Disputatio:Res novae

What does Res Novae mean?

From Vicipaedia:Taberna#Res Novae

The following was copied from the Taberna discussion as of 22 May 2007--Rafaelgarcia 15:52, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone knows the history and/or logic behind the term "res novae" (pl.) which the dictionary gives as the proper translation for "political revolution". It's just that I can't figure out how you go from something like "rerum administrationis commutatio" or "rei publicae commutatio" or simply "commutatio", all of which seem better to me, to "res novae"... Is there a good way to think of "res" such that "res novae" as "political revolution" would make more sense? Rafaelgarcia 01:27, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

It was a cliché in the 1st century BC, used by Cicero, Caesar and Horace; the latter referred to the Allobroges as "novis rebus infidelis Allobrox" the Allobrogian, unreliable during a revolution (rather unfair, but it happened to fit the metre of Horace's poem). I take it the idea is "res" meaning business, public affairs, etc.; "novus" meaning not just new but different. Caesar's phrase was "novis rebus studebat", he was working towards revolution, i.e. a different arrangement of political affairs. Don't know if this helps ...

Allobroges, now there's a redlink that needs turning blue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, if there is a poet who is entirely unlikely to have used a phrase just to fit the metre, it would have to be Horace.--Ceylon 21:45, 4 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I guess Res Novae simultaneously evokes so many meanings that "political revolution" is lost among them. If someone came up on the street and said "audivisiti de rebus novis?" I would think "did you hear about the news?" not "did you hear about the revolution?". Similarly if a woman up and says "Vidisti meas res novas?" ... Would it therefore be more appropriate for an encyclopedia to use/prefer a different, more specific term like "commutatio politica" or "revolutio politica" for "political revolution" (with of course "Res Novae" mentioned as an alternative acceptable historical term)? I am thinking about the history of Cuba which has had its share of revolutions and refering to "res novae primae" and "res novae praeteritae" would seem so incredibly awkward.--Rafaelgarcia 14:12, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

This is what I tell my students about res...it doesn't mean "thing", it means "every thing" (which is not the same as "everything").--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:04, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Well, what woudl you think if someone asked you "Quid de re publica sentis?" ;) --Iustinus 17:02, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

In a political discussion, I would think he is asking "What do you think about the government?" But in a context regarding some particular public affair, I would think he is saying "What do you think about the public affair?" "Re publica" means "public thing", which thing depends on the context. If no context is specified then the only public thing I can think of is the government. "Res nova" means "new thing" and which thing likewise depends on the context, but here in the absence of specified context, I find there is nothing for me to go on to automatically think of government at all. "Res Novae means "new things", I would with my modern mind, in the absence of any other context, first think of "technology" or "gadgets" or "new items" not "political revolution". I don't dispute "res novae" can mean "revolution" in certain contexts such as Caesar's and Cicero's. However, revolutions are apparently common enough, and in modern times new things are common enough as well, that a more specific term is needed to specify "political revolution". Res Novae just seems too general.--Rafaelgarcia 17:28, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

My point is that res and "thing" are not exact synonyms. A statue in a park is a public thing but it is not a res publica. I don't think res novae always means political revolution, but the phrase is very charged in any case. I think it generally means "a disturbing change." You could theoretically say "I bought this at a 50% discount. Isn't that a big deal?" because 50% off IS a pretty "big" "deal." But you would never say that, because "big deal" means something else to English speakers. There's no need for Latin, even in an encyclopedia, to use every word with scientific accuracy, any more so than English does. However, you are welcome to prove me wrong: find a locus classicus or even a later locus from a good author, where res novae cannot possibly mean "revolution" or "disturbing change," and I will happily concede. --Iustinus 19:00, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is authoritative enough but look here T. Maccius Plautus, Mostellaria One of the characters in the play asks: Quid tu otiosus res novas requiritas? meaning, I believe, what new things are you idly continually looking for? or loosely I think why are you continually looking for trouble?.--Rafaelgarcia 04:01, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

The correct translation by Henry Thomas Riley apparently is: Why are you, thus idling about, enquiring after the news?

also M. Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares (ed. L. C. Purser) LIBER OCTAVVS: M. CAELI EPISTVLAE AD M. TVLLIVM CICERONEM res autem novae nullae sane acciderunt, nisi haec vis tibi scribi, quae certe vis : Cornificius adulescens Orestillae filiam sibi despondit; meaning i believe but nothing new reasonably happened, except for these things that I wish to you wish I write to you, which I you truely wish: ...--Rafaelgarcia 04:01, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

The correct translation by Evelyn Shuckburgh apparently is: Moreover, absolutely nothing new has happened, unless you would like my letter to be filled with such anecdotes as the following (and I am sure you would):...

There's also a bit in Cicero's Academics where the acceptability of inventing or borrowing words for new concepts is touched on: "Dialecticorum vero verba nulla sunt publica; suis utuntur. Et id quidem commune omnium fere est artium; aut enim nova sunt rerum novarum facienda nomina aut ex aliis transferenda." —Mucius Tever 03:38, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Although res novae means what it means, it isn't the only solution. It is very classical, very idiomatic, also very dependent on context -- particularly on the verb that you choose to put with it. My old English-Latin dictionary (Riddle and Arnold) gives me as follows for "Revolution": "rerum publicarum commutatio or conversio; rerum mutatio; res commutatae; civilis perturbatio; seditio (tumult, disorder)." No mention of "res novae" thus far. It then suggests "res novae", but only in connection with phrases that include specific verbs: "res novas quaerere or moliri; novis rebus studere; rerum evertendarum cupidum esse; ... novos motus conversionesque reipublicae quaerere". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

For 'a revolution of public affairs', my eighteenth-century dictionary gives Latin publicarum rerum vicissitudo; publicae rei conversio, vel mutatio. IacobusAmor 21:04, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

novae res ~ res novae

Guys, don't ignore the importance of word order: it may be that novae res are 'new things', but res novae became a fixed phrase meaning 'political revolution'. Regularly in Caesar and later, novus and vetus precede their noun, but regularly in Cato (and presumably before), they follow it; nevertheless, "In Caesar there is rather free variation between pre- and postmodifier in the phrases res nova and tabulae novae, but otherwise the intentional meanings [technically defined] dominate and the premodifier is regular" (Devine & Stephens, Latin Word Order, p. 451). IacobusAmor 21:04, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

All of these comments above have provided much, very valuable insight on the issue! Indeed, indeed I feel all of this is so important that it deserves it own pagina Res novae. --Rafaelgarcia 10:01, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Iacobus: Did your quote on Casesar's word order from Devine & Stephens per se pertain to "res nova" or "res novae"? Is "res nova" a typo?--Rafaelgarcia 01:05, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a typo: the first example there is res nova. IacobusAmor 02:47, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Well, then that does not quite pertain to res novae then because the idiomatic phrase only means revolution in the plural.--Rafaelgarcia 03:41, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I hid the paragraph pertaining to this until I or someone else can do more research to determine whether the order of words is truely that significant for this idiomatic expression.--Rafaelgarcia 04:06, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Some more data to consider: De medicina libri VIII A. Cornelio Celso auctore, qui floruit ca. 30Caput III: Observationes quaedam, prout res novae incidunt,et corporum genera et sexus et aetates et tempora anni sunt. [1] Atque haec quidem paene perpetua sunt. Quasdam autem observationes desiderant <et> novae res et corporum genera et sexus et aetates et tempora anni. In this work Celsus uses Res novae in the nonidomatic sense, in a medical context, both with res before novae and after.--Rafaelgarcia 20:13, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion

Rafael, if you prefer to have the page on the concept of "revolution, violent change of government" under a more specific lemma, that would be fine, perhaps even to be recommended. But I would not recommend changing res novae when it appears in the text or title of other articles without a good reason. I see, though, that you have written the text of this article to cover the broader meaning of "disturbing change," so it might be good to keep it here. --Iustinus 16:13, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I wouldn't think of changing "res novae" anywhere, unless it was clearly wrong. If nothing else, the discussion has given me a better appreciation of the idiom and why it is used to signify "political revolution." At the same time, it is a good thing to have a page dedicated to this expression since not everyone might appreciate the term as it might appear in a title or in the text of an article. Eventually I hope to fill out the article with the fruits of the above discussion, hopefully with in line references and original interesting quotes from Cicero and Caesar and perhaps others. Another purpose of this article, as I see it, is to provide people with non idiomatic synonmyms that they may use in places within an article where res novae per se would be awkward. --Rafaelgarcia 17:47, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Continue the good work. --Iustinus 18:10, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I happened to notice that the term Commutatio Americana has been used on the pages Terra Mariae and 4 Iulii. Maybe elsewhere too? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)

There have been so many Commutationes Americanae (including the Civil war) that this is not a very good term for the American revolution. A better term is Bellum Independentiae Americanum because that says it just right.--Rafaelgarcia 15:41, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Maybe better: Bellum independentiae Americanae, and that could stand alongside the Declaratio independentiae Americanae. IacobusAmor 16:35, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that's better--Rafaelgarcia 17:04, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)

His rebus omnibus quae disputavistis adductus latinitatis causa quod scriptum est sic renovavi, ut propius ad eos accedat usus, quos apud veteres invenimus. Quod autem ad illud independentiae verbum novum attinet, populum Romanum libertatem maluisse ratus quam nescioquam independentiam, quid mea sententia scribendum sit, proposui.--Irenaeus 10:47, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I feel slight doubt about "libertas" as a synonym for independence. There's no doubt at all that some inhabitants of the nascent United States were immediately freer after ditching George III, but not all of them. We may get into confusion if we conflate libertas, which most obviously applies to persons, with independentia (admittedly neologistic), a concept that involves peoples or would-be nations. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Non consentio libertatem ad homines singulos tantum pertinere posse. OLD aut ThLL id temporis in manibus non sunt, sed mea quidem sententia dubitandum non est, quin et terrae et populi et urbes Latine liberae dici possint velut illa res publica libera, quam Cicero amissam lamentatus est. Aliter ergo res est inquirenda. Nam independentiae illius speciem aut propositum et veteribus ante oculos versari potuisse constat. Quod si verum est, quo te nomine, Andrea, rogo eam putas appellaverint? Immo libertatis, ut qui aliud verbum ad eam rem significandam non habuerint.--Irenaeus 12:50, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say in English but I'm short on time right now. The issue of liberty or freedom being individual or collective to a people is irrelevant to what to call the war. The revolution was primarily about independence, not liberty or freedom. Americans carefully considered what term is best to call their first war with Britain and the term they decided is best, given the context of our history, is the American War of Independence. This being said, what the americans wanted to do and did after the war was found a country on the principle of individual liberty, albeit imperfectly given the persistence of slavery in some states within the federation. And undoubtedly for many fighting in the revolution it was liberty that the war was all about. --Rafaelgarcia 13:31, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Credo, in fine, nobis utilia esse dua verba: "libertas" et "independentia". Et in philosophia politica, et alibi, interdum necesse est neologismos accipere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Nunc credo Irenaeum probe dixisse. Secundum lexicon "Ainsworth" (e saeculo XVIII), Anglicum 'independence' est Latinum summa potestas vel libertas suo arbitratu agendi. Et 'independent' est nemini subiectus et sui iuris. ¶ Pro "American War of Independence," quid est sententia Latina in Georgii Washingtonii, Americae Septentrionalis Civitatum Foederatarum Praesidis primi, vita, libro Novi Eboraci anno 1835 edito? ¶ Nota bene attestationem Georgius Washingtonius. IacobusAmor 16:55, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Do also keep in mind that many, even most of the revolutions of which we speak occured when Latin was still in vogue. It should be quite easy to track down sources that discuss them. I'm currently chin-deep in schoolwork, and any work I do for wikipedia clearly results from self-destructive impulses, but a quick look on worldcat turns up at least two potentialy useful sources:

• 1777 Petri Ahlwardt Dissertatio academica de jure reuolutionis Americanorum
• 1791 (James Mackintosh) Vindiciae Gallicae. Here I'm not sure what Vindiciae means, but it could very well be vindiciae secundum libertatem "right to freedom" (in the context of whether or not someone is legally a slave).

--Iustinus 19:10, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Glancing at my OL minidictionary, indeed "independence" is translated only as "libertas". Apparently ancient latin fails to make a sharp distinction between independence and liberty, much as it does not make a sharp distinction between "truth" and "reality". When I first translated "independence" as "independentia" I had gotten the translation from Williams Whittaker's online dictionary. In restrospect, it would seem "independentia" is an medieval addition to latin, in the same vein as "realitas" (which also does not have an entry in OL minidictionary but can be found in Whitaker's Words). Personally, I consider the distinction between liberty and independence when describing countries to be quite important since, while I would describe Cuba today, for instance, as independent, I would laugh if any one tried to call it free or "an example of liberty". In sum, I agree that there is a strong case for admitting "independentia" as an additional important descriptive philosophical term.--Rafaelgarcia 00:42, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)

To that point, here's a relevant quote from Morgan:

60 independence libertas, atis f., facultas suis legibus utendi (Egger D.L. 40: "novem insulis facultas data est suis legibus utendi")

60 independent sui iuris (gen.); become independent, gain independence sui iuris fieri (Egger D.L. 40), sui iuris esse incipere (Egger S.L. 14), libertatem adipisci (Egger S.L. 14), in libertatem vindicari ,,31, of Poland: "statim atque in libertatem vindicata est")

--Iustinus 00:53, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Having thought it over, I conclude Iraneus' translation is the better one in the context of ancient latin, or at the very least in the context of this page. I continue, however, to not like this inability of latin to express the idea of independence as distinct from liberty.--Rafaelgarcia 04:14, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Consentirem, si ita res se haberet. Sed prima lex artis convertendi, quam exempli causa Romanus filius Iacob statuit, ea est, quod quidvis ex altera in alteram converti potest linguam. Quod etiam ad nostram quaestionem pertinet. Habuerunt scilicet etiam veteres, quomodo vel populum vel hominem (ultra solitum libertatis sensum) nullius dicioni esse subiectum dicerent. Qui, ut hoc exemplo utar, aliquem sui iuris esse praedicaverunt. Quae cum ita sint, tamen Andreae Dalbio assentior, qui neologismis interdum uti licere affirmavit. Sed in hac nostra causa neologismo opus esse nego. Ceterum libertas Cubanorum cum libertate Attica quodam modo comparari potest: Athenae enim tempore Pisistrati liberae erant, Athenienses non erant. Similiter populus Americanus, dum regem habebat, libertate egebat, libertate autem populi comparata libertas civium cum re publica ipsa crevit.--Irenaeus 14:47, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Rerum Novarum

A datapoint: Rerum Novarum is an encyclical published by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. Its first words are of course rerum novarum, which the official English translation (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html, receptum 23 Maii 2007) gives as 'of revolutionary change'. IacobusAmor 16:08, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Res novae, Anglice 'news'

My oxford latin ditionary gives Res novae as the leading (thus preferred?) translation for news, i.e. meaning "new things" and indeed Caesar and others use the term to mean news as well as revolutionary change in different contexts.... I think this page should be moved to "res novae (politica)" and a new page added to the discretiva called "res novae (nuntii)"? Thoughts?--Rafaelgarcia 12:44, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

For English 'news', my most excellent eighteenth-century dictionary says (I've silently made three adjustments to the punctuation):

News (fresh tidings) Novellæ, pl.; fama, rumor; res novae. ¶ What news? Quid novi? quid portas? There was no news yet come, Nulla adhuc fama venerat. This is news to me, Nunc demum isthæc nata oratio. As soon as the news was known, Quâ re nuntiatâ. No news of the Parthians, Altum de Parthis silentium. At the very first news of his arrival, Ipso statim adventûs sui nuntio. Before the news of Titurius's death was come, Nondum ad eam famâ de Titurii morte perlatâ, Cæs. There being scarce any left to carry the news, Vix nuntiis caedis relictis, Liv. ¶ Good news, Nuntius bonus, jucundus, exoptatus. Bad, Nuntius acerbus, malus, tristis. Mortifying, Res calamitosa, vel luctuosa.

I like this dictionary because it gives idiomatic examples. IacobusAmor 13:18, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Putsch

Vide etiam Lexicon Recentis Latinitas, s.v. "putsch", quod "subitanea rerum conversio" praebet. [1] Montivagus 16:31, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Revolutio

Iohannes Jaurès texto Latino "revolutionem" habet: [2]. --Alex1011 21:31, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

How to say "American Revolution"

Here you suggest Bellum de libertate populi Americani gestum. However, based on my dictionaries, Bellum Rerum Novarum Cupidi (or Bellum Novarum Rerum Cupidi) would be more accurate for a "Revolutionary War." If so, the adjective "American" should simply be stuck on it; similarly, "French" for the French Revolution, "Russian" for the Russian one, etc. What are your opinions on this? LionhardusCiampa 02:08, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I think the best translation would be Bellum Independentiae Americanum. Or Revolutio Americana would work too but somehow it is not as fitting in my mind, even in English. Bellum de libertate populi Americani gestum may be closer to Ciceronian usage but it leaves a lot to be desired from the point of view of modern political science. Res novae may likewise be a proper latin term but it also leaves a lot to be desired from the point of view of modern usage. There are just too many new things in the world.--Rafaelgarcia 03:12, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I think the best translation would be Bellum Independentiae Americanum."— If so, traditional word order would be adjective + noun in genitive + noun = Americanum Independentiae Bellum. Of course the names of wars may work differently. IacobusAmor 04:01, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Still, I think the question should be: what would be the best phrase to apply to all revolutions? For instance:

• Bellum _ Americanum
• Bellum _ Gallicum (sive Francicum, sive Francogallicum)
• Bellum _ Russicum (sive Ruthenicus)

The same phrase should fill the _ in each of these three, in my opinion. My vote is for the following:

• Revolutio Americana = American Revolution; however:
• Bellum Revolutionis Americanae = American Revolutionary War

• Revolutio [Franco]gallica = French Revolution; however:
• Bellum Revolutionis [Franco]gallicae = French Revolutionary War

• Revolutio Russica = Russian Revolution; however:
• Bellum Revolutionis Russicae = Russian Revolutionary War

At least give me A for consistency. LionhardusCiampa 04:49, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Analogously to bellum civile, bellum servile, bellum sociale et al. one could imagine also Bellum revolutionale Americanum. --Alex1011 10:41, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

¶ As Lionhardus's remarks might be extended to imply, the two concepts—"The American Revolution" and "The War of American Independence"—aren't quite the same thing, the latter (a military matter) being a subset of the former (a political & economic & demographic & military matter). ¶ For more than 2000 years, Latin has had terms to designate a governmental revolution (boldface added):

(a) Ainsworth's dictionary (late 18th century) says: "A revolution of public affairs, Publicarum rerum vicissitudo; publicæ rei conversio, vel mutatio."

(b) Lewis & Short (late 19th century) says: "But, in gen., novae res signifies political innovations, a revolution: Q. Servilius Ahala Sp. Maelium novis rebus studentem manu suā occidit, Cic. Cat. 1, 1, 3 : rerum novarum causam quaerere, id. Agr. 2, 33, 91 : plebes novarum rerum cupida, Sall. C. 28, 4 : cuncta plebes novarum rerum studio Catilinae incepta probabat, id. ib. 37, 1 : novarum rerum avidi, id. J. 19, 1."

(c) White's (1928) says: "revolution . . . In political affairs: Change, etc.; Phr.: res novae, Cic.; rerum mutatio, Cic., or commutatio, Cic.

(d) Somebody may want to add other dictionaries here:

A search of the internet turns up numerous references to res novae, for example (boldface added):

"In realtà, la revolutio descritta dal planetario indica un ritorno al punto di partenza, ossia l'esatto contrario di quel cambiamento irreparabile di cui la ghigliottina é feroce rappresentazione. La ghigliottina, infatti, rende impossibile un qualsiasi ritorno ad pristinum, mentre il verbo latino revolvere - da cui revolutio - significa volgersi in giro, volgersi indietro, ritornare, ricadere. La revolutio, quindi, non indica tanto un cambiamento, quanto piuttosto l’immobilità o il movimento apparente. Cicerone, ad esempio, per indicare le rivoluzioni e i mutamenti politici parlava di res novae, ed intendeva la rivoluzione come un fatto negativo, perché all'epoca una novità veniva considerata come il mutamento di un ordine giusto." (http://www.emsf.rai.it)

Revolutio, a form of revolvo 'roll back, unroll, reexperience', seems to be late classical and rare. I've browsed in Francis Glass's Washingtonii Vita (1842), but haven't found in it a Latin term for 'The American Revolution' and 'The War of American Independence'; of course that may not mean such a term isn't there (I didn't check every paragraph). As for the French Revolution: it's quite possible that somebody wrote about it in Latin at the time. Much of this has already been discussed. IacobusAmor 11:58, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Ioannes Jaurès texto Latino "revolutionem" habet: [3]. --Alex1011 12:47, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

FYI: A glitch at the Wikimedia Foundation just obliterated a response that I'd spent twenty minutes to type out. Too bad. IacobusAmor 13:19, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, could the argument be made that because the abovenamed revolutions occurred so recently, Neolatin terminology is appropriate? True, there were democracies in Greek times. However, revolutionary thought of individuals like Washington or Lafayette occurred millennia later. I, then, would vote for simple, clear Neolatin terminology: Revolutio Americana (Gallica, Russica) and Bellum Revolutionis Americanae (Gallicae, Russicae). Just my vote, but a logical one, I think. LionhardusCiampa 12:12, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I like the consistency of those patterns (though not necessarily the terms themselves), but let's see what our more-learned brethren have to say. IacobusAmor 12:18, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Neolatin terminology is fine where a classical standard is missing. But that's decidedly not the case here. I don't see why anyone would want to be so imprecise as to call a "fundamental change" or "uprooting of system" (commutatio or conversio or eversio rerum) a "turning back" or "turning over" (revolutio: of whatever, by the way, when no objective genitive like rerum is added). That Jaurès quote cited above is extremely awkward Latin. But if everybody is bent on using English vocabulary equipped with Latin endings, then please at least take the adjective to go with bellum like Alex1011 says. --Irenaeus 13:45, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

One added thought: revolutio Gallica (as in the Jaurès) actually sounds kind of kinky... --Irenaeus 13:52, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Irenaeus: in the post that the Wikipedia Foundation obliterated (see above), I'd made much the same point about Jaurès's Latin style. It uses a date with the word Nonus in it (how can that be a legitimate form of Nonae?). Its does indeed use the term Gallica Revolutio (a Gaulish returning?). A newfangled form like Alex's revolutionale redoubles the oddity. What's the objection to res novae or novae res and related classical terms? IacobusAmor 14:42, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Nonus seems to come not from Jaurès, but from the university, from some "A. Himly". --Alex1011 18:35, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Thus then Rerum Britanniarum Americanarum eversio "Overthrow of British rule of America"? Or Res Novae Americanae?--Rafaelgarcia 17:17, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Or Bellum Rerum Novarum Cupidi Americanum? Isn't that sort of long? I fully understanding your not liking revolutio. However, I simply don't think we need five words to say "American Revolutionary War." LionhardusCiampa 17:23, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Rectiusne: Eversio rerum Britannicarum Americana, Bellum Rerum Novarum Cupidorum Americanum? - In addition, I am quite sure, there are lots of (Neo-)Latin attestations for revolutio. I think res novae Americanae would also be a good term. --Alex1011 17:29, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a couple of votes for res novae. In other words, it would be:

* Res Novae Americae * Bellum Rerum Novarum Americum * Res Novae Gallicae * Bellum Rerum Novarum Gallicum * Res Novae Russicae * Bellum Rerum Novarum Russicum

Does this begin to be more palatable to the consensus? (Perhaps Prof. Dalby would weigh in on this?) LionhardusCiampa 20:06, 17 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Drop the "prof", please, Lionharde! I seem to have weighed in below rather than here: occasionally one gets lost in these exciting debates ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 21 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Following the pattern of Res Novae Gallicae it should be Res Novae Americanae, i.e. Res Novae +Adjective--Rafaelgarcia 00:24, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I think, there was no "revolutionary war" in Russia, it was a Bellum Civile Russicum. --Alex1011 12:26, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There was, in any case, a revolution. So Res Novae Russicae should still be appropriate. LionhardusCiampa 12:48, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Revolutio gloriosa?

A few words of heresy to the budding consensus. Considering the English noun revolution, it can be contended that there are two homonymous nouns, viz. revolution_Latinate and revolution_Frenchy. The first one can be more or less accurately paraphrased by means of the verb revolve, while the second one can't.

• Revolution_Latinate is a verbal noun of revolve which has been borrowed from Latin, and whoever borrowed revolve also borrowed the adjective revolute as well as (the model of forming) the verbal noun revolution.

• Revolution_Frenchy, in turn, has been borrowed from Old French, as a singleton noun that's able to function as a base for derivatives such as revolutionist, revolutionary etc.

Now, let's consider the Latin revolvere with all its inflectional and derivational possibilities; yet the ubiquitously possible verbal noun revolutio doesn't surface to the scene of the documented history until late Latinity in theological and astronomical contexts (revolutio animarum, stellarum). That's also the end of the history of the "indigenous" noun revolutio: whoever said revolutio rerum implied that those res in question were to return to where they once had started out from. Of course that's not revolution_Frenchy — although many revolutionaries (also in Rome aetate Ciceronis) acted under the belief of restoring the olden days of ancient virtues.

There is a page in which the Glorious Revolution (in 1688) is referred to as "revolutio gloriosa". Though the Latinity of the page leaves much to be desired, I'd rather not rehash the Revolutio gloriosa to Res novae gloriosae, Rerum Anglicarum eversio gloriosa etc. Why? Because I'm reluctant to take a stand, in Latin, to what the Glorious Revolution was all about in terms of a de re description. There are historians who admit that the Romans lacked the exact terminological means to speak about revolution in the sense opened by the English noun revolution (or French révolution). If this is true, speaking of "Res novae gloriosae", "Seditio gloriosa" etc may even become a prise de position. Which, btw, may be problematical in view of our npov policy.

Why do I prefer Revolutio gloriosa (at least now that I'm writing these lines :-) ? Because it translates the received name (The Glorious Revolution). Viewed as a Saussurean sign, the Latin signifiant is revolutio (gloriosa), and the signifié is, not the concept of 'revolution' but another sign (glorious) revolution. Well, basically, what I'm trying to say with all these rambligs is that, if Latin is to maintain its usefulness as a means of talking about things, it must be reasonably open to re-borrowing also such words (in new meanings) that it once put out to loan to other European languages. I guess Irenaeus made a similar point above re Neolatin vocabulary, though he denied the need for re-borrowing the term revolutio 'revolution' to Neolatin. Well, I don't know. But notice that if commutatio, conversio, or eversio rerum really exhaust the concept of 'revolution', why don't the Latin-English dictionaries include revolution as an English equivalent of these words?

The old glory of Latin is gone. Nobody listens to what we have to offer. I'm afraid Rerum Francicarum eversio instead of Jaurès's Revolutio Gallica is a sign of potentially detrimental linguistic isolationism. At least Revolutio Gallica is a non-committal translation of the received name. It's a political issue whether what happened in 1789 or so was seditio, res novae, eversio, etc. Certainly all these words pick a piece of truth (res). If there's something kinky about Revolutio Gallica, it's rather the adjective Gallica which brings into mind the times of Vercingetorix. But Gallus 'Frenchman' is a re-borrowing too. --Neander 21:10, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your point of view: the issue is "literal translation of event names" versus "interpretive translations". The literal translation is "Revolutio Gallica" the interpretative translation is "Res Novae Gallicae" or etc... depending on the context and our knowledge and interpretaiton of the nature of the event. Why it is that the french call the event a revolution (a turning rather than res novae) is a issue regarding how the french have named things. As an encylocpedia, should we rename it for what we believe it is ? or should we translate the name literally, even when it doesn't make sense, and then proceed to interpret what the event is, as a res novae, or as etc.. --Rafaelgarcia 00:06, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your "literal" vs "interpretive" seems to capture my point rather well. Re "As an encylocpedia, should we rename it for what we believe it is ? or should we translate the name literally, even when it doesn't make sense[...]". As a telling analogue consider, say, Res publica Democratica Germanica. This is of course a literal translation of the name Deutsche Demokratische Republik. --Neander 01:03, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Neander seems to be arguing here in favor of calquing (making "loan translations," terms introduced into a language by the "literal" translation of the constituents of a term in another language)—something that beginners instinctively do and teachers instinctively fight. So, for example, a beginner may translate 'You bought it for a song' as Id pro carmine emisti, whereas the idiomatic Latin is Vili emisti. Likewise, to calque the term 'French Revolution' we look for an adjective to render 'French' and a noun to render 'Revolution', and we put them together to make Gallica Revolutio. Some such calques seem inevitable when there's no other way to accommodate a concept. (And sometimes we go calquing for humor.) In the present case, we've learned from Iustinus that somebody used revolutio in the sense of 'revolution' in 1777, and somebody else (Jaurès) did in 1891, so we're off the hook: the term is attested, and our choice may therefore be merely a matter of style: either way may be OK, and the main editorial decision to be made is how to be consistent about naming the lemmas. Maybe Americanum Independentiae Bellum would be good for 'War of American Independence' and either Res Novae Americanae or Revolutio Americana for 'American Revolution'. A historian might want to distinguish between the war and the revolution—or maybe not! IacobusAmor 03:01, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be said that I'm arguing for a lexical calque, in this case, though I prefer the term (re)borrrowing or even recycling of words. (If we call Frenchmen Galli or Franci in Latin, we are kind of re-borrowing or recycling old ethnonyms in a new context. This is of course entirely natural.) But let me emphasise that I'm not arguing for syntactic calques (for instance, our pages teem with prepositional phrases in pro + ablative, because pro tends to be taken as the equivalent of Engl. for, which it isn't.) I'm all for the classical norm, especially in morphology, syntax, and idiomatic expressions. But maybe I'm a bit more liberal in lexical matters. But so was Cicero, too, and therefore old schoolmasters recommended Caesar instead of the "unruly" Cicero. :-) --Neander 13:24, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

1. Clearly the war and the revolution need to be different. For instance, the Russians had the revolution but without the war! And in the case of the Americans, the revolution refers to the span of time, to the sentiment, etc. The war was the actual fighting that resulted from the revolution.
2. I favor calquing when the alternative has an excess of words. If it takes three or four words just to say the word "revolution," suddenly revolutio sounds good to me. That is not a scholarly theory -- it is a stylistic one.
3. Is independentia really a word? My dictionaries all say libertas, -atis. LionhardusCiampa 04:05, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Re Independentia, it was already discussed (above) on this page: its attested by words but seems to be late latin. I think it is a legitimate modern word because there is an important difference from the point of view of modern ethics and politics between freedom and independence. However, most people will understand Bellum Libertatis Americanum correctly in the title and the distinction between libertas and independentia is better made in the text of the article itself.--Rafaelgarcia 04:30, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

To me (inexpert as I am here), in the case of a war such as this, "independence" seems unarguable and neutral; "liberty" seems slightly point-of-view. After the war, the US was independent, no doubt about that. Not all of its population was free. That's exactly why I argued on some other page for making the distinction, even if the Romans didn't.

As to Revolution, I don't see anything wrong with our current titles "Res Novae Americanae" and "Bellum Rerum Novarum Americanum". Res novae is the classical term -- and has 3 syllables against revolutio's 5. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:05, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

But the feasibility of a word or an expression isn't a matter of syllable counting. What I'm keen on is terminological accuracy and nuances. --Neander 13:32, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Haec tota, sodales, disputatio de quavis fere alia re haberi posset. Quid? Nonne tu, Leander, si hanc linguam utilem duceres, qua de quibuslibet rebus loqueremur, ea utereris ipse? Nunc autem, siquid serio exponere vis, ad hanc disputationis paginam linguamque Anglicam confugis. Unde evenit rationem huius vicipaediae totius non esse, ut res ipsas vel melius explicemus vel plenius quam ceteris in vicipaediis. Quae cum ita sint, suam cuique causam vicipaediano Latino esse arbitror, cur hic scribat. Equidem certe latinitate Ciceroniana adeo delector, ut illius aemulandae gratia huc interdum reverti soleam. Neque vero quicquam mihi hoc in studio occupato magis placet quam res hodiernas vocibus antiquis explicare, quo efficitur, ut, cum novo quodam et inusitato more de his rebus ipsis et cogitare et loqui oportuerit, aliter eas et interdum melius intellegere videar.

Ut autem ad hanc quaestionem revertar, displicent mihi tam res novae Gallicae quam revolutio Gallica. Primum enim res novas a veteribus cum adiectivo populi nomen designanti coniunctas esse nego, revolutio autem ad res publicas omnino non spectavit. Tum res novas semper vituperaverunt, rerum novarum cupidos contempserunt: unde commutationem rerum laudabilem ea voce significari non debere necesse est. Amaverunt denique libertatem et quodam more etiam bellum, siquod iustum gereretur: quamobrem teneo id quod iam dudum asserui, et the American revolutionary war eleganter sic converti posse: bellum de libertate populi Americani gestum, et la revolution française sic: eversio aut commutatio rerum Gallicarum.

Gloriosa vero ea mihi rerum commutatio videbitur, qua commoti ad latinitatem ipsam nos recipiemus tamquam ad matronam gravem faventem benevolam neque linguam Anglicam quasi tunica Latina leviter vestire conabimur.--Irenaeus 17:20, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Equidem libentissime lingua Latina utor ad quasvis res diserte tractandas, dummodo me ipsum nuntios ab aliis latine exaratos satis intellegere persuadear. Anglice ideo scripsi, ne ipse, quidnam una aut altera sententia manca latinitate composita sibi velit, mirari cogar. Interdum etiam expedit Anglica quasi metalingua uti, si quid exactissime exponendum est, tametsi linguam Latinam facile tibi concedam nullo alio modo nisi usu pertinaci ali nutririque posse. Alicubi iam antea dixi nos cum paradoxis vivere opertere.

Quod de adiectivis populi nomen designantibus dixisti profecto verissimum est, et me hic dormisse pudet. Quae pro nomine revolutionis exponere conatus sum paucis credo auribus excepta esse. De diversis notionibus ad naturam linguae pertinentibus agi videtur. Ni fallor, de aliquot difficultatibus verbi libertatis iam antea actum est.

Quod ad res novas attinet, sententiam tuam (neque solum tuam sed aliorum quoque sodalium) rogare velim: Quomodo latine reddamus counter-revolution, Theodisce Konterrevolution, Gegenrevolution? --Neander 22:17, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Counter revolution

Haec notio, Neander, quomodo convertenda sit, ex re designanda iudicandum esse apparet. Counter revolution perfecta quidem restitutio rerum novatarum vel potius turbatarum dici potest. Sin aliter hac voce metonymice utimur ad hostes publicos designandos, abstractione reiecta homines ipsos rerum restituendarum cupidos quam conatus eorum seditionem aut conspirationem ad rem publicam restituendam factam appellare malim. Ceterum veniam tuam, vir doctissime, rogo, quod a linguae Latinae usu atque studio te abhorrere suspicatus sum. Profecto ab optimo genere dicendi profectus omnia Latine, quandocumque libuerit, libere et liberaliter et elegantissime disputabis.--Irenaeus 23:28, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I truely respect Iraneus love of expressing modern ideas in Ciceronian latin, and I only wish I could express myself so aptly without immense effort. Nevertheless, I would like to express a certain universal point which holds regardless of language, namely the importance and function of having a single word or even a biword for an idea, rather than a phrase. Conspirationem ad rem publicam restituendam factam is a description not a word; and seditionem does not mean the same thing at all. A language that refuses to evolve is truely dead. In a modern context, revolution and counter-revolution and many other ideas deserve their own word, due to their importance in our daily lives. That is why every major modern language, including every romance language I know of, has a single word for those two concepts. And by the way those words are latin borrowings. So it is truely a turn of events that neo-latin should subsequently lack the ability to express these important concepts by means of single words. I apologize for expressing myself in english but I fear at this stage stating this important point so ineptly as to be misunderstood.--Rafaelgarcia 00:12, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Unumquemque nostrum puto, o Irenaeus (suspicor enim vocativum tui nominis eundem esse ac dei :-), cognitiones sodalium in primo incerta mancaque peritia nisum construere. Quo magis usu continuo cogitationumque commercio familiaritas facta erit, eo facilius alius alio morigerari poterimus.

Quod ad "contrarevolutionem" (sit venia verbo!!!) attinet, facere non possum, quin pedibus eam in sententiam a Rafael datam, nam constat confinia linguae (ne dicam systematis linguae), si vivit, usu cotidiano probari. Probatione illa cotidiana, quid quomodo quibus vocibus dicatur, certius fit. Usu cotidiano lingua etiam teri apparet, sed tritione illa praecipue non consumitur immo fere teretior et expeditior fieri videtur. Tempora mutantur, et mutatione illa continuo novi modi intelligendi (novos conceptus neolatine dico) inferuntur, qui quam expeditissimis vocibus potius exprimenda sunt. Mea quidem sententia parum expedite novi intellectus vocibus usitatis ordine consertis exprimuntur. Lexico Recentis Latinitatis temere inspecto permulta reperio lemmata Italiana, quorum comparia Latina vocum series sunt, quibus lemmata definiuntur (bazar : variarum mércium empórium; droga : medicamentum stupefactīvum; grappa : stillatícius sucus vitígenus; igiene : valetúdinis tuendae ars; jeep : autocinētum locis iniquis aptum; neofascismo : renovātus fascálium motus; putsch : subitanea rerum conversio (iam a Montivago memoratum); panificio : sedes fornáriae exercendae; vodka : válida pótio Slávica (non iam post consilium ab Unione Europaea captum!   :-)   ; et alia talia.) Comparia illa Latina potius definitiones sunt quam voces ad usum expeditum utiles. Itidem puto, sodes, etiam de vocibus a te propositis esse iudicandum. Potius definitiones sunt quam definienda. Nomen odiosum "contrarevolutionis" per iocum proposui. Si vero ita eveniat, ut puta mihi de libro ab Herberto Marcuse scripto, qui Counter-revolution and revolt inscribitur, referendum sit, timeo ne commoditate illectus ad hoc vocabulum eiusque derivativis brevi decurram. Credo profecto hoc munus homini minus lascivo esse impertiendum ...   :-)   --Neander 23:13, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Teramus ergo, Neander, linguam, modo videamus, ne in ea terenda per imprudentiam limam mola permutemus. Neque tamen consentio eam tandem conversionem esse, si verbum unum huius linguae pro altero illius affertur. Quod quam saepe nullo modo fieri possit, quis est qui nesciat? Unde mihi quidem persuasum est rem novam convertendam aut verbo alieno induci aut neologismo reddi aut verbis antiquioribus describi posse: praesertim cum neologismorum idem vitium sit atque alienorum, quod quidem explicationem verbis usitatis conficiendam utique poscunt. Mea igitur magis interest sententiam totam Latine et Cicerioniane quidem reddi quam verba singula. Quod ut eleganter fiat, ut hodierna ad morem linguae Latinae quam proxime accedant, has leges sequi soleo: pro substantivis verbalibus verba ipsa, pro abstractis id quod factum est ipsum, pro facinoribus auctores ipsos adducito, ceterum Catonis illius: rem tene, verba sequentur, memor esto.

Quae cum ita sint, nunc iudicio tuo commendabo, quaenam ex his convertendi rationibus melior sit. Hanc sententiam convertendam propono: Although the counter revolution was supported by bourgeois powers fearful of the example a successful communist revolution might set, by 1925 almost all of the former tsarist empire was under soviet control. Quae qui a tua ratione profiscitur, sic fere reddat: Quamquam contrarevolutio fovebatur potentiis burgianis timentibus exemplum revolutionis communisticae bene succedentis, iam anno 1925 paene totum imperium antea tsarorum sub dicione sovietica erat. Equidem meo solito more haec scribo: Hostes externi de bonis civium sollicitati tuendis, ne pessimo exemplo, qui omnia communefacere vellent, everterent rem publicam, cum rerum restituendarum cupidis opem ferrent, tamen non prohibuerunt, quin ante annum p.Chr.n. 1926. Leniniani omnes paene imperii Russici populos atque provincias suam in potestatem redigerent. Quid tu, elegantiae arbiter, censes?--Irenaeus 13:26, 21 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Vereor, Irenaee, ne ambabus versionibus longe a norma Vicipaediana aberraveris. Scilicetne tua verba sic fere verti? Quamquam conterrevolutio fuit supportata a imperiis burgosis qui timebant quod revolutio communista exemplum ponit, in anno 1925 prope omne praeteriti imperii tsaristici controllatum est de Sovieticis. :) --Ceylon 20:08, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Melior mea sententia sequentes comparandae: Sentio meliorem esse sententias sequentes comparare: (corrigo--Rafaelgarcia 22:05, 21 Septembris 2007 (UTC))

Hostes externi de bonis civium sollicitati tuendis, ne pessimo exemplo, qui omnia communefacere vellent, everterent rem publicam, cum rerum restituendarum cupidis opem ferrent, tamen non prohibuerunt, quin ante annum p.Chr.n. 1926. Leniniani omnes paene imperii Russici populos atque provincias suam in potestatem redigerent.

versus

Hostes externi de bonis civium sollicitati tuendis, ne pessimo exemplo, qui omnia communefacere vellent, everterent rem publicam, cum contrarevolutionariis opem ferrent, tamen non prohibuerunt, quin ante annum p.Chr.n. 1926. Leniniani omnes paene imperii Russici populos atque provincias suam in potestatem redigerent.

aut

Quamquam rerum tsaorum restituere fovebatur potentiis burgianis timentibus exemplum rerum publicarum eversionis communisticae bene succedentis, iam anno 1925 paene totum imperium antea tsarorum sub dicione sovietica erat.

versus

Quamquam contrarevolutio fovebatur potentiis burgianis timentibus exemplum revolutionis communisticae bene succedentis, iam anno 1925 paene totum imperium antea tsarorum sub dicione sovietica erat.

--Rafaelgarcia 14:20, 21 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

De lingua terenda locutus, Irenaeus, ineptius proposito dixisse videor. Rectius de lingua procudenda dicatur. Nam linguam "malleabilem" esse dicerem, nisi eo facto gravissimam mihi infamiam inferrem. :-) Certe aliquid differt inter tuam opinionem et meam, nam mea permagni interest, ne elocutio nuntii defectu legum grammaticarum respiciendarum foedetur, cum equidem vocabularium cornu quoddam esse Copiae ducam, cuius ex divitiis voces ad diversissimos usus aptas depromi possint. Mihi quidem persuasum est linguam novis vocabulis nequaquam (advecticiis quidem) infici, dummodo grammatica respiciatur.

Quod attinet ad eas quas convertisti sententias mihi iudicandas, ambas (quippe quae ex tuo calamo sint!) satis feliciter factas arbitror. Nihilo minus quam facillime concedo secundam sententiam elegantia sua omne punctum ferre. Profecto Ciceronem olet! At de convertendi rationibus nondum dixi. Nego unam tantum esse rationem, nam rerum condiciones puto varias esse et ita fieri, ut ratio et rei tenendae et vicissitudinibus condicionum aptanda sit. Etiam sententias a Rafael leviter mutatas equidem approbarim, nam bonitas rei conversae non solum stili nitore probabitur sed etiam usus facilitate, prout rerum condiciones quandocumque postulabunt. Habeat suum locum lingua professoria.

Infitias non eo illud Catonis esse optimum consilium. Sed vocabulorum idem designantium copiam mihi non videtur vetare, nam compluribus modis res teneri posse apparet. --Neander 02:44, 22 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out a parallel to this issue in chemistry/physics where the word volumen was adapted in late latin to mean volume. This adapting occurred because of the importance of unambiguously expressing the idea of volume in science. Whereas Ciceronian latin lacks a term meaning specifically volume and even Newton expressed the concept using the word Magnitudo, i.e. size. in the 1700's there were so many concepts relating to size that it became untenable to express an important concept by the word magnitudo. Thus scientists added a new meaning to the term volumen to mean specifically volume, in addition to meaning book. This is evidence of a language whose vocabulary is living and adaptable rather than fixed and attached to a specific period of history. --Rafaelgarcia 00:39, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to say that, despite my comments above, I would rather see the "French revolution" page called "Rerum Francicarum eversio" rather than "Revolutio Francica" especially on this page which is about a ancient latin expression "Res Novae". On the other hand, regardless of how the "French revolution" page is named, I think it useful to have "revolutio Francica", "Rerum Francicarum eversio" and "Res Novae Francicae" on the first line as a possible synonyms. --Rafaelgarcia 06:09, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Quamvis semper rebus novis studeam, nihil vere novi ad hanc altercationem re vera necessariam afferre possum nisi assensum eis qui eversio sive commutatio rerum Francicarum scribere mallunt quam res novae Francicae. Mea enim sententia cum res novae "connotationem" (paenitet me alium neologismum introduxisse) seditionis prae se ferant, non tamquam "terminus technicus" adhibentur ut libere cuiuslibet gentis cum nomine coniungi possint. Nam "innovation, change, reform" - scilicet sensu peiorativo - potius significant quam legum imperiique repentinam mutationem. Ut suadet Irenaeus noster, in verbis vertendis ingenio atque consilio magis utamur quam indice verborum bilingui. Quamobrem rogo ut commentatio de rebus novis Francicis et similes moveantur ad Eversio rerum Francicarum.--Ceylon 09:50, 12 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Rogo utrum apud maiores eversiones sensu revolutionis fuerint et utrum haec vox attestari possit. Aliter existimo nos verbis sive novis sicut revolutione sive antiquis sicut rebus novis uti posse. --Alex1011 20:28, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Sine me, Alexander, Ciceronem quasi unicum testem ex inferis excitare:

De prov. cons. 14: ... praemiis extortis quae erant pro scelere atque eversione patriae consecutae.

Tusc. 5.24: cum statuisset (Theophrastus) verbera, tormenta, cruciatus, patriae eversiones, exilia, orbitates magnam vim habere ad male misereque vivendum

celeberrimusque locus ille Catonis maioris 40: hinc patriae proditiones, hinc rerum publicarum eversiones, hinc cum hostibus clandestina colloquia nasci ...

Si quidem illud non placet, erunt commutatio aut conversio (rerum publicarum) versiones elegantiae haudquaquam minoris. Hoc solum moneo res novae Francicae et sim. Latine nullo modo dici posse. Num malueris, si dicere fas esset, studia rerum novarum a Francogallicis adhibita?--Ceylon 21:00, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Egomet incepi paginam de Revolutione Octobri Russica quod mea sententia ut has res novas designemus neologismo uti optimum et pragmaticissimum est. Quidem porro rem disputemur. --Alex1011 22:01, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)