Disputatio:Motus Internationalis ad Bombas Subterraneas Interdicendas

Lemma

Lemma Mutus internationalis ad interdictionem armae eruptionis terrae, si modo classico interpretetur, Anglice in speciem significat 'An international mute toward the forbidding of an "arma" of an eruption of the earth'. (?!) Ergo signum "Convertimus" addebimus. Alicui Latinitatem ut videtur emendare oportet. Lemmata fortasse melioria: Motus internationalis ad interdicendas bombas subterraneas ? Motus internationalis pro bombis subterraneis interdictis ? Inceptum nationum . . . IacobusAmor 10:40, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Vel fortasse melius gentium ; vide infra. IacobusAmor 12:56, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

. . . interdicere bombas celatas ? Conatus inter civitates ut bombae celatae interdicantur ? &c., &c., &c. IacobusAmor 10:40, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Pro verbis Anglicis land mine versionem tuam "bombam subterraneam" approbandam esse censeo; tali modo, si necesse sit, pro mine sensu navali, "bombam submarinam" habebimus. Verbum "internationalis" latissime legitur in Latinitate hodierna. Possumus igitur, e verbis tuis, formam Motus Internationalis ad Bombas Subterraneas Interdicendas accipere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

For 'international', Vicipaedia should perhaps everywhere be using gentium, as in the most excellent Latin contributed by our anonymous friend 24.201.117.150 in the article Franciscus Sammut; also, for 'international law', Cassell's recommends ius gentium, not ius internationale. IacobusAmor 12:56, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are changes that would need to be discussed and, if agreed, introduced wholesale. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Cassells advice is only valid when considering the roman empire or perhaps 18th century international law, but not valid today. --123.192.69.44 18:20, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Cassells's advice is of course valid for the purpose for which it's intended: to assist in the writing of the classical Roman language. Problems arise when classical Roman culture didn't recognize distinctions we make today. Perhaps the solution in this case is to write ius gentium (thereby maintaining the attested style), but with the "pipe trick" to link it to the article Publicum ius internationale (thereby directing readers to the more-general concept). IacobusAmor 11:52, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

In the context of ancient Rome both would be the same, but not today where Ius gentium is distinctly not the same as international law. Look at out page ius or the english wiki page on international law and you will see the the ius gentium (law of the clans) is a subset of international law which has roots in roman law that applied outside the leges and senatus consulta and bound everyone regardless if one was a citizen and evolved over time forming the basis of natural law. In the twentieth century, international law today has gone beyond the ius gentium in many ways: most particularly many parts are defined by international treaties and accords which are not part of the ius gentium. --123.192.69.44 18:20, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Ait quidem en: "Ius gentium, Latin for 'law of nations,' was originally the part of Roman law that the Roman Empire applied to its dealings with foreigners, especially provincial subjects. In later times the Latin term came to refer to the natural or common law among nations considered as states within a larger human society, especially governing the rules of peace and war, national boundaries, diplomatic exchanges, and extradition, that together with jus inter gentes makes up public international law." Indeed, according to en:, we should be distinguishing between public international law and private international law. IacobusAmor 11:52, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

In case anybody's interested, here's an attestation that shows that gentes can be more than clans. Vide primum versum secundi psalmi: "Quare fremuerunt gentes, et populi meditati sunt inania?" (ἵνα τί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά) = "Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?" (Revised Standard Version). IacobusAmor 11:52, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

But at the time that statement was written the only other nation in the modern sense known to the Romans was Persia and I doubt they are referring to Persia, since the sentence is in the plural. Remember that that greek was translated from Hebrew or perhaps latin and even the english terms have a range of meaning which changed from the time the bible was first translated into english to today: witness the way civitas is translated as city; so without further research and thinking you can't conclude anything from such a source.

Moreover, at the time the psalm was written the ius gentium didn't apply to anyone outside of the Roman empire and there was no such thing as international law regulating the interaction with Persian nationals or the German nations (using nations again in a different sense as in tribal nation not nation-state).

The whole modern conception of nation (in the sense of nation-state) is a 17-20th century idea that only achieved its perfect definition only in the late 19th century, so we can't expect much unequivocal help with latin sources here. Witness again the term "status" as a borrowing from italian meaning "state" that appears during this period.

The term "ius inter gentes" I believe originally is a Vicipaedia circumlocution for "international", is it not? I don't recall an outside source for that.--123.192.69.44 12:19, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

I subsequently found that Iacobus is right about Ius inter gentes being a valid term meaning "Law between nations": google search shows that, in international law, the term ius inter gentes is the body of treaties that governs international relations, ius gentium is the body of laws common to all nations and which by default governs the treatment of foreigners and/or crimes not falling under any one country; together ius gentium plus ius inter gentes forms international law. In Vicipaedia, we are currently translating "international law" as "ius inter gentes et civitates" which would then mean "law between nations and states" which seems dubious given the example of the meaning of ius inter gentes. It is for international law in this inclusive broad sense that I think we don't have an acceptable term other than ius internationale. Perhaps ius apud gentes et civitates? ius gentium et inter gentes? ouch--123.192.69.44 19:05, 3 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for us to avoid "internationalis". It's very commonly used in modern Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:46, 3 Iulii 2011 (UTC)