Disputatio Categoriae:Loci archaeologici Aegypti
Latest comment: abhinc 13 annos by Andrew Dalby
Shouldn't this be situs or at least loca? And how do we distinguish archaeological sites from cities? Obviously the two aren't mutually exclusive, but just what do we intend the protocol to be? --Iustinus 00:19, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- As to "Loci", I can't remember who first came up with this form, but I remember thinking that the use of a form of "locus" rather than "situs" was quite OK. I may well be wrong. Anyway, by all means let's change now before we get any further: UVbot could help.
- As to the city thing, for other cultures we have two series of categories that are semi-independent of one another ("Loci archaeologici Britanniae" and "Urbes Britanniae Romanae"). A place can be either; or, if an ancient city and excavated, it can be both. Could do that in Egypt too: "Urbes Aegypti antiqui" and "Loci/loca/situs archaeologici/a Aegypti". Or are you thinking it's unnecessary because all ancient cities in Egypt are archaeological sites? If that's so, then you could makes the "Urbes" category a subcategory of the archaeological one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:18, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- An archaeological site is anywhere that has been excavated, and this could be a city, a town or a small sondage in the back garden of Buckihngam palace. Of course, sites can be separated into urban and rural (and productive, and funerary, monumental, etc). Now then, when it comes to vicicategoriae things are different...--Xaverius 08:41, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. I'd love a categoria:Urbes antiquae Aegypti or the like, and sure, the more the merrier (within reason). But what about the word for "site"? Perhaps I am just influenced by English idiom towards situs, and indeed the L&S lists a couple of loci where locus means "the site of a former city." But even then, surely loca is a better choice? I know the L&S says "plur. loci, single places; loca, places connected with each other, a region;" but in practice I don't think I ever see loci except in the sense of "passages." --Iustinus 09:04, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- Oxford Latin Dictionary ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxonii: Clarendon Press, 1968–1982) is less prescriptive than C. T. Lewis et C. Short (1879). A Latin Dictionary. Oxoniae: Oxford University Press. OLD says that most senses of the word "locus" can take either the masc. or the neut. pl. As far as that's concerned, I think "Loci" remains OK. As for the choice between it and "Situs", I think if you look hard at "situs" in big dictionaries you'll conclude that your preference for it in this context is English-influenced. "Situs" is rather "the location where someone chose to put something". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- Prescriptive or not, it seems almost perverse to deliberately flaut the prescription without a cause. L&S (I don't want to sound like a broken record, but being available online, it's usually the only dictionary of quality I have on hand) Locus B.4 "A place, spot, locality; a country region" does mention that it takes both plurals, but only as "Plur. rarely loci" --Iustinus 18:41, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- Cassell's echoes L&S: "loci, single places ; loca, places connected with one another, neighbourhood, region." IacobusAmor 10:53, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect plagiarism :) But, anyway, if we accept that formulation, "Loci" is what we want. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how literally we should take that formulation. But I suppose it would be worth it to know, given what a common word this is. --Iustinus 18:41, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- Are you still objecting to "loci" here? I can't understand why. Categories are by their nature lists of single items (in this case, places). In the required sense "Loci" has L&S and Cassell's on its side; OLD is neutral. Who speaks for "loca"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how literally we should take that formulation. But I suppose it would be worth it to know, given what a common word this is. --Iustinus 18:41, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- It turns out Categoria:Urbes Aegypti antiqui already exists ... but of course it should be "antiquae". Ah well ...
- See now Categoria:Urbes Aegypti antiquae :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that. Do we have a modern Egyptian city cat too? Narmuthis is ancient only, I think, but e.g. Syene and Alexandria are still major cities. --Iustinus 18:41, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect plagiarism :) But, anyway, if we accept that formulation, "Loci" is what we want. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- Oxford Latin Dictionary ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxonii: Clarendon Press, 1968–1982) is less prescriptive than C. T. Lewis et C. Short (1879). A Latin Dictionary. Oxoniae: Oxford University Press. OLD says that most senses of the word "locus" can take either the masc. or the neut. pl. As far as that's concerned, I think "Loci" remains OK. As for the choice between it and "Situs", I think if you look hard at "situs" in big dictionaries you'll conclude that your preference for it in this context is English-influenced. "Situs" is rather "the location where someone chose to put something". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. I'd love a categoria:Urbes antiquae Aegypti or the like, and sure, the more the merrier (within reason). But what about the word for "site"? Perhaps I am just influenced by English idiom towards situs, and indeed the L&S lists a couple of loci where locus means "the site of a former city." But even then, surely loca is a better choice? I know the L&S says "plur. loci, single places; loca, places connected with each other, a region;" but in practice I don't think I ever see loci except in the sense of "passages." --Iustinus 09:04, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
- An archaeological site is anywhere that has been excavated, and this could be a city, a town or a small sondage in the back garden of Buckihngam palace. Of course, sites can be separated into urban and rural (and productive, and funerary, monumental, etc). Now then, when it comes to vicicategoriae things are different...--Xaverius 08:41, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)