Disputatio:Lee Carolus Bollinger

Hey Cjs2111, what exactly are you trying to say here: "Bollinger fortiter contra Machometum Ahmadinejad, praesidem Iraniae, invectus est."

Also, the issue of Lee, I've never had a good idea for that...--Ioscius ^(disp) 16:24, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

It should translate to something along the lines of "Bollinger strongly denounced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran". I think the grammar for invehere may be totally off...sorry...it's been 5 years since Latin class for me, and I'm still a bit rusty... anyway, Lee should probably be left alone since it has Middle English origins. Cjs2111 16:31, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but someone named Lee must surely have written something in Latin and given us a precedent.

I think we want invexit here. It's transitive, not deponent right?

Welcome back, after 5 years!! What brought you back?--Ioscius ^(disp) 16:40, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, it is transitive. I'd mixed up the Latin passive and the German perfect tense. I suppose I came back because I'm studying law now and am surrounded by it...it only seemed natural. Cjs2111 16:49, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of establishing a neutral POV, the article might want to point out that (as reported in some news sourves) Bollinger's invective didn't help his reputation in cultures where an essential trait of good hosts is to be polite to their guests. IacobusAmor 16:54, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the second sentence, isn't "ut pro" redundant? Also, the latter part of the phrase should read "for freedom of speech". A better way to render this might be "pro libertatem libere orare"...thoughts? Cjs2111 16:57, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Not really redundant grammatically, at least. Ius libenter dicendi? --Ioscius ^(disp) 17:16, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

In legibus pugnat semper ut pro libertate dicat. 'He labors in laws always to speak for freedom'. IacobusAmor 17:49, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Elegant! But how to express "freedom of speech" more specifically? I like Ioscius' suggestion, how about, then, "Pugnat semper ut pro iurem libenter dicendi"?Cjs2111 21:34, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Iure is all that I see wrong with that...--Ioscius ^(disp) 21:55, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

My tattered dictionary (Ainsworth's) offers a locution that contains relevant vocabulary: Vetare homines libere loqui 'To deny any one the freedom of speech'. IacobusAmor 22:08, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Incorporated. Cjs2111 22:11, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ius loqui? I don't think so. If you have a noun there like that, my eyes want loquendi...--Ioscius ^(disp) 22:35, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Ainsworth's point is that the noun-phrase 'freedom of speech' is aptly Latinized as the verb-phrase libere loqui, and we don't always have to translate nouns as only nouns and verbs as only verbs. IacobusAmor 02:25, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

My edits took place in ignorance of this conversation. Revert/change if you wish. Montivagus 22:15, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)