Disputatio Vicipaediae:Fons

Latest comment: abhinc 15 annos by Neander

In classical Latin, citare tends to be used as a juridical term (= testem in ius vocare). Hence, "citare" needs a personal object (citare aliquem), whereas Cicero would scarcely have said citare aliquid. I know locus citatus is very popular in the "philologese" originating from humanistic Latin, but locus allatus has more classical authority in it. In general, I suggest we use afferre (or proferre) for Engl. cite. --Neander 02:21, 27 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cassell's offers a Classical figurative use, 'to appeal to, point to authorities, supporting facts, etc.', and cites an example from Cicero: quamvis citetur Salamis clarissimae testis victoriae. So it's OK, isn't it? IacobusAmor 04:18, 27 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks all right to me. It's nice to have alternatives, anyway. In English you can also adduce a piece of evidence: can "adducere" be used in that way? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 27 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm all for variety and alternatives. My point is: let's not stick to the first noun or verb that comes into mind from English. The Ciceronian locus brought forward by Iacobus is clearly a juridical metaphor. It's also the historical context from which Engl. cite seems to have sprung forth. To the Ciceronian Sprachgefühl (insofar as such a thing can be reconstructed) citare was obviously more dramatic than afferre. In classical Latin, I think, adducere was most appropriate when there was something that could be brought forward for all to see (as a piece of eVIDEnce). German anführen looks like being a semantic loan based on adducere. Well, as I said in the beginning, I'm for variation, but let's not forget the everydayishly grey afferre. Neander 11:11, 27 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the project page "Fons".