Disputatio:Terra Mariae

Civitatis sententia

"Civitatis sententia est Scuto benevolentiae tuae coronasti nos"? Sed in signo "Scuto bonae voluntatis tuae coronasti nos" legere possumus! Autophile 01:48, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Districtum Columbianum

Vide Districtus Columbianus: estne accusitavus Districtum Columbianum? Columbianus? --Autophile 02:10, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Sane, ita, accusativus est.--Rafaelgarcia 02:19, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Quod? Columbianum vel Columbianus? --Autophile 14:01, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Quale? Districtus (4 decl) et Columbianus (2nd decl) = nom. sed Districtum (4 decl.) et Columbianum (2nd decl) accusativus.--24.183.186.151 18:23, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Sed... Anglice "District of Columbia". Proinde, "Districtus Columbianae" nom. sit? Et "Districtum Columbianae" acc. sit? Atqui, vide hanc rem. Nisi... Anglice "The District, (named in honor of) Columbia" est, quia appositio est? Me erudite, amabo te!

Locutio Districtus Columbianae est falsa. Recte: Districtus Columbianus, Districtum Columbianum, etc. IacobusAmor 10:31, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why is -us -us or -um -um correct, and -us -ae or -um -ae incorrect? Why isn't Columbianus in the genitive? --Autophile 15:17, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Because one is nominative and the other is accusative. Columbianus is an adjective and adjectives agree in case and gender with the noun the modify.--Rafaelgarcia 17:16, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Head bonk! I feel like an idiot for forgetting that -ianus, -a, -um transforms N into ADJ with the meaning honoring. I mixed up Columbia (N, nom) > Columbiae (N, gen) with Columbia (N, nom) > Columbianus, -a, -um (ADJ). Thank you! --Autophile 01:36, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Latine Districtus (4a declensionis)= district. Vide Disputatio:Vasingtonia_(D.C.)#Pagus_melius_est_quam_Districtus ad finem.--Rafaelgarcia 12:17, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Coloniae Chesapeakeae

Anglice "Chesapeake Bay" = Sinus Chesapeake (vide Litus Virginiae). Anglice "Chesapeake Colonies" = Coloniae Chesapeake? Etiam estne genitivus Coloniae Chesapeakeae? Chesapeake? --Autophile 02:10, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

arabant

araverunt? --Autophile 02:10, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

arare = till the soil, I guess you want to say something else cultivate =colere; what is a messis pecuniae = harvest of money? Doesn't sound right.--Rafaelgarcia 02:23, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Could be though: tabacum ut messis pecuniae 'tobacco as a harvest of money'. But what's cum labore servorum arabant 'when they were plowing/tilling with (by means of) slaves' labor'? If a cum-clause is explanatory, it's often subjunctive: cum ararent 'since they were plowing/tilling'. IacobusAmor 03:18, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

The grammar must be wrong twice "Civitas olim fuit pars Coloniae Chesapeakeae? quibus consitores tabacum ut messis pecuniae cum labore servorum arabant?"= (assuming the cum is not an adverb but a preposition that would properly be left out) "The state was once a part of the colony of Chesapeakea, with which things (what does quibus refer to?) sowers tilled tabacco as harvest of money with the labor of slaves" (assuming cum is an adverb) "The state was once a part of the colony of Chesapeakea, with which things (what does quibus refer to?) sowers tabacco as harvest of money (missing verb!) when they tilled the soil with the labor of slaves" Neither one makes sense to me.--Rafaelgarcia 04:07, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem. Perhaps I should say in quibus, so: "The state was once a part of the colonies of Chesapeake, in which sowers tilled..." I also agree, that cum should be left out, since my meaning is "by means of". --Autophile 13:57, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Pars Coloniarum Chesepiooc? See below. IacobusAmor 14:06, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Ewwww... see below! --Autophile 16:11, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

tabacum ut messis pecuniae was supposed to mean 'tobacco as a cash crop'. I figured that 'cash crop' means that the stuff being grown isn't important; the money made by the stuff being grown is important -- and is therefore, essentially, a harvest of money. Sort of. Any better ideas? I also agree that colere is a much better verb here. --Autophile 13:57, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Cato maior is the first author who writes about cash crops in farming, but he is concise, and archaic, and it's hard to get a usable term out of his text: what can we make out of rei erit or plus fructi capies ("it will be good for income"; "you will get more profit"; De Agri Cultura 3.2, 4.1)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:35, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"Cash crop" I think would be translated unambiguously by "messis lucri causa" ="crop for the sake of money"; but it is remarkable that a sower would till, and doubly that the sowers till tabacco, which is a shame since if they had harvested the tabacco they could have sold it, but because they tilled it now they have to sow a second crop. Rather I would think sowers (consitores) sow the seed, the tillers (aratores) till the soil in preparation for the sowers, and then the harvesters (messores) harvest the crop, which the farmer (agricola) who runs the operation then sells for a profit. Slaves can be consitores, aratores, and messores, but the agricola necessarily should be a freeman. Also note that latin for "where" is "ubi" not "quo" or "quibus" which in this spatial sense mean "to where", "in quo" would be taken to mean general "inside of which" or "on which" or "in which" but strange when referring to a region or state.--Rafaelgarcia 18:33, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, humbled, and educated all at once! Changes made. --Autophile 19:27, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay = Chesepiooc Sinus

We have an attestation of Chesepiooc Sinus in a map dating from 1590. Naturally, attestations of other forms may exist too. ¶ Incidentally, this map has an attestation of leuca = 'league' (unit of measure). IacobusAmor 14:06, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

CriticusFortuitus writes about another attestation on the CFA page (from 1632): The original Charter of Maryland, a grant of the territory to Lord Baltimore by Carolus I. Rex Magnae Britanniae &c., was written in Latin -- the only such charter for the British colonies. In it the bounds of Maryland are delimited, and the name of the Chesapeake Bay appears there as Sinus de Ches(s)opeake. As a general rule, the Latinists of the 16th and 17th centuries were much less inclined to Latinize thoroughly foreign names than those of the 21st century, but it's also to be noted that their spelling was a bit inconsistent, and their approach often ad hoc. Which, however, did not result in greater disagreement than you'll find on LA:! CriticusFortuitus 06:18, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC) --Autophile 16:10, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to think that Chesepiooc was the Algonquin name, rather than a Latinized name. See, for example, Tooker, in The Names Susquehanna and Chesapeake, 1901. I think probably the 1632 mention is the best, modulo the modern spelling. --Autophile 17:04, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chesapeake is an obvious anglicization of an indigenous name, as Chesepiooc should then have been pronounced almost the same, and the letters "peake" are plausible according to the conventions of English spelling ("peake" is a fair 1590s spelling of the sounds of /pio(o)k/); but they're quite implausible according to the conventions of Latin spelling: Cicero wouldn't have rendered a final /k/ sound as "ke," because that would have required another syllable, on the vowel "e"; also, he wouldn't have rendered the sound /i/ as the letters "ea." So the question, as usual, is to what extent one should balance classical habits with modern exigencies. IacobusAmor 17:52, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the easy way out is Chesapicus, the modern word with a Latin flair :D --Autophile 19:13, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Let's not have too much of a Latin flair, or we may have to bring out the bongos, the cununos, and the marimbas, start dancing the currulao, and go all the way to Chesapico. ;) IacobusAmor 19:36, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

If no attested Latin form is found for a proper name, then our rules require that the attested english or indian name be used as an indeclinable noun or adjective.See Vicipaedia:Noli fingere--Rafaelgarcia 23:40, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I think this is my conclusion. Names, especially in English, change in spelling and pronunciation over centuries. Specific to Chesapeake, in 1590 we have an attestation of Chesepiooc, and in 1632 we have an attestation of Chessopeake, in Latin documents. In the intervening 375 years, English left Latin behind, going through various changes, and we haven't found any more "evolved" (i.e. more modern) Latin documents mentioning the name. Presumably if there were an unbroken chain of Latin documents from 1632 through to the present, the spelling would most likely have mutated along with the English forms. But we don't have such a documentary chain. There is, therefore, no reason to say that the Latin name would have remained static while the English name went merrily through its gyrations.

And that's why I would argue that even though the last known attested Latin name is Chessopeake, it makes more sense to use the modern English Chesapeake, as Rafaelgarcia implies, as an indeclinable noun, but spelled with Latin orthography, as IacobusAmor says. Thus, we have Chesapic (with a long i). The modern English usage naming rule doesn't apply to New York as Novum Eboracum, since the "officials" have used it in Latinate documents and phrases from day one to the present.

Does that make any sense so far? I hope so.

Continuing, using the most excellent schooling given to me above on -ianus by Rafaelgarcia, we know that the bay was named after an Algonquin village. Thus, the name would have to be Sinus Chesapicianus.

Can I get an amen? --Autophile 02:15, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Noli fingere. Wikipedia is only a compilation of external sources, it never invents anything new. Absurdly enough, if you now write an external webpage or issue an unsourced booklet with Sinus Chesapicianus and Fluvius Potomacianus, Wikipedia is likely to accept it as a (Neo-Latin) source. But you can't invent unsourced names directly on Wikipedia. Better use a name actually used in Latin documents (without speculations what Latinists would have written today), or the original unaltered English name. Gabriel Svoboda 04:40, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Flumen Potomacus

In the Charter of Maryland of 1632: ... ad verum meridianum primi Fontis Fluminis de Pattowomack.... However, Pattowomack was just one of a bazillion spellings originating from the Algonquin, and transitioned through Patawomeke, Patowmack, to modern Potomac. Considering the free nature of transliteration back in the day, I don't think any of these except the modern accepted spelling with a Latin flair would make sense. But that's just me. Anyone else? --Autophile 19:07, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

If you don't find a latin attestation, just use the english name and don't decline it. By the way flumen is neuter, so Potomacus is just plain ungrammatical. In general, the best advice is, don't try coining new names unless you know what you are doing.--Rafaelgarcia 17:13, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

In the article Vasingtonia (D.C.), the river is called Potomacum Flumen - without sources, but it can be Googled. Gabriel Svoboda 18:13, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I'm suspicious :) It's a 1993 booklet by a Latin society with, as you point out, no sources. Not exactly the unbroken chain of usage I'd be looking for. Admittedly, there is apparently a song, "Jine the Cavalry" sung during the Civil War some time in the 1860s, that includes the word Potomacum, but only in an English context. On the other hand, the biologists have a whole genus called Potomacus, based on a ciliated protozoon found floating in (or near, or associated with) the Potomac River in 1967. Admittedly, there's only one thing in that genus, but hey, it was accepted and it's official.

Our friend Mr. Tooker, who researched the origins of the name Chesapeake also wrote a little book in 1901 about the origins of the name Potomac, saying that the river was named in honor of the largest community of Algonquin native Americans there, the Patowomekes.

So, according to the argument I presented above in Chesapeake, I would propose either Flumen Potomacianum or Fluvius Potomacianus. Both being equal, I'd choose the latter only because it has a tenuous thread of legitimacy based on the Potomacus taxonomic genus. --Autophile 02:45, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Noli fingere, see above. Gabriel Svoboda 04:40, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I found one more attested version for Flumen Potomacus. Admittedly, it was in one single letter written in 1795. Probably not enough to say it was in general use. --Robert.Baruch 15:21, 26 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Virginiensis Occidentalensis Caccabicapulus

West Virginia Panhandle. No doubt my -ensis concept is still fuzzy. --Autophile 19:32, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Conlapsio (Anglice: precipitation)

Praecipitatio? --Autophile 15:38, 6 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Ecce praecipitatio--Rafaelgarcia 16:00, 6 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Cano et celebro. --Autophile 03:04, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Sapientia systematis ecologiae gratia

Anglice: Environmental awareness = "Prudence, good sense, intellgence for the sake of the ecological system"? --Autophile 03:05, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Dubious words

Words

County: comiva, -ae (f.), from Latham, Revised Medieval Word List, 1980

The word we use is comitatus -ūs (m.) 4th declension. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:48, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Buffer: pulsabulum, -i (n.), from Calepinus Novus, modern Latin, by Guy Licoppe

Wouldn't that be something that's struck or buffeted? That's not quite what you want to be saying about a tract of land: nearby tracts of land aren't exactly striking or hitting it. IacobusAmor 00:05, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it is something struck or buffeted. Specifically, "the outer banks of North Carolina to the south" is the something struck or buffeted, by major hurricanes. Which is why we say "the outer banks...to the south" is a buffer. --Autophile 01:26, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the English there is inept, since a thin strip of banks can't function all that effectively as a buffer to winds. Mt. Everest might do some serious buffering, but a spit of land only a few feet above sea level? Also, 'to be hard-hit' is adfligi, and that (or some other verb, idiomatically used with storms) might be a pivot to turn the grammar on, rather than saying X est pulsabulum (or est anything, for that matter). IacobusAmor 01:42, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Barrier, maybe: Coastal Processes, Stephen P. Leatherman, Laboratory for Coastal Research, University of Maryland, College Park

Hurricane: cataegis, -idis (f.), from Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982

Non. Vide Typhon marinus pro explanatione.--Rafaelgarcia 16:48, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Spectrum: spectrum, -i (n.), I admit I have no source other than the word itself.

Spectrum Anglice = 'a spectre, an apparition'. IacobusAmor 18:46, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Vide Cosmica radiatio micrometrica primordialis: Habet spectrum 2.725 graduum Kelvinum (K) corporis nigri... Where did this come from? Was the word spectrum accepted for only the strict scientific definition of spectrum? I suppose Newton's use of the word in 1671 specifically from the Latin term allows it, but does that mean the English sense of A broad sequence or range of related qualities, ideas, or activities is disallowed? --Autophile 23:17, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Wild (animals, flowers): erraticus, -a, -um, from L+S A Latin Dictionary: II. Esp. in botany, of plants that spring up here and there wild.

Wild animal: ferus -a -um. Wild plant: agrestis -is -e or silvester. erraticus would be rather an equivalent for sporadic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:48, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Mascot: averruncus: see the numerous pages on universities, such as Universitas Drexel

Population: What would this be in Latin? It seems to come from populatio, but it also seems to mean something completely different.

Numerus incolarum = number of inhabitants.--Rafaelgarcia 16:50, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Populatio Anglice = 'a laying waste, devastating, plundering'. IacobusAmor 18:46, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

How would you rephrase "An anaerobic population of bacteria became acclimated to..."? --Autophile 21:37, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"Some anaerobic bacteria accommodated themselves to. . . ." (and now a suitable Latin version is obvious, with se accommodaverunt and so on). Or if you insist on something for "population," perhaps multitudo ; or for a particular interbreeding group, there may be some technical term used by biologists. ¶ In general, recast sentences to get rid of peculiar idioms (like "acclimated" here and "buffer" above) and extended senses (like spectrum above) before you start taking sentences into another language. IacobusAmor 23:37, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get it now. I have been accused of having more enthusiasm than sense, so please excuse my inflicting you with Latlish while I learn :) --Autophile 01:14, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Seagrass: should probably be gramen marinus, not mariles (what was I thinking?)

If you can identify a scientific Latin term, use that.

What species? Look up in the english wiki. The scientific names are universal.--Rafaelgarcia 16:50, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

So... no common names unless Latin has it? Even though the scientific names change every so often when biologists decide that a genus belongs in a different area? So something like St. Augustine Grass would have to be Stenotaphrum secundatum? --Autophile 21:15, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Since your point is about that very species, the species name would seem especially apt. In contrast, where you're talking about any of several sea grasses, I don't see why gramina marina 'marine grasses, marine herbs' would be wrong—unless, of course, the Romans (not exactly unfamiliar with the sea) had a special word for the concept. IacobusAmor 23:46, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

That's what the English wikipedia article on en:seagrass says: several families of flowering plants which live in a marine environment. But even so, if we are talking about one particular type of living thing, say, a "bobcat", do we just leave it with the common name, or do we require lynx rufus? Keep in mind that this big kitteh used to be felis rufus, but was still a "bobcat" anyway. --Autophile 01:19, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Dose: dosis, -is (f.), from Calepinus Novus, modern Latin, by Guy Licoppe

'Dose' in Latina pura (secundum Cassell's) = 'potio, medicamentum'. IacobusAmor 18:46, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so 'dose' being extended in English as 'a small portion', does not mean the Latin version of 'dose' can be used in the same respect. Understood! --Autophile 21:15, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Normally: normative < normativus, -a, -um (normal -> normally)

Usitate (=usually?)--Rafaelgarcia 16:49, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Yes, or saepius (rather often) or saepissime (very often, most often). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:57, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Normativus (secundum Cassell's) non est verbum Latinum. 'Usually' etiam = ferme, fere, plerumque, ut fit, ut fieri solet. IacobusAmor 18:46, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

But normativus, -a, -um is in Calepinus Novus, modern Latin, by Guy Licoppe. So is it or is it not a Latin word, and if not, does that invalidate the entire Calepinus Novus dictionary? --Autophile 21:15, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"Normativus" = "normative" not "normally"; as in a normative statement: x should do y or all x ought to y, etc.. You asked to translate normally which in english has nothing to to with normative.--Rafaelgarcia 22:03, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

One ought to bear in mind that relying on onely one source for the truth of anything is dangerous. It is like relying on wikipedia as your sole source of knowledge: not recommended. Don't automatically believe your textbooks either: they contain numerous errors too. I have noticed at least one or two mistakes or misguiding entries in each of the latin dictionaries and lexica I use. People make mistakes in generally, but you also have to keep in mind that most latin dictionaries/lexica are the product of a single man who may have not had expertise in every area of the language and may have had different motivations for creating their dictionaries. Some people in the latin scene have deliberately censored their entries with an end to spurn post classical latin words and usages even when they are indispensible for expressing modern concepts. The Roman Catholic glossaries promote the idea that new senses should not be admitted to express new ideas not conceived by the romans, preferring descriptive phrases or coining new words from Greek stems, the idea being to cultivate latin as an unchanging language.--Rafaelgarcia 22:20, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, indeed!!! --Neander 22:35, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Phrases

alii decorationes, alii species novitatum: some as decoration, others as novelty species.

Alii is masculine; decorationes is feminine: so these words can't go together. Likewise with species (feminine). 'Species of newness' seems odd, even after a couple of cups of coffee. IacobusAmor 18:53, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"aliae ut decoramina, aliae ut species novae recenter introductae."--Rafaelgarcia 19:05, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a "novelty species" in this sense is "a new species recently introduced". The species was specifically imported for being something unusual or interesting. For example, capybaras were brought to the U.S. as pets or for zoos, and so are novelty species. Gambian pouched rats were brought to the Florida Keys as a novelty species (for pets), but have now escaped into the environment. Can we rephrase so that we get something more like "an unusual or interesting nonnative species"? --Autophile 21:34, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Ut typica civitas in Litore Orientali, flora Terrae Mariae...: As is typical of states on the East Coast, Maryland's plant life... Ut typica civitatis?

At best, what I get out of ut typica civitas is 'like a "typic" state'. (Typicus is apparently not classical Latin.) IacobusAmor 18:55, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"Ut saepe in civitatibus Litoris Orientalis invenitur, flora..."--Rafaelgarcia 19:05, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Is Vicipaedia restricted to classical Latin? Or, is it more that if a sentence can be phrased strictly in classical Latin, it is preferred? And what is the canonical source dictionary for classical Latin? --Autophile 21:34, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

See what Rafael wrote above. In academic pedagogy (at least in Britain & America) for centuries now, Classical grammar & style have been held out as the ideal, or at least the most serviceable model for students to emulate. But of course those are artificial constructs, codified out of a welter of grammars & styles. Latin changed a great deal between, say, 250 a.C.n. and 250 p.C.n., though perhaps not quite so much as English between, say, 1250 and 1750. IacobusAmor 23:57, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Terra Mariae multae^? variantiam^? topographiae habet...: Maryland has a great variety of topography... --Autophile 16:36, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Variantiam and multae don't go together in that way (they don't agree in case), and "has a great variety of togography" isn't all that good as an English phrase! IacobusAmor 18:53, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I agree here. I will have to be more careful about being too linear when translating from the English article to Latin. --Autophile 21:34, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"Typographia Terrae Mariae multum variat per territorium..."--Rafaelgarcia 19:05, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

That gives new meaning to the concept of "typo"! Topographia, surely? IacobusAmor 23:57, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much resolved to stop adding to this article, and maybe stick to stubs with simple sentences (vide: Inductorium). I'll try to rack up more experience in Latin before tackling bigger and more thorough articles. --Autophile 16:39, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

By all means keep at it! The only way we learn is by trying and (often) making mistakes! One thing you'll want to do is make sure your adjectives agree in case & gender with the nouns they're modifying. IacobusAmor 18:53, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Truly cringe-worthy

So I have to say that after a year and a half of Latin courses, I've found my previous efforts (as Autophile) in this article to be truly cringe-worthy. I've begun rewriting sections of the article. --Robert.Baruch 21:00, 7 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

fons perditus

--Alex1011 (disputatio) 17:40, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC)