Disputatio:Vincentius van Gogh

Emendationes factae

Nactus commentatiunculam hanc, sat bene conscriptam, ausus sum quaedam pro modulo meo corrigere. (Imposuerat nescio quis censuram "latinitas corrigenda -4," iniuste sane.) [Etant tombé sur ce petit article, très bien écrit d'ailleurs, j'ai pris la liberté d'y faire quelques retouches. Quelqu'un y avait mis un "latinitas corrigenda -4," pas du tout justifié.] David Carolinus, 19 Apr. 2007.

"Hodie umquam maximus artifex esse dicitur."

What is the meaning of "umquam" here? Was "etiam" intended, perhaps? Toddcs (disputatio) 00:45, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

@Toddcs: My suspect is that it means what it usually means, “ever”, so: “He is considered today the most important painter ever”. But if I am not wrong Latin would normally use adhuc for that, so “Adhuc maximus artifex esse dicitur”. Moreover I am also not really convinced that we should say about any artist that he or she is the most important artist ever. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:53, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

@Grufo: Thank you for shedding light on that. Toddcs (disputatio) 03:01, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, assessments like "the greatest artist ever" veer into POV territory and should be cut or attributed to reliable authorities. Respectably compiled surveys of the most important people & things in certain domains are available, and assessments can fairly be attributed to them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that phrases like "greatest X ever" veer into POV. But if it feels appropriate to use this kind of assessment in Latin, "umquam maximus" looks suspect. "Omnium maximus" would be an established idiom, but in this case it would be an exaggeration. I changed the sentence to "Hodie inter maximos artifices numeratur". Neander (disputatio) 15:30, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)