Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Genocidium" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 39:
:''Gentis'' & ''populi'' are so specific that they miss part of the definition, and the reason ''generis'' is so general is that it has to include concepts "populi, gentis, religionis, vel civitatis." The sense of ''genus'' is perhaps the sense of 'kind' in English in a famous song in ''West Side Story,'' where a character is advised to "stick to your own kind." Again, the sense of ''populi occisio'' ("id est populi occisionem," and why accusative?) restricts genocide to politics (Cassell's, 'populus' = "''a people, as forming a political community, a nation''"), omitting, for example, religious motives. Maybe ''genocidium,'' as an obvious back-formation, is best after all. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:56, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
::If Latin sources for a term denoting 'genocide' do not exist (which seems to be the general assumption here) we cannot but translate the ''meaning'' of the word into Latin. Now, using a back-formation like 'genocidium' could be argued to be in violation of the 'Noli fingere' rule more convincingly than translating 'genocide', for instance, as 'exstinctio nationis' or 'gentis'.--[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 19:59, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
::Deutera phrontis: Of course, there ''are'' Neo-Latin sources for 'genocidium'. One wonders sometimes, however, whether some Latin can be too neo to qualify as an authority for us. Is there not a difference between renaissance scientific writing, when Latin was employed as a serious means of communication, and our colleagues at 'Ephemeris' who are faced with exactly the same predicament as we are. Why should their choice, however rash, prevail and ours go to the dogs? Only because we are a lexicon and they are a periodical? Do not we have some relevance, too?--[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 20:33, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
| |||