Disputatio:Solium imperatorum Iaponensium

Non latine?

If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please change the "Non latine" tag, but I can't understand this text at all. Sorry! It's hard to believe the Latin name "Chrysanthemum Thronus" is supported by the footnoted source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

It was translated from English. The footnote referred to the word 'koi' Imperial rank.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

That seems too harsh, but I've tried to help it out enough to bring the score up to –3, or in effect after the second sentence has been hidden, –1. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:30, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iacobus but I need to need to know why?--Jondel (disputatio) 11:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Maybe attingit = 'it refers to' was an idiomatic surprise? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:30, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

It surprised me, I admit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Iacobus, I got this usage from you .--Jondel (disputatio) 11:46, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

It's in Cassell's and Traupman. English has something similar: "it touches on [noun]." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

It is in Traupman under 'refer'. I was expecting no one would have been surprised, e.g. readily accepted.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:10, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

It surprised me, you see, because in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article I want to be told that X is a y, not that X touches on y: that's more what I'd expect of a dictionary of idioms. Now that I know you're translating from an English article, and I can see that the English article has the same (problematic?) approach, I am more attuned to your meaning :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Andrew and I are in perfect agreement here: what readers expect, most of the time, is, in algebraic terms, "X = Y" (in which X is a thing), not "X refers to Y" (in which X is a word for a thing). In the latter, the lemma conventionally has to be italicized because it's a word cited as a word, not a word cited as a thing. This would be problematic with something already italicized, for which some sort of quoting would perhaps be the next-best additional typography:

The Old Man and the Sea is a book.

"The Old Man and the Sea" is the name of a book.

You see how clumsy the second example is. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:04, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I see. Point taken.--Jondel (disputatio) 21:55, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice that the Japanese article on this topic is very short (ja:皇位). I can't see anything in it about genus Chrysanthemum (Jap. キク属) or C. japonense (Jap. ノジギク). I can't see any links between this Japanese page and the one about the imperial chrysanthemum symbol (ja:菊花紋章). I'm no Japanologist, obviously, but who calls this concept "chrysanthemum throne"? From which language are we translating? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

The Chrysathemum is the symbol of the Emperor.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Translated from English.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:48, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suggest "Thronus chrysantheminus" would translate the English/European term: the adjective is attested. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

If the lemma is referring to an actual chair (something the emperor sits on), then solium and sedes or sella regia are good (L&S imply that thronus was unknown before the mid-to-late first century); but the phrase has a figurative feel, and for that, Cassell's & Traupman agree that a better word would be regnum (Cassell's adds imperium). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:22, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

The definition, "Chrysanthemum Thronus attingit thronum Imperatoris Iaponensis," seems to be saying 'The Chrysanthem, the Throne, refers to the Japanese Emperor's throne'. But that way of defining is seldom well advised, not least because it forces the lemma to be italicized, as a term being cited as itself, not the name of something else; definitions are best presented with a mere est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:22, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

This is useful, thanks Iacobus.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:50, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the emperor is being wrongly capitalized here; even Americans who like to capitalize things should agree. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:22, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "Regnum chrysantheminum" would make better sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

How about 'Thronus imperatoris Iaponensis'  ?--Jondel (disputatio) 11:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Or 'Solium imperatoris Iaponensis'  ? --Jondel (disputatio) 11:45, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Iaponiensis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps OK, unless that could be construed to mean any chair upon which the emperor happens to be sitting. Cassell's says the adjectives principalis and imperatorius (both meaning 'imperial') began to appear in "late authors," e.g. Suetonius. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:59, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

De adiectivo q.e. chrysantheminus,-um valde dubito, nam chrysanthemum ipsum esse videtur adiectivum substantivi vice adhibitum; cf. πολυάνθεμος,-ον, a quo polyanthemum mutuatum est. Itaque titulum q.e. solium chrysanthemum suadeo. Quodsi hoc nimis audax aut parum clarum videtur, altero loco titulum q.e. solium chrysanthemi (cum genetivo descriptivo) commendo. Neander (disputatio) 12:06, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Optime o Neander, gratias. Adhunc notitiam movendi de solium chrysanthemum vel solium chrysanthemi mox posuero. Autem sententias tuas cum gaudio videre velim.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:40, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Chrysanthemus as adjective didn't occur to me. Yes, it's preferable to chrysantheminus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if the adjective means merely 'golden-flowered' and therefore makes us think of marigolds (Tagetes), we'd want some way of restricting the sense to genus Chrysanthemum, and, as Neander suggests, the genitive probably does the trick. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:59, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

An English phrase? Or not?

I want to revert to the question I sort of raised earlier. We seem to be describing the ramifications of meaning of a modern English phrase here. Noting that the English article refers only to English examples (naturally enough), I began to suspect, after exploring the Japanese wiki as well as I could, that there is no such phrase in Japanese. The chrysanthemum was introduced as an imperial symbol quite recently, in 1889 (see page 5 apud Google Books), and the imperial power is not called "the chrysanthemum throne" in Japanese. Or am I completely wrong? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Barring a Japanese back-translation from the English, you may be right. Certainly we're in danger of going astray when we try to be too literal. And speaking of thrones: many English-speakers would thoughtlessly suppose that "he ascended the throne" should be (in) thronum ascendit, but Cicero might have understood that formula to mean 'he clambered up onto the throne'—not quite the same thing! Cassell's says 'to ascend the throne' = regnum accipere or suscipere, or even merely rex fieri. The next time someone is having a séance with Cicero, please ask him! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:16, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

No chrysanthemums?

The throne doesn't seem to feature chrysanthemums. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:23, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

That would be like having the word 'English/British' or a sign 'British Throne' on the English/British Throne. ---Jondel (disputatio) 22:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)