Disputatio:Liber

Liber fuit pagina mensis Octobris 2008.

De titulo

Scio exstare et alios sensus huius verbi "liber" (inter quos sensum originalem "cortex interior arboris") necnon alia verba fere tria homonyma (liber = puer; liber = independens; Liber Pater). Haec pagina ad titulum simplicem Liber movi quia, nisi fallor, permulti nexus de re bibliographica et litteraria hic adveniunt, perpauci de aliis rebus. Si autem alii Vicipaediani dissentiunt, possumus faciliter ad Liber (litterae) removere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 5 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Mihi placet!!!

De sensús divisionibus

It may well be that "book (physical object)" and "book (piece of writing)" should be distinguished. If we do that, however, we have two 15,000-word articles; for the moment we have a reason to stick with one 30,000-word article. So I leave things as they are. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

De canibus dormiendis ne disputemus! IacobusAmor 15:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

This worries me

"Itaque Aegyptii primum e libro fecerunt chartam et volumina, quibus nominandis deinde idem verbum liber usu receptum est." This seems to mean that the Egyptians were the first to make paper and books out of inner bark. Is that true? I thought the use of bark was a central/northern European thing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to be Iustinus's bailiwick, so maybe he'll chime in; however, peoples of Oceania have been making material out of the inner bark of the paper mulberry plant for probably thousands of years, and they decorate (and probably for thousands of years have decorated) this material by painting designs on it, so, although painting strictu senso isn't "writing," we may have independent inventions of this idea. Anyway, isn't papyrus made from the inner bark of the papyrus plant? IacobusAmor 15:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I never heard that a smallish reed has bark, and I never yet found the word "liber" applied to a part of the papyrus plant. Now it's true that Lewis & Short give exactly that as their explanation of how "liber" came to mean "book", but I wouldn't regard them as a reliable source on ancient Egyptian bibliography. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

In classical texts I've found two uses of the word "liber" meaning specifically "bark of trees used as a writing material", in both cases making it quite distinct from papyrus (as indeed it is). Unfortunately, I don't think there is any case in which an author says "we call books books because of the use of the bark of trees for paper". But then, there is no case in which an author says "we call books books because the inner rind of papyrus can be called liber", and no case in which "liber" is used for this papyrus rind. So, based on what I've found so far, the papyrus theory is less justifiable than the tree bark theory, though neither has what you might call full support. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:47, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the paper mulberry is used in south east Asia too: indeed, I have a quire of Burmese mulberry paper not far from where I'm sitting. I wonder who encouraged the spread of that plant, and how long ago? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:23, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)