Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Conversio industrialis" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Linea 5:
::If a conversio or rerum commutatio is a genuine revolutio, by all means it should be called that; but the only revolutio conceivable in this instance is one in which we return to a preindustrial economy.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 16:41, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::Revolution in English means turning around. The secondary usage of the word to mean some great upheaval that radically changes the status quo has been used on the analogy of the French Revolution. There is no reason why Latin should not use that secondary meaning on the same analogy . I think you seem to imagine like Dr Bradley, whom you so admire, that Latin died after Livy, Cicero and Caesar.[[Specialis:Conlationes/82.36.94.228|82.36.94.228]] 18:20, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::::Not at all, revolutio is a valid addition to the latin vocabulary, and additions are fine and good. But indiscriminate substitutions of new terms for perfectly good old ones, is creating a new language. Newton used revolutio to mean the circling back to the same point of a planet or other body as it orbits another; as distinguished from a rotatio about its own axis. Thus a year is a tempus revolutionis. A day is a tempus rotationis. Subsequently, as a political term Revolutio was introduced by Catholic scholars to describe the series of rerum commutationes in France; the term however refers to a subset of upheavals: those which roll back certain developments, bringing us back to a status quo ante. In particular, the Catholic scholar who coined the term (I believe a spaniard I can't find it anywhere right now), used it dispagingly in the sense of undoing the progress of the church in Europe.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 19:38, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
| |||