Disputatio:Star Wars/Tabularium 1

Disputationes antiquae Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum. Sententiae hic collectae inter dies 17 Novembris 2007 et 18 Iunii 2016 scriptae sunt.

Sequel / Prequel

sequellae, praequellae? habes fontem?--Rafaelgarcia 08:47, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I knew someone would ask me this. Henry Beard in "Latin for All Occasions" uses "sequella" so I used it also. "Praequella" is a neologism I invented meaning "prequel". Both words are composed of Latin elements. -Kedemus 06:45, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I have usually seen sequela with one l, but apparently both spellings are OK (see sequela. I guess praequel(l)a is a suitable neologism, given that English "prequel" has become accepted. I can't think of a better term. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I looked up some of the words ending in -ela (-ella), such as loquela (loquella), in several of my Latin dictionaries. The dictionaries more often than not list the variant ending with one l first and the one with two ls next, and sometimes the later is either fully or partly in parentheses, e.g. loquella or -ella. The OED has "sequēla (sequella)." The version of the suffix that Lane's grammar usually uses (section 229) is -ela, and only querella is used as an example of the -ella variant. The impression that I am getting from this information is that the "basic" or "default" form of the suffix is -ela, from e (etymologically a stem vowel of a verb) and the more primitive suffix -la, while -ella is a later variant of -ela. So, personally, all things being equal, I would prefer sequela over sequella. - Diaphanus 156.34.215.70 17:35, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to indicate your source as a reference.--Rafaelgarcia 14:56, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Given that "prequel" has been coined on analogy of "sequel", I see no point in the quasi-latinate "praequella" which kind of destroys the nice analogy. I suggest we adopt the neologism prequella. "-quella" is not a Latin element. Neander 20:35, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Neander that prequella (2 l's?) would be better because pre- here does not mean the same as prae-. However, regarding the etymology of sequel, according to Merriam Webster, the etymology of sequel is:

   Middle English, from Anglo-French sequele, from Latin sequela, from sequi to follow 

Words says for the latin word sequela:

sequela, sequelae  N (1st) F   [FLXFJ]    Medieval  veryrare
sequela, whatever follows body of villein (eg. progeny, chattels, tenements);
sequela, morbid secondary afflicti:on (medical);

Apparently there is also an english word sequela also from Latin sequela, according to Merriam Webster sequela means

  1  : an aftereffect of disease, condition, or injury   2  : a secondary result  

Very interesting and surprising set of things. Aparently sequel came to us through medical latin.--Rafaelgarcia 21:28, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

"C. Helfer, Lexicon auxiliare", via Morgan, says continuatio is "sequel, following episode" sounds ideal, but isn't exactly so when we want to know how to say prequel! Harrissimo 21:41, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

The -pre in prequel does mean "before", so it would make sense to use the Latin form "prae". "Quella" might not be a Latin element in an of itself, but it does come from "sequella", a Latin word, which in turn comes from "sequi"- to follow. It might have not had the same meaning in Medieval Latin, but we can use "sequella" as a neologism to meal the sequel of a movie. And I do prefer the spellings with 2 L's. "ella" has more charm in Latin than "ela". -Kedemus 22:27, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Does Beard's book use one l or two? If pre in prequella meant "before" then it would mean before the quella, which it does not since quella has no meaning in itself.--Rafaelgarcia 23:52, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the time of the creation of the word prequel, a similar argument could be made for quel in English. The quel in prequel is apparently an inseparable element that is a contraction of sequel, so we have prequel instead of presequel. A Neo-Latin word based on sequel(l)a could be formed analogously if we wanted to assign the relevant meaning of "sequel" to sequel(l)a. - Diaphanus 156.34.215.70 17:35, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Beard uses one 'l', as with the other sources. This is just another of Kedemus' preferences. Harrissimo 23:59, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

More and more, this sequela and prequela just seem like bad latin to me. --Rafaelgarcia 00:05, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought that liber/pellicula anterior and posterior would have just been a logical thing to write. Harrissimo 00:10, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

I edited it to remove the bad prequel/sequel stuff. It's not necessary and confusing since you have to know english to know what the article is talking about.--Rafaelgarcia 00:35, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Open up Henry Beard's Latin for All Occasions to page 55. There is a line referring to movies where he does use "sequella" with two L's. So stop accusing me of just using my preferences. -Kedemus 06:39, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for prequella, the "qu" in sequel being part of sek^w... There is absolutely no need in this case for a neologism. praecedens pellicula or one of Harri's suggestions is much better. Why does Kedemus always want Latin to look like American English?--Ioscius ^(disp) 00:57, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the American-English thing may be justified in this case because the creator of Star Wars is the American filmmaker George Lucas, and "prequel" is a word that comes straight from the horse's mouth. - Diaphanus 156.34.215.70 17:35, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Pracedens pellicula and Harrissimo's suggestions are not very accurate. It is not clear in any of them that it refers to a movie made after the original but set before the original. I think the way Rafael edited it is good, however, as it avoids any of the "controversial" terms for prequels and sequels. And to answer your question of why I make Latin look like American English, one of the reasons is very simple. I am a native speaker of American English but do not know Latin as well, so I naturally make other languages sound like English. Also, I believe that Latin, especially the Latin we use to write about pop culture, should be treated as the classic Latin, but should function the same way most other currently spoken languages of the world do. If those languages have some Americanisms for "new" things, we should use them in Latin also. If those languages express things a certain way, we should use that form of expression in Latin also. This is not to create a whole new language like Esperanto or Interlingua, but is merely an evolution of the ancient Roman language, much as other languages evolve when new terms or forms of speech are introduced. I envision Latin as a language that everyone will be able to learn and understand, and not a language just for a highly intelligent few. -Kedemus 01:58, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

That is not completely true: The Real Academia (the Spanish organism to regulate Language) makes sure that there is a Spanish word for every Americanism and encourages them to be used. The words used for these are not just made up out of nothing, but are many times words that existed before. In Latin, which has a longer history than Spanish and certainly longer than American English I bet that there are many words with the same meaning that could be used for the neologisms that you try to introduce.--Xaverius 09:16, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

How about praefatio(nes) and postfatio(nes), which are and were commonly used in literature (see Titus Livius) meaning those parts which come before or after the main content? More accurately, we could pick the adjectives anterior and posterior and substantivate them using the plural neutral form: anteriora and posteriora ("the previous things", "the next things"). <Vi3x 20:52, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

sequel => consequentia narrativa from glosbe which gets it from wiktionary.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:59, 18 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Counterattack

FOr translating "Empire Strikes Back", I would think there would be a better phrase somewhere in Caesar's comentaries for "counterattack" than "impetus contra"; the phrase hangs in the air form me because an "attack against" does not necessary mean a "counter attack".--Rafaelgarcia 15:57, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. 'To strike back' is often repellere. IacobusAmor 16:04, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

In my dictionary (Langenscheidt) I had found "impetus contrarius" and "impetum contra facere" for "counterattack" and "to make a counterattack". --Alex1011 17:53, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Those seem fine. I was taking it that Rafael was saying that the text was saying that certain forces made an impetum contra [end of sentence], and that, obviously can't be right; but maybe I was misreading. IacobusAmor 18:08, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

The complete phrase/title is Imperium impetum contra facit translating "The Empire Strikes Back" where apparently contra is used as an adverb. Stritly speaking it is correct. But I would think it'd be better to have contra as a preposition imperium impetum contra rebelles facit or to have the adverb incorporated into impetum Imperium contraimpetum facit. The empire makes a counterattack.--Rafaelgarcia 18:18, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I kind of think the adverbial use is elegant. Rebels isn't in the English title, and if we can make a grammatical sentence in Latin without it, I think for the better...--Ioscius ^(disp)

What about Imperium contra offendit? Neander 23:49, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

That an even closer translation to Empire strikes back, in my opinion.--Rafaelgarcia 00:52, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

In Law, there's a motto about self-defense which says "Vim vi repellere licet". In my opinion, repellere would be the best choice, as IacobusAmor pointed out. <Vi3x 21:03, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

dissertatio

By the way, we had somewhere that dissertation speach in Latin (Harvard, I think) about Star Wars, I think. --Alex1011 17:55, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember it was in the taberna somewhere. We should make a link to it from this page. It must have been around May or June.--Rafaelgarcia 18:03, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I found a version on You tube and put a link to it. My latin has improved since I can actually follow him as he speaks (though I still do miss one or two words here and there).--Rafaelgarcia 19:29, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

If Mr McNamara calls a Jedis Iedienses, is it coining for us to say sithensis? I know that we can put -ensis on the end of pretty much any city name without it being exactly a coining (the catholic hierachy people also do this a lot). Harrissimo 19:56, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

Except that "Jedi" wasn't the name of a city or a place, but rather of a type of creature. I do not think we can use "-ensis" when it does not refer to a place or belonging to someone or something. Here the title refers to someone or something returning. If someone else used the -ensis form and it is wrong in Latin in this case, it is wrong. -Kedemus 22:33 18 de Noviembre 2007

It does refer to somebody. The sith are a group of people! -ensis is one of the "Adjectives with the sense of belonging to". I.e. one could be a member of the sith. The video (there is a link which Rafael put on the page - and as far as I can see does not include mistakes) that makes the adjectival form of Jedi iediensis means a sith could be sithensis. "Return of the Sith" would therefore be (if this maybe coining is allowed) "Reditus Sithensis" or -ensium (not sure about the context). The question is if we are allowed to semi-fingere by adding the -ensis suffix to Sith. NB: -ensis is also widely used in diocese names, zoology and botany and added to clarly non-latin words. Harrissimo 22:52, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

In the English original "Jedi" and "Sith" are indeclinable. If we decide to decline those names in Latin, the suffix -ensis is a strong possibility: Iedienses and Sithenses. Harrissimo's reasoning is methinks entirely convincing. Now, Harrissimo has found a source, Ephemeris: BREVES: "Ultio Sithorum", which may be expanded by CINEMATA: Ultio Sithorum. This review of the "Septentrioamericana pellicula", one of "Bellarum stellarium fabulae" (twice), declines "Sithorum" but treats "Jedi" as indeclinable. I see no reason whatsoever for such an inconsistency. Now, we have two "Latin sources" for the Jedi, viz. McNamara and Ephemeris, of which I consider the first more dependable. It's true we have no other source for Sithenses but the conversational maxim: Be consistent! A source not to be lightly dismissed. --Neander 00:56, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Well, taking on the fact that the source is incredibly sloppy [Kualalumpurienses?] the very slight difference of the words sith and jedi in this sense may make the difference (I would not normally leap to Ephemeris' defence). In latin the jedis are equites iedienses/jedi (always having eques to decline and the later adjective) and sith would not have a context where it would need (or be) an adjective (unless somebody said homo sithensis). Therefore does one eques iediensis and one sithus make sense and keep consistency? Harrissimo 02:04, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

In Latin, Iediensis and Sithensis may be substantives as well as adjectives; cf. Atheniensis, etc. But of course I can live with both Sithus and Sithensis. More often than not, Latin names denoting ethnic, political or cultural groups exhibit variation; eg. Athenaeus and Atheniensis, Babylonius and Babyloniensis, etc. --Neander 03:16, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

The suffix -ensis in Latin belongs to adjectives, particularily to those referring to places (Atheniensis, Parmensis, forensis, circensis...). I'm not an English native speaker, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that both "Jedi" and "Sith" are nouns, rather than adjectives. In the sentence "Luke is a Jedi Knight", isn't "Jedi" an apposition? The very meaning of the sentence looks like "Luke is a knight of the Jedi (n.) Order (n.)", not "Luke is a knight of Jedi / Luke is a jedian knight". Jedi and Sith are both names, and this is probably why they're also undeclinable. That said, I looked for names whose stems end with -i in my Latin dictionary. I found some city names (Gabi, Bauli, Circei) which are all pluralia tantum of the 2nd declension. I wonder if that's the case of the word Jedi (Jedi, Jediorum?). An alternative might be the latinization of a foreign name, as it was done for Greek names: in fact, a lot of Greek names ending in -is later passed into Italian with a -i ending (Thetis, Themis, Memphis = Teti, Temi, Menfi). Most of these names have the genitive form in -idis (assuming the latinized nominative is Jedis, the genitive ought to be Jedidis, which is horrible) but luckily the genitive form -is is also used, so it would be proper to consider Jedi as a parysillabic noun of the 3rd declension (s. Jedis, Jedis, Jedi, Jedem/Jedim, Jedis, Jede/Jedi; pl. Jedes, Jedium, Jedibus, Jedes, Jedes, Jedibus). As for "Sith", I found an interesting similarity in "Thoth" or "Theuth", the Egyptian god. The name is indeclinable. <Vi3x 11:22, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

episodium

See: wikt:episodium and source there. --Alex1011 22:30, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I just had a quick scan in my dictionary and found episodia rather than -ium. Please revert me (if you haven't already). Harrissimo 22:47, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

In the episode list, why are they written like "Bellorum Stellarium Episodium..."? Shouldn't they be "Bella Stellaria - Episodium..."? Usually in latin works the title looks somewhat like "De bello Gallico - Liber I", not "Belli Gallici Liber I". <Vi3x 11:40, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

Luke Skywalker

Luke's name, the same as the evangelist, would be "Lucas" in Latin[1]. Should his last name be translated? Skywalker makes sense, it would be something like "Caeliambulator", "Walker of the sky". Lucas Caeliambulator <Vi3x 20:43, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

Our rule is we don't translate last names, and use latin surnames only when they are attested for that person in particular.--Rafaelgarcia 21:14, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Clones

In the main page, the title of Episode II is "Impetum Clonum". Of course there were no clones in ancient Rome, but I was wondering if we could came up with a word before using a neologism. A candidate could be exemplum, which means sample (of goods), copy (papers, statues, pictures), example, model... Or we could look for it starting from English synomyms such as "replicant" (aemulus, imitator) or "android" (pseudohomo).

The source of 'clone' is clon, which is not a neologism but an ordinary word of ancient Greek heritage (κλών), meaning among other things 'slip' or 'scion'; the process of grafting, I understand, actually was known to the ancient Romans. Cloning in the modern and sci-fi senses usually works in much the same way, only on the genetic/cellular level. —Mucius Tever 21:04, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

De indicibus

Sunt in hac commentatione multi indices. Indicem longissimum ad initium ante textum videmus: est index personarum histrionumque in pelliculis singulis visorum. Hunc indicem in paginas de pelliculis singulis distribuendum esse suadeo. Si id facimus, textum legibilem longiorem ad initium commentationis videbimus. Quid dicitis?

There are many lists in this article. The longest one comes right at the start: it's a list of characters and actors in each separate film. I suggest splitting this list up and moving it to the articles about each film. If we do this we shall have some longer, readable text at the beginning of this article. What do others say? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 8 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

Salve. Si in norma Vicipaediae Latinae est, assentio. -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:05, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC).