Disputatio:Textus Declarationis Libertatis Civitatum Americae Foederatarum in Latinum conversus

Titulus: "Declaratio Libertatis"

Melius Professio Libertatis? Cassell's says a professio is "Esp. public declaration of one's name, property, occupation, etc."; whereas a declaratio is "a making clear, open expression." Either looks apt, but the former seems tinged with legalistic implications; still, declaratio would be more readily understood by most readers. IacobusAmor 17:22, 19 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

I think the sense here is "making clear" since the purpose of the document is to make clear the reasons for the separation.--Rafaelgarcia 18:19, 19 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Textus Declarationis

In this article, the two versions (Latin and English) of the Declaration appear in a two-column table, with the Latin on the left and the English on the right. The apparent reasoning is that since this is a Latin Wikipedia page, the Latin version should appear in the primary position, i.e., in the left column. That is, in general, a reasonable argument. But in this case, since the English version is obviously the original, while the Latin is the translation, I believe a cogent argument could be made for putting the English in the primary position, on the left, and the Latin on the right. Toddcs (disputatio) 13:20, 18 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Exordium

Perhaps the formulation could be strengthened with hyperbaton:

Unanima Declaratio a tredecim foederatis Civitatibus Americae facta,

Unanima a tredecim Foederatis Americae Civitatibus facta Declaratio,

The suspension of a phrase until it "clicks" at the end can convey exquisite elegance. IacobusAmor 20:52, 19 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

I changed it like you suggested, except I kept the foederatis small because that's the way it was in the orginal.--Rafaelgarcia 15:26, 20 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Quod

In "quod omnes Homines sibi pares creantur" is the construction with quod OK? or should it be in oratio obliqua (omnes Homines sibi pares creari)? Likewise the next several items. + Is sibi pares OK? IacobusAmor 04:04, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think the "quod" construction is wrong. For example, look at the first two meanings in the Lewis and Short dictionary quod: meaning "that, in that" and "wherefore". Although the construction was uncommon in classical times and therefore discouraged by grammar books, it is found increasingly in post classical times, and in this case it serves to keep the parallelism of the english text's flow. I did not find it possible to maintain the parallel with the english text otherwise.--Rafaelgarcia 04:32, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

"Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et dividit lucem a tenebris"...Certainly the founding fathers would have based their Latin on the vulgate, methinks.--Rafaelgarcia 04:38, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Just for information's sake, I found a discussion of this use of quod in the sense of "the fact that" in Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar in section 572.--Rafaelgarcia 23:09, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)