Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Unio Astronomica Internationalis" differant
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Linea 11:
::I don't see how the structure of our geographical category names is pertinent to this.
::So, thus far, I haven't found a relevant argument in your paragraph! I expect the fault is mine ... :) <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 13:31, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
:::No doubt. ;) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:19, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
:::: Iacobe, given your "solitus ordo" argument, it'd be fair to concentrate on the place of ''internationalis'' in institutional names. According to my gut feeling, the pattern à la ''Societas internationalis X-ica'' or ''Societas X-ica internationalis'' prevails over ''Internationalis X-iae societas''. Methinks, there must be a very important reason for bettering that which is good. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 15:38, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
:::::Good point. The one that gets the most hits at Google (judging from the first few pages) is the Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences, with the often-attested form [[Internationalis Scientiarum Historiae Comitatus]] (see [http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/figuras/figurasingles/albuquerque.html here] and many other sites). Of course, ''internationalis'' itself seems somewhat newfangled, and for 'international law' in classical style, for example, Cassell's says to use ''ius gentium.'' ¶ Side note: that use of ''Comitatus'' for ''Académie,'' where most writers would automatically use ''Academia,'' is enlightening! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:00, 15 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
| |||