Disputatio:Cuniculus

Nuper emendata

Iacobe, could you hold off on correcting my student's articles at least until next week when we remove the {{in progressu}} templates? I know that even pagina usque elaboratur is just a request, not a rule, but it will be much easier for us if you just post your issues on disputatio for now. --Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Since at least ten other Vicipaedians and numerous bots had worked on the article before this week, one wonders whether labeling the whole text "in progressu" might have been unwarranted. Perhaps the template could be used for a newly contributed section, but is there then a formula for turning the "in progressu" off (so that old material below that section can be shown to be "non in progressu")? IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I didn't object to the taxobox, for instance (actually I was quite pleased you added that), I just didn't think Rebecca's text was ready to edit (she and I are still working on it, and I also don't want to scare off some of my shyer students). To my knowledge however, la: still generally does not bother with distinguishing sections and pages covered by templates (but then I've been gone a long time!). --Iustinus 01:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

But as long as you have made these corrections, let me respond to some of them:

• delecto -are means to delight, not to enjoy. Therefore Romanos delectabat cuniculos edere is perfectly good Latin, Romani ... delectabant is not.--Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• cuniculos melius esse edere is indeed rather awkward, but I don't see how eos melius esse edi improves the matter. Perhaps melius edi would be an improvement (cf. Plautus "epityrum estur insane bene") but not esse edi unless I'm missing something.--Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting to delete the esse in was in effect a typo. Melius edi is what was intended, but it feels weird too, probably because it recalls the English idiom so closely. IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Probably "meliores essu" would be most idiomatic, but see below on the syntax of the phrase as it stands. --Iustinus 01:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I thought the supine was esu (ēsu). IacobusAmor 14:28, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• In re your note "edere means 'to eat', not what was wanted: 'to be eaten'" I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But in any case it's clear that what you think she's trying to say, and how I read the Latin, are entirely different. See what I said about delecto above. --Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

The original was dixit cuniculos melius esse edere. Is that trying to say '(he) said rabbits were better to eat'? (That's where the esse came from.) The English idiom 'to eat' here means 'to be eaten', much as 'to sell' can mean 'to be sold'. IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize this referred to the same sentence. It is true that Rebecca almost certainly had that English expression in mind when she first wrote it, but we ended up reanalyzing it (and editing the wording, mind you) so that it meant "he said it was better to eat rabbits." Still not the most idiomatic, but not bad for a second year! --Iustinus 01:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

If it really followed the English idiom, it would be meliores not melius. --Iustinus 02:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• We are still looking for the text of Gregory's edict (and would appreciate any help fellow wikipedians can offer). But I don't see any problem with using the word laurices here: even if it's a hapax legomenon, the one occurence in Pliny seems solid enough to treat it as a real word.--Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Despite the mention of Cassells, the point is not the classicism of the word; that was established by Pliny: the point, as in many an article contributed from scratch (rather than translated from a big wiki), is Is it true? Did Gregory really speak of laurices, rather than cuniculi? did he really mean unborn or suckling baby rabbits were OK to eat during Lent, but that adult rabbits were not? (To what does Pliny's laurices refer if not the fetus?) IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I don't think using the word "laurices" here necessarily implies that Gregory did so. I will note that the one Latin source we've found that mentions the eating of young rabbits on lent does not use that word (Gregorii Historiae 5.5 ad fin.: Erant enim dies sanctae quadraginsimae, in qua fetus cunicolorum saepe comedit. (Rebecca, if you're reading this, you probably should add this quote in an appropriate spot!)

Oh, but as to your other point, yes apparently Gregory's edict, whatever the phrasing, allowed the eating of fetal and/or suckling rabbits only. --Iustinus 01:41, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• venibant ≠ veniebant! Look in your Cassell's under veneo.

Quite right, so Hi spectaculis certabant venibantque magno pretio = These were contending in shows and selling at a big price'? IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were "shown" in competitions. --Iustinus 01:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• The incongruence between America Foederata (a synonym for CFA) and America Septentrionalis was something we wee still working out. --Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

To add to the fun, the seal of the U.S. Treasury represents the Treasury of North America. IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty hilarious, I hadn't realized that. Cf. Egger, who uses Civitates Foederatae Septentrionalis Americae, apparently in order to resolve the whole rigamarole about "America" vs. "America"... which is stupid, because no one says "The United States of North America" in ANY language, and this doesn't solve the problem, because the United States of Mexico is also in North America. --Iustinus 01:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• Many of your other questions are helpful, and we'll see where they go.

Thank you --Iustinus 19:39, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. The opportunity to expand one's vocabulary & knowledge of syntax is always welcome! IacobusAmor 22:07, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that we are likely to roll back some of these, even in some cases when you are not wrong. We can hash it out in more detail later—especially if Rebecca sticks around, as I hope she will.

--Iustinus 01:06, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Is the {{tiro}} perhaps adding to the problem? That template does contain a request for corrections, so I guess we're sending mixed messages. Maybe I should tell my students to just use in progressu, then switch it to tiro when they're done. --Iustinus 02:04, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be best. "In progressu" alone says, in essence, "Please don't touch for a week", and I guess that's what you need.

I see the point raised above about the "In progressu" template. At present I don't see a need for the kind of partial formula Iacobus suggests, but if you want to make one, Iacobe, of course you can! The "In progressu" formula covers the whole text of the page. There's no concern with bot edits: they don't affect the text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I have believed that the "In progressu" prefix gives a few days' opportunity for peaceful work. Whoever is keen on correcting other contributors' work — a very respectful ethos per se — might consider correcting non-prefixed lousy pages of which there's no dearth. (I know that "lousy" is a harsh word, but my skills in English do not allow me to think up a syntactically suitable PC-expression.) Neander 12:29, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

True enough, but the instructions were schizophrenic (in the vulgar, not the psychoanalytically correct, sense), since they said "Usor Latinitatis callidior textum inspiciat, errores corrigat, resque auctori explicet." That's a clearcut invitation to act. ¶ In the comparison of adjectives, we seem to have a new technical term: lousy, lousier, lousiest. IacobusAmor 14:28, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

You're right, a mixed message was sent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Nice to be able to contribute to the enrichissement of the English technical vocabulary. :–) Neander 15:17, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

OK, glad we're in agreement, then. I'll remove the tiro template, and then Rebecca and I will worry about how to proceed. I'll warn my other students today not to use both templates at once, and if they want to be totally safe to use the scriptorium. --Iustinus 16:00, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Vide etiam

Corniculus?

I see a link to jackalope in the vide etiam section. Which leads me to the image to the right. --Iustinus 06:16, 6 Iunii 2011 (UTC)