Disputatio:Mythistoria
Latest comment: abhinc 16 annos by Iovis Fulmen
Vae! Optime mythistoriam appellas, quod Theodisce "Roman" vel Anglice "novel" est! Nostrates autem, et ego, multis locis "fabulas" tantummodo dixerunt. Utrum nomen melius sit, nescio.--Iovis Fulmen 14:17, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Consentio, sed re vera sunt qui verbum mythistoria malunt. Alio in loco est apta disputatio. IacobusAmor 15:12, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Quonam in loco?--Iovis Fulmen 15:19, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Vide Disputatio Categoriae:Scriptores mythistoriarum. Credo habitudinem Vicipaedianam esse ludos scaenicos fabulas appellare, historias romanicas mythistorias. Sed ego in dubio sum an mythistoria verbum ideale sit necne; igitur nunquam categoriam Categoria:Mythistoria creavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:23, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#Romance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Although "fabula" can mean drama, I've never felt comfortable with this use of the word. It would be clearer and equally classical to call plays "ludi scaenici". Could we maybe fix on that (if anyone else agrees with me, that is!) and then consider further what to call fiction? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your discomfiture about using fabula=drama; I suspect, although I haven't verified, that this use of the word was colloquial in the beginning, with fabula really just meaning plot (or "histoire" in Genette's understanding). This is also why I prefer mythistoria to fabula=novel: it is more specific and less ambiguous for a category--Iovis Fulmen 12:34, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- D. Morgan's lexicon (which I happen to have taken a liking to) says:
- I fully agree with your discomfiture about using fabula=drama; I suspect, although I haven't verified, that this use of the word was colloquial in the beginning, with fabula really just meaning plot (or "histoire" in Genette's understanding). This is also why I prefer mythistoria to fabula=novel: it is more specific and less ambiguous for a category--Iovis Fulmen 12:34, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Although "fabula" can mean drama, I've never felt comfortable with this use of the word. It would be clearer and equally classical to call plays "ludi scaenici". Could we maybe fix on that (if anyone else agrees with me, that is!) and then consider further what to call fiction? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Quonam in loco?--Iovis Fulmen 15:19, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- novel / commenticia fabula, fabulosa narratio, fabula Milesia (v. Romanensis) (LRL); mythistoria (CL)
- novel / fabula milesia [s.19]; fabula romanensis [s.18] (Helf.)
- novel / Novelle (short novel, long story): fabella [Georges]; novella (fabula) [s.18] (Helf.)
- novel / fabula, fabella, historia; -ist fabularum scriptor, fabulator (Lev.)
- novelist, story-writer / fabulator, narrator, fabularum (v. narrantiuncularum) scriptor (LRL)
--Harrissimo 22:06, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
- Now there is a lot of different terms that have been used by various writers interchangably. Perhaps it would be useful (whatever "useful" is, anyway...) to agree on a terminology. So let me just suggest to start off the discussion:
Fiction: Fabulae
Novel: Mythistoria
Drama: Ludi scaenici
Fable (the kind Aesopus and Hans Christian Andersen write): Exemplum_(genus litterarum)
- Now there is a lot of different terms that have been used by various writers interchangably. Perhaps it would be useful (whatever "useful" is, anyway...) to agree on a terminology. So let me just suggest to start off the discussion: