Talk:Libris Mortis

message: *"is an official supplement for the Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game, version 3.5." - you kinda forgot to say that it's a book (it is, right?)...
** J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: There's no justification in forbidding a footnote that the Latin is Liber Mortis, simply on the assumption that anyone dumb enough to look at this article won't care. We needn't inflict our ignorance on the Wikipedia reader, so I have restored the discreet footnote. --Wetman (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left the following note at User talk:J Milburn: "Since you are an Administrator, I hope you will take a more serious approach. A discreet footnote to the effect that the Latin is Liber Mortis is unexceptionable. If you do think that Latin is "original research", I hope you'll look at WP:OR to get the general idea of what that entails. There's no reason to inflict our own ignorance on the Wikipedia reader, and I assure you I am every bit as ignorant of comic books, Metallica and "Dungeons & Dragons" as you may be of Latin and history all that. Wikipedia is first of all an adult reference."
This article is not on my Watchlist. --Wetman (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Linking the book to Latin in any way is original research without a reference. Who are you to say that it is meant to look Latin? Perhaps we should also add a footbote to say that it isn't Swahili for 'book of the dead', while we're at it? J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. WP:OR is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The title needs some explanation. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And anything that the article needs should be attributed to reliable sources. Explanation of the title would be wonderful, but only if we can find sources. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It quite obviously is not self evident, if you people are debating the exact translation. I am not opposed to the addition of a comment regarding the proper translation of a title, I am opposed to the lack of a reference. You cannot get around the need for a reliable sources, and you certainly can't argue that it's too obvious to require a reference- the majority of people don't speak Latin, and it seems that even those of you who do can't agree on it. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Please address me courteously, I am not 'You People', I am an experienced editor (though not an admin) and I have a perfect right to make a helpful and friendly edit. Please do not merely 'lump' my contribution to this discussion together with everything you don't agree with, but consider it rationally. I have shown what some variant Latin forms might be, and you can see plainly for yourself from them (which I have offered to reference) that 'Libris mortis' does resemble the latin, though inaccurately. This may answer your earlier query to User:Wetman, 'Who are you to say that it is meant to look latin?'. With this information before you, the matter can be discussed. The reference for the latin is as follows:  see J.T. White, A Latin-English Dictionary (Longmans, Green & Co., London 1924), p. 388 column 3., Mors, mortis, (noun, feminine): Death, or, a dead body or corpse. The same work, p. 347, col 3, Liber, libri, (noun, masculine) original meaning skin or bark of a tree, usual meaning, a book. For the grammar I have cited, see B. H. Kennedy, The Shorter Latin Primer (Longmans, London 1962 edition), pp 7-8, first and second declension nouns. Hope that helps. Eebahgum (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, yes, 'you people' is a little aggressive, I apologise. I meant that yourself and Wetman disagreed on what the exact Latin is. As for the source you cite, that still constitutes original research; take a read of this. Quote- "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research". In linking the Latin to the name of this English book not about Latin at all, you are engaging in original research. Who are we to say that it is meant to be Latin? Perhaps its deliberately not correct, I have a vague memory of Draconic sounding something like Latin. Perhaps it's just a coincidence- not likely, but we aren't in any position to say what's right without a reference. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I have heard the argument, that a translation is original research, advanced before, but I have to say that I think it is not truly a synthesis in the sense meant by WP:OR rules. That's my opinion. You could say on the same basis that any word which has to be looked up in a dictionary, even within one and the same language, is a form of original research, but if we followed that rule there would be no wikipedia at all. The fact is, that if 'Liber Mortis' had appeared on the cover instead of 'Libris mortis', with the words 'The Book of the Dead' underneath it (as does actually appear), then the intended correlation between the English and Latin forms would not be in any doubt by anyone, because they would be recognised as close (if not quite exact) counterparts. I hope you might accept that theoretical premise. But, as you point out, it says not 'Liber mortis' but 'Libris mortis', which almost means something similar in latin but not quite. What you are therefore saying is that there may be a made-up language in which the word 'Libris' is the normal form of the word for Book. I take the point: If I were to read a runic inscription on the cover of a copy of The Lord of the Rings (book) using original Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian sound-values for the letters, the inscription would not make sense, both because the language represented by the letters is not Anglo-Saxon nor Old Norse, and because Tolkein, having ripped off those forms from the genuine futharcs, then turned them to his own use for the Hobbit-world. Runes on that book should only be read in relation to Tolkein's fantasy language use of them, and not like real runes. I agree with you. Libris Mortis does mean 'The Book of the Dead' in the language of the fantasy world occupied by the makers of that product, and it has nothing to do with latin, even though it resembles it closely. The near but inexact resemblance might, however, be worth pointing out in a footnote, just to steer readers away from the erroneous conclusion some of us stumbled into. You must see that if we could all make that mistake, so will other readers. A disclaimer would therefore be a good idea: otherwise editors who haven't looked at this page will be forever fiddling with it. Eebahgum (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see where you're coming from, I just think we shouldn't be doing any of this 'this isn't what you think it is' when we don't even have a reference that people do think that, never mind one explicitly saying that they aren't correct. Golbez also makes a very valid point that I hadn't considered. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm convinced. Working on writing a paragraph on the naming now. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a paragraph. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, it's me again. I think it is good that you have included this paragraph, specially as the source Peregrine Fisher found gave such positive indications. I am sure that 'Mortuorum' is the right form (where you have offered that explanation) because that is what it says in the Christian Credo when we say 'and I look for the resurrection of the dead', we say 'et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum:' so it is the similar idea of the company of the dead, who will all rise out of their graves at the Last Day. Just on the point of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, if you're interested, I notice that The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt, edited by Stephen Quirke and Jeffrey Spencer (British Museum Press, London 1992) has a good section referring to The Book of the Dead from page 94-102, plus lots of other citations. Various different religions have Books of the Dead, but you might possibly be interested in The Tibetan Book of the Dead, or, The After-Death Experiences on the Bardo Plane, according to Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup's English rendering (with a commentary by Carl Gustav Jung), Compiled and edited by W. Y. Evans-Wentz (Oxford University Press, London 1960 paperback edition). (original was 1927, 2nd 1949, 3rd 1957). I think you have fully responded to the problem of the title, well done.
P.S. Today was the first anniversary of my 4 heart attacks, then aged 49, and I have survived the year since: so I really didn't care what happened this afternoon. Enjoyed it here, thanks! Eebahgum (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If I may pile on...As a former teacher of Latin, Liber Mortuorum is certainly better than Libris Mortis, which, with the addition of "ex", would merely mean "from (i.e., coming out of) the books of death." Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liber Mortis