Disputatio Categoriae:Eruditi

"Men of Science"

copied from: Categoria:Viri Scientiae

My intent was to create a category for scientists. Seeing no obvious Latin word for "scientist", and mirroring Categoria:Viri militares, I decided that the old term "men of science" could work. However, this obviously lacks gender-neutrality, so if someone has a better word for "scientist" that'd be great. --Alynna Kasmira 00:00, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Gender neutrality certainly didn't concern the romans =]! Traupman just says physicus for scientist.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:20, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I know that. I just didn't know if there was a better translation for 'scientist'... since we don't have "viri physicae". Also, it seems mildly odd calling Marie Curie a "man of science"... --Alynna Kasmira 02:29, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

The Romans tended to call scientists philosophi or physici, yes, but unfortunately neither of those will work for us, because we now use those words for more specific things.

Viri militares was deliberately chosen because... well, see here. Vir definitely has the qualities the army is looking for. Furthermore, military women are rare enough as to merit their own category anyway, I would say. But neither of these really applies to scientists.

Honestly, I would just use the (non-classical) adjective scientificus -a -um "creating knowledge, scientific" as a substantive, and call the category scientifici.

Another issue is how to name stipula types. I'm not sure that genitives are really the best way to do that. Previously we named them that way essentially because it was the closest to real Latin that we could get, between my bad programming skills, and Nick (who originally programmed them)'s bad Latin skills. In general, I would think either an adjective (e.g. stipula fluviatilis) or a prepositional phrase (e.g. stipula de flumine) would work best. What do you think?

--205.188.116.201 02:42, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC) (dammit, that's me again. I could swear I did log in this time)

This is certainly one of the things I just kind of "when in Romed". I saw most of them were genitives, so all subsequent ones I made were too. I would definitely support adjectival replacement, I mean, even in English, "a stub of science" doesn't make sense, whereas adjectivally, "science stub" works fine.--Ioshus ^(disp) 02:54, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Some could also be transitive. "Haec stipula theoriam musicae explicat."--Ioshus ^(disp) 03:11, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Or Haec stipula ad theoriam musicam spectat or de theoria musica agitur. --Iustinus 04:26, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

An Historici?

copied from: Categoria:Viri Scientiae

An Categoria:Historici addendum est?

Si adhibemus vocabulum latinum "Scientia," quod de omnibus quae homines sciri possunt tractat, opportet addere non tantum Historici, sed et Philosophi, Theologi, etc. ie. omnes academicas disciplinas. --Tbook 20:18, 28 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Titulus

from: Categoria:Scientici

I don't think Scientici exists. Maybe Scientifici? Or Homines scientiae (people of science)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I was doubting that yes, maybe i should left it red... btw. should medici go with this group??Hendricus 18:25, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

In the wake of Andrew, I'd say "Homines scientiarum periti" or "Scientiarum periti". It may be too harsh to venture a neologism such as "Scientistae", though the model kind of exists (e.g. capitalista). --Neander 18:56, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Docti to be considered, too...--Ioscius ^(disp) 18:57, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Homines scientiae because it includes men of science who were inventors and engineers and not scientists per se but excludes learned men of business, government and religion who deserve their own categories. Of course there could also be a super categroy for all learned men Docti --Rafaelgarcia 19:15, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Is something wrong then with (the possibly more idiomatic) homines scientiae periti? Btw, my dictionary says 'scientific' is scientiam (af)ferens. IacobusAmor 19:20, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I think this category should be a place for those (men and women) beeing specialist in one of the subjects within the category Scientia, Hendricus 19:45, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

No, no. I think Iacobus is right. "Scientiae periti" means "skilled in science". It's a kind of idiomatic expression.--Rafaelgarcia 20:32, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me: categoria:Scientiae periti - under categoria:Scientia then...? Hendricus 20:45, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Cassell's dictionary defines English scientist as Latin physicus. IacobusAmor 00:29, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I think your earlier suggestion scientiae periti is more suitable for covering the category: physici seems (to me) to go with a narrow definition of science. I'm not sure whether botanists, etc., could be called physici. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

contribuenda cum Categoria:Eruditi?

from: Disputatio Categoriae:Scientiae periti

What is the difference between this category and Categoria:Eruditi? Note that Categoria:Eruditi currently does not have interwiki links. Perhaps this category should be merged into Categoria:Eruditi? --UV 23:44, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

The difference (in my mind) is between scientists (Scientiae periti) and the rest (Eruditi): people who study in subject areas not describable as science. The borderline is hazy, of course. Not many would call a theologian, a historian or a bibliographer a scientist. As to linguistics and economics, opinions vary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

1) Are not all scientists also eruditi (but not the other way round)?
2) I think, we have here again the problem that Latin words have different meanings in different modern languages. Science is not the same as science, which is not the same as Wissenschaft (see also civilisation/Zivilisation and culture/Kultur). So we must decide, which modern meaning (usually the Anglo-Saxon) we should adopt. --Alex1011 10:07, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

For the record: the (four) dictionaries I consulted define eruditus as 'taught, bred up, inured, skilled, experienced, instructed, educated, trained, learned, accomplished, well-informed, accustomed', and peritus as 'able, experienced, skilful, well-skilled, practised, practically acquainted, expert; an adept'. These concepts hardly overlap: only two of the English terms in one list appear in the other. IacobusAmor 14:18, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

English terms aren't everything. Alex is right with his (1) above. All who are expert in science are learned, but not all who are learned are expert in science.

Therefore, as UV says, the two categories could be merged: eruditi covers all. Any comments on whether it is useful to distinguish scientists from others? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Per Alex1011 and Andrew, I made Categoria:Scientiae periti a subcategory of Categoria:Eruditi. --UV 20:48, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

See also Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 8#Inflatio Nederlandica? --UV 21:31, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, looking at how the categories are working out, I do not think that anyone benefits from keeping the two parallel category trees, Eruditi and Scientiae periti, apart. Each of them has two branches: one into specialities (which are useful); the other into scholars/scientists-by-country (which are also useful). I am thinking of asking the help of UVBot to do some mergers, so that eventually we would have a single supercategory (Eruditi, scholars including scientists). It would still branch, as before, on one side into a tree of specialities; on the other side, when the mergers are done, into a tree of scholars-and-scientists by country. But no need to puzzle over whether any particular person is an eruditus or a scientiae peritus. How do others feel about that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)