Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Conversio industrialis" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Linea 18:
::::::I added Revolutio Industrialis to the beginning since there are more than one source, with an explanation to look here for an explanation. If someone moves it back to Revolutio Industrialis, I will try to argue anymore. Maybe when someone writes a page on Revolutio politica, they will one day explain how the term evolved in the early 21st century to encompass all rerum commutationes by back borrowing from Romance Languages. The pressure to do so by latin learners seems somehow insurmountable, despite the utter obviousness of the word.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 03:12, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
:::::::For the record: Cassell's has ''conversio'' as 'change' (and other things), but doesn't have ''revolutio'' at all. For 'revolution' in the sense of 'turning round', it has ''conversio, orbis, ambitus.'' For 'political revolution', it has ''res novae, reipublicae conversio,'' and ''reipublicae commutatio.'' So ''conversio'' would seem to be at least one fair possibility for the kind of social upheaval induced by what English-speakers call an industrial revolution. But then for the 'Industrial' part, in place of ''reipublicae,'' you'd be looking for a genitive, right? Ergo [[Industriae Conversio]] ~ [[Industriae Commutatio]]? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:28, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I think you're right that Industriae Conversio or Industriae Commutatio would be more idiomatic latin. I think Myces is also correct that the current church no longer cultivates the type of latin used by Guglielmo Audisio, and as far as I know it no longer condemns the industrial revolution, although I think the pope does bemoan laissez faire aspects capitalism in its most recent encyclical.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 03:51, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
| |||