Disputatio:David Morgan

Nomen

Does he not use Davidus? Or some other reason this title doesn't follow VP:TNP?--Ioshus ^(disp) 22:32, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

He uses David -is, m., which is altogether much more common than Davidus. To say nothing of David indecl., the biblical form! --Iustinus 22:34, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Links

David has been asking me to keep those links to his online drafts secret. Or at least not to openly advertize them on wikipedia pages. The meain reason seems to be that he is embarassed by these earlier drafts, the purpose of which was to gather citations, without judging them, and he doesn't necessesarily aprove of his name being associated with them, as if he recommends those forms personally. Perhaps I could convince him to allow the links if we make that clear (afterall, he has made no effort to hide the pages himself), but I can't promise anything. --Iustinus 22:34, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Google knows about it. --Rolandus 22:40, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Yes. THis is why I phrased it broadly. It's kind of a futile gesture not to mention the pages here, inasmuch as he seems to have no plans to take them down, or protect them from search engine spiders, but I'd rather respect his wishes. I know I've seen fights like this on en: before, where the argument that "if it's not hidden, it's public anyway" usually wins out, but we're a smaller wiki, and thus can be seen as more socially responsible than en, if you know what I mean. --Iustinus 22:56, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to publish the links, I meant he should remove the pages from his server, ask Google to remove it from the archive and maybe we should delete the version of the page with the links. Otherwise the information is in the page history. --Rolandus 23:02, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Google does not crawl the page history nor past revisions. To be more precise, the wikimedia servers are configured so that Google does not crawl any page whose path starts with /w/, only those pages whose path starts with /wiki/. --UV 23:08, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see no point in continuing this ban. The Lexicon may have been left unfinished, but it is a work of immense importance, even the old draft available on line (though, I suppose Furman is unlikely to leave it up now). It is widely known, and widely used. I merely enforced this in the first place for David's sake—as I explained above, it kind of embarrassed him—but it is wrong for so great a work to get so little recognition here, and I can't imagine David wanting it to stay that way now that he's gone. --Iustinus (disputatio) 08:29, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

I was also thinking that Furman will eventually take David's pages down. Should we consider preserving the Lexicon somehow? It couldn't go in to Vicipaedia, but could inform Victionario perhaps. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:40, 11 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

It did occur to me that these links would likely be temporary. Transfering them wholesale to a wikisite would be an obvious copyright problem, and documenting the lemmata piecemeal on victionarium would be a huge job. I think we should all save our copies of the pages as they currently stand, and then wait to see what happens: I have no idea what the plan is for his lexicon, but surely SOMETHING will happen to it. --Iustinus (disputatio) 04:53, 12 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Obiit?

Infaustissimum nuntium accipio Davidem hodie diem obiisse. Exspecto dum nuntius attestetur priusquam commentationem renovam. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:02, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Alas, from what I gather, Georgius's sources are independent. Tragic news. --Iustinus (disputatio) 22:08, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this. However, I can't seem to find any sources/news. Jondel (disputatio) 06:46, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

[1][2] --Iustinus (disputatio) 07:48, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Iustine, gratias. Rursum dico me paenitet de nuntio tragico. Nunc sum in loco laboris ubi sitio cum verbo "blog" praeclusa est. Posterior rursum videbo. Sed iam pauco commentationem renovi.Jondel (disputatio) 08:02, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Mirum te posse Libro Prosopographico accedere sed non ephemeridi isti. Quamquam hi fontes haud sollemnes sint, quando obituarium publicum videro, certiores vos faciam. --Iustinus (disputatio) 09:12, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Tibi, quoniam hoc est locus labore, interdicitur ludere, aperire facebook, etc. Eodem modi latine loquor ut minime intelligatur/(ne intelligatur) ab aliquo. Wikipedia habetur utilis ad laborandum hic. Non facebook, blog etc quae ad ludendum, otium habetur.Jondel (disputatio) 10:01, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Excusatum me habeas, perperam intellexeram te utique posse illi priori nexui accedere, non autem huic altero. --Iustinus (disputatio) 18:12, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Licet, non mihi(nobis) refert. Forsan incertus, latina mea fallat, si ita me paenitet. Saltim, vidi facebook in taberna interretelis nocte superiore et reliqui sententiam. Emendemus rem quod possimus emendare.Incertus, in taberna vicipaediae nuntiemus? Jondel (disputatio) 23:25, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

dubsig

Iacobe, you added several {{dubsig}}s to the sentence "Gradum baccalaurealem adeptus est cum artium tum scientiarum a Collegio Woffordiano." What is your dubium here? Additionally you removed the dubsigs that you yourself added to the questionable Latin names for Furman and Wofford... does this mean you found attestations? --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:04, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Cum governs the ablative, but if it means 'when' (with artium tum scientiarum modifying gradum and a lot of hyperbaton going on), where's the verb? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:03, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

It's neither. It's the cum ... tum construction, also known as cum ... cum or tum ... tum, essentially synonymus with tam ... quam, non solum ... sed etiam, or even et ... et. I would cite a reference, but I've run out of time to work on this for now. --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:11, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK: 'not only A, but also (ta-daa!) B', a fulsome construction, which copyeditors sometimes strike out. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:57, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Hardly fulsome in this incarnation! Besides, it is extremely common in Latin prose, especially, but not exclusively, in learned works of the Renaissance.

In other news, for the next, oh, say 36 hours or so, my internet access will be limited, which may keep me from this project for the time being. I hope you will all take good care of it!

--Iustinus (disputatio) 18:07, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think I will change the links in the above cited sentence to match the red degree links I created for his doctoral degrees. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:06, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

As to the two college names, I've changed them to remove the -ianum endings because we don't normally make those up. If in fact there are attestations, please revert me. "Vanderbiltia", as Iustinus olim and Iacobus hodie have shown, is attested. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:29, 8 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Vicipaedia

BTW, this is David. --Iustinus (disputatio) 02:20, 11 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Mehercle!Jondel (disputatio) 02:46, 11 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to start an equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (with the requirement of "generally a few hundred edits")/de:Wikipedia:Gedenkseite für verstorbene Wikipedianer (where one contribution is already sufficient to merit inclusion)? --UV (disputatio) 20:48, 11 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would certainly not object. --Iustinus (disputatio) 04:53, 12 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Anniversarium

Hodie dies anniversarius obitus fuit. Desideramus te, callidissime hominum!

In other news, I recently discovered that Patrick M. Owens, AKA Patricius Oenus, inherrited the Lexicon and has been continuing to edit the last draft (I'll add that link to the article). I'm glad that undertaking was not lost with its author. --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:41, 7 Februarii 2014 (UTC)