Disputatio:Ignis Graecus

Latest comment: abhinc 14 annos by IacobusAmor in topic apud versus ad

Quidquid id est? recensere

  1. Ab initio, nomen disputandumst: cur non Ignis fluens? Incendium Graecum non reddit exploratio Googles ope, nec ignis fluens, at illud puriore sensu convertit Ὑγρὸν Πύρ.
  2. Aliae Vicipaediae non citandae sunt. Res sunt auctore ispo investigandae.

--Ioscius (disp) 15:15, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

etiam Italice dicitur fuoco greco, id est ignis Graecus--Massimo Macconi 15:29, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sicut dicit Massimo, nonnest phrasis recte ignis Graecus? IacobusAmor 15:33, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Salve. Non scio nomen est ignis Graecus. Id res est meus primus res. --General-Osiris 15:45, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
It might help to check words in a dictionary before posting. For example, in "Id res est meus primus res," the first word is wrongly neuter, and meus primus is wrongly masculine. In Genus aparati fuit secretus, the second word is misspelled and in the wrong declension, and the fourth word is in the wrong gender. So: Genus apparatus fuit secretum 'The nature of the machinery had been kept secret'. (Btw, is that what you meant?) ¶ Also, Vicipaedia has the marking "{{tiro}}" for beginners to use to invite assistance. IacobusAmor 17:02, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, a few words are misspelled but I looked in my grammar book. If you say "the nature of the machinery" (as I wanted to), you have to put "aparatus" in the Genetiv (genetivus). That would be "aparati". I hope this explanation is easy to understand. --General-Osiris 17:42, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
See Words, i. e. [1] apparatus is fourth declension genitive ending -us. It's OK to be a beginner, we all know it's difficult at the beginning. Just keep at it one word at a time. Eventually you'll be able to start worrying about syntax, but right the challenge before you is declension, gender, conjugation, that sort of thing. The words program may be of great help in that regard.--Rafaelgarcia 17:57, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help, it's very hard to translate from german into latin. I just learned the other way, so please excuse my mistakes. --General-Osiris 18:00, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'll move it to Ignis Graecus, OK? Incendium is more usually a house or city on fire; ignis is just fire, which is what we want here. Anyway, it's a good thing we have started the article on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, it's good to hear some positive replies for my article! --General-Osiris 19:43, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gemeral Osiris/Ignis Graecus recensere

Natürlich verstehen wir dass deine erste Seite ist. Du hast schon eine sehr gute Arbeit gemacht. Was um die Name geht, werden wir gemeinsam sehen, was die korrekte Bezeichnung ist. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 15:59, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ferrum is wrong, General Osiris, as you will see when you look up "ferrum" in the Latin-German dictionary! But what's the right word for a "weapon" in general? Arma seems difficult to fit into the sentence (since it's plural, and fire cannot be pluralized). Any ideas? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Armamentum --Iustinus 19:41, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Gratias tibi ago, ut saepe, Iustine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Err, I looked into a german online-diktionary. There is the word "ferrum" translated as "weapon" --General-Osiris 11:48, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, then, you have to find a better dictionary. Any good dictionary will make clear that the main meaning of this word is "iron". Poets and other fancypants often use a word meaning "iron" for "weapon" because it happens to suit them. But an encyclopedia can't do that. And even a poet would be taking a big risk in describing a liquid fire substance, however bellicose, as "iron". People won't understand. "This poet is a fool," people would say.
A good rule to follow is this. If you don't previously know the meaning of the word you found in a German-Latin dictionary, you should always (as I said above) recheck it in the Latin-German dictionary. They taught me this at school and they were right. If the first meaning of the word, as revealed in that way, is something quite distinct (and that's the case here), it may be better to search again for another word. Readers, when they read your text, will expect the word to have its common meaning (in this case "iron"), not its subsidiary or poetic meaning, "weapon". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've revised the first paragraph and added a reference for the Latin and Greek names. Maybe someone else will have a look at the rest? I can never make the "ref name" feature work, so I'm afraid the footnotes are now more repetitive than they need to be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:53, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see it now! The notes are OK, therefore. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
I hammered away at it a bit. But I couldn't really understand some of it so I did my best to translate based on what I inferred from the broken text. Could someone check up on the types of greek fire by comparing with the cited German page. I don't know German.--Rafaelgarcia 04:03, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

apud versus ad recensere

The recent edit apud->ad on the page Graecus ignis makes no sense to me: if you want to say english at it should be apud, if to/towards then ad, if on then in. --Rafaelgarcia 15:50, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply
The reason given for changing apud Vicipaediam->ad Vicipaediam, is that "apud=personae, ad=res" is that right??--Rafaelgarcia 00:14, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hey Rafaelgarcia! Sorry for my late reply. I learned the meaning "at" for apud only if a human is the object and ad if a thing is the object. E.g.: "apud filium meum (at/nearby my son)" and "ad Romam (at Rome)"
I'm sorry, if my explanation isn't very good, but it's difficult to describe it in English. --General-Osiris 18:49, 10 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Quod dicis est incorrectus. Vide "proelium apud X", et exempli in libro Lingua Latina a Hans H. Orberg scripto sicut "Syra non sedet, sed apud lectum stat." Vide etiam Perseus ubi significatio IIB dicit: "...apud aedem ... apud Antium... apud theatrum...apud Asiam...." significante "At, in = in with abl. or gen. or abl. of place". --Rafaelgarcia 00:20, 11 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I don't get that. Googling apud+inanimate does get some results, e.g. apud librum, apud arborem. If we want to limit ourself to good, ancient prose, then we have quotes like Caesar "agri in Hispania apud Karthaginem Novam," Cicero "bellatum apud Actium" and "aliquem apud iudicium persequi", etc. There may be legitimate arguments against apud Vicipaediam, but surely the logical substitution would be in Vicipaedia (like apud Vergilium but in Aeneide) --Iustinus 02:26, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and forgot to mention: Iacobus, accents of that sort ARE used in IPA: see en:IPA#Suprasegmentals. And it is true that the Greek accute accent is though to have represented a high tone (at least on short vowels), and the circumflex a falling tone, both of which match IPA usage. Problem: no one knows exactly what the grave accent represented. --Iustinus 02:40, 3 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why are you addressing me here? I don't seem to have said anything in this thread pertinent to your comment. IacobusAmor 09:17, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nomina retraxi recensere

Retraxi nomen Neograecum quia nobis non relevat. Retraxi etiam "ignis Romanus,"<ref name="WD">"[[:de:Griechisches Feuer|Griechisches Feuer]]" in Vicipaedia Theodisca.</ref>" quia, secundum "Google Books", "ignis Romanus" sensum religiosum, minime bellicosum, habet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

Revertere ad "Ignis Graecus".