medium saeculi XVIII coepit, adscribi debet inventioni perfectiorum instrumentorum in rebus arte factis.") Now, if a term of better Latinity has been in use, then by all means we could change it; but otherwise, it's kind of like renaming civil wars because they're uncivil. —Mucius Tever 19:45, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Yes but when you see a term you have to be careful whether it is used attributely or descriptively; the only way to tell is by understanding what they are saying and why amongst other things. In this case, the sources, which are all Catholic Church related, are arguing that the industrial revolution is just an example of the continuing movement backwards (revolutio) from God, which is a distinctly religious arguement or point of view rather than a provable fact.

Of course, one should include in the article that some religious people consider it a revolution. That they do heightens the specific Latin meaning of the term, as a rolling back, rather than diminishes it.--Rafaelgarcia 20:17, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

'all'? I see one of them does; the one I quoted doesn't seem to show enough context to tell, though what's there is pretty neutral; and of course the linked sample doesn't really have anything else. Switching to the web, Ephemeris uses it in an article from this past year, some German Latinist uses it in a couple places such as this 2005 piece ... The original sense of revolutio, as far as I can tell is just a return, really - motion back towards a point, not necessarily retrograde motion or reversion from some ideal as you interpret the one locus to read; 'revolutio animarum' for example was just reincarnation whether "hominum in bestias, vel in homines bestiarum". If a negative sense is felt, I expect it's mostly due to context. Now, I'm not saying 'revolutio' is the best word here, or even that it's a terribly good one; just that 'revolutio industrialis' is the only name I've seen for it so far, apt or not, and VP:TNP repeats several times "if a Latin name exists, use it." Of course, if someone can turn up a source calling it the res novae industriales or something, then by all means let's go for a change. But until then, the general rule of "don't make stuff up" applies — there's no good in sitting the page at a title that a tiro would neither think to search for [because too dissimilar from familiar terms] nor be educated by [because entirely fictitious]. —Mucius Tever 00:58, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

They are all CATHOLIC sources (the ones you provided before), that's context enough. Did you read the treatease below on what their definition is of revolution?? The original sense you mention is in physics, the original sense in politics is a turning back against religious order, or as Guglielmo Audisio says "separationem Ecclesiae a Statu, quasi nihil esset aut vulgare quiddam Eccelsea in civitate" and "Deificatio rationis-deificatio carnis" and "Est revolutio peccatum capitale in re civili et politica." (sorry yes according to Catholic George Washington is in hell unless he repented for his mortal sin of revolution) and "Revolutio est constitutio publici status ex hominis voluntate, exluso iure divino; doctrina est, omnem auctoritatem non ex Deo, sed ex homine, vel ex populo repetens..".--Rafaelgarcia 01:38, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Being Catholic doesn't require the Industrial Revolution to be a bad thing. What is being enumerated, so far as I can tell, is the same negative sense we attach to 'revolution' in English—albeit with Catholic flavor—but that is not the same sense as that used in the proper noun 'revolutio industrialis'/'industrial revolution'. Certainly a Catholic would have no trouble numbering the industrial revolution among 'revolutions, in the benign sense of the word'. —Mucius Tever 03:25, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, no one is inventing anything or making anything up, I was just translating revolution, using one of several universally accepted neutral non point-of-view term for it. The industrial revolution is not returning to any conceivable point, except from an extreme religious point of view. --Rafaelgarcia 01:45, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

But you were inventing a translation, not using one already in use. That may be fine when producing body text, but not so much so in the rendition of the proper name of an event. Anyway, I've been scrounging over vatican.va; the only translation of 'Industrial Revolution' I've been able to find so far renders 'the industrial revolution of the last century'[1] with the bulky paraphrase 'conversio illa et commutatio, qua ob inductam quaestuosam industriam saeculum praeteritum fuit insigne'[2], suggesting the translator had no name for it; an encyclical of the current Pope also mentions the phrase but the Latin translation has not yet been produced; he does, though, refer to Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, characterizing it as a response to the conditions it produced (perhaps the res novae of the title allude to the sense of 'revolution' as well as that of the 'new things' involved; I can't find a Latin text of it either). —Mucius Tever 03:25, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the revolutionaries in France did indeed publicly and actively favor turning back to the pagan past, with crazy 10 week calendars with no sundays to keep people from knowing when to worship the sabbath. The Catholics were right to call it a revolution. Also the October revolution is also a revolution in the latin sense. The American revolution wasn't and many others, except from a certain point of view.--Rafaelgarcia 01:51, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

When languages borrow terms from other languages they often take a secondary meaning as the primary meaning of the borrowing, so technically it is not wrong in spanish english etc. But in this case the term comes from Latin..

If a conversio or rerum commutatio is a genuine revolutio, by all means it should be called that; but the only revolutio conceivable in this instance is one in which we return to a preindustrial economy.--Rafaelgarcia 16:41, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Revolution in English means turning around. The secondary usage of the word to mean some great upheaval that radically changes the status quo has been used on the analogy of the French Revolution. There is no reason why Latin should not use that secondary meaning on the same analogy . I think you seem to imagine like Dr Bradley, whom you so admire, that Latin died after Livy, Cicero and Caesar.82.36.94.228 18:20, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, revolutio is a valid addition to the latin vocabulary, and additions are fine and good. But indiscriminate substitutions of new terms for perfectly good old ones, is creating a new language. Newton used revolutio to mean the circling back to the same point of a planet or other body as it orbits another; as distinguished from a rotatio about its own axis. Thus a year is a tempus revolutionis. A day is a tempus rotationis. Subsequently, as a political term Revolutio was introduced by Catholic scholars to describe the series of rerum commutationes in France; the term however refers to a subset of upheavals: those which roll back certain developments, bringing us back to a status quo ante. In particular, the Catholic scholar who coined the term (I believe a spaniard I can't find it anywhere right now), used it dispagingly in the sense of undoing the progress of the church in Europe.--Rafaelgarcia 19:38, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Icouldn't find the original but this explains: Juris naturæ et gentium privati et publici fundamenta By Guglielmo Audisio--Rafaelgarcia 20:05, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I added Revolutio Industrialis to the beginning since there are more than one source, with an explanation to look here for an explanation. If someone moves it back to Revolutio Industrialis, I will try to argue anymore. Maybe when someone writes a page on Revolutio politica, they will one day explain how the term evolved in the early 21st century to encompass all rerum commutationes by back borrowing from Romance Languages. The pressure to do so by latin learners seems somehow insurmountable, despite the utter obviousness of the word.--Rafaelgarcia 03:12, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Cassell's has conversio as 'change' (and other things), but doesn't have revolutio at all. For 'revolution' in the sense of 'turning round', it has conversio, orbis, ambitus. For 'political revolution', it has res novae, reipublicae conversio, and reipublicae commutatio. So conversio would seem to be at least one fair possibility for the kind of social upheaval induced by what English-speakers call an industrial revolution. But then for the 'Industrial' part, in place of reipublicae, you'd be looking for a genitive, right? Ergo Industriae Conversio ~ Industriae Commutatio? IacobusAmor 03:28, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right that Industriae Conversio or Industriae Commutatio would be more idiomatic latin. I think Myces is also correct that the current church no longer cultivates the type of latin used by Guglielmo Audisio, and as far as I know it no longer condemns the industrial revolution, although I think the pope does bemoan laissez faire aspects capitalism in its most recent encyclical.--Rafaelgarcia 03:51, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)