Talk:Gaudeamus igitur

message: Hi, could anybody tell me who this mysterious "Strada, bishop of Bologna" is? Strada is Italian and means "street". And that's what google says to me. No bishop of Bologna. No list of bishops of Bologna list any "Strada". Is this a fake? we are currently discussing this in the German Wikipedia because :de:Gaudeamus igitur is candidating for the label "Lesenswert" (a kind of "featured article", second class). --Rabe! 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strada

message: The translation of "vivant membra quaelibet" is obviously wrong, because there can be no feminine plural ending in -a, only neutrum plural, and the verb is 3rd person plural. Is this really a "traditional translation"? If it is, where does it come from? And if not, it should be simply modified, because the correction as it is looks rather silly ("apparently incorrect" - this is Latin grammar, there can be no "apparently" :) ). --Methodius12 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the translation is certainly wrong. "membrum" is not masculime, it's neuter, and "membra" is the regular neuter plural. So the distinction is between singular and plural - neither gives any indication of the sex of the members, although of course at the time when the song was written members of a University would have been almost if not entirely male. I will correct it. --rossb 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming to this years later, I have to add that (a) the neuter plural construction is "Vivant membra quaelibent; and (b) membrum/membra involves a bawdy double entendre, as indeed does the English member. One of the song's literary delights!  I also notice that the consonental letter 'i' is, in the current article, sometimes inconsistently rendered as 'j', which I'm about to attend to. Bjenks (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Traditional translation"

message: The phrase "In many modern Western nations it is sung as an anthem at University graduation ceremonies." should be changed to "In many modern nations it is sung as an anthem at University graduation ceremonies.", without the Western bit. I am from Romania, and here, at every high school graduation, and every university graduation, Gaudeamus is sung....and we are in central-eastern Europe...so...it figures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.180.224.38 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same goes for Latvia. --Papuass (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly have a point there, but the term Western refers to Europe as the place of "Western civilization", and of course also to Kanada, USA, Australia ... If Gaudeamus is sung in Japan, China, India or Egypt I do not know, even if their educational and academic system is orientated on the originally western ones. 62.178.137.216 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Western", as well as "Eastern" is a very imprecise term, often used as a jingoistic slur, and should be replaces by a more traceable one. In the "Western" Western countries it excludes usually Eastern (and Central) European countries. --Jidu Boite (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are prepared to call Russia a part of Western Civ, then you can call Romania part of Western Civ too. The more traditional way however is to refer as West only the areas where the Latin rite has more tradition than the Eastern rites, and to call East not only the non-Christians, but also the Christians of Eastern rites: and in Romania, Eastern rites are indeed in first place, even though the language is Romance.--131.159.0.47 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Western countries?

message: The "different version", given in full and with its own translation, seems to differ only in 3 lines of the second verse and one letter (possibly an error) in the third (qualibet/quaelibet). That seems like rather a lot of unnecessary duplication. Hv 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the alternative version (and also the repeated lines in the first version). --rossb 07:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "different versions" 

message: On the basis that the names of articles should reflect the most common usage in English, surely this shuld be moved back to "Gaudeamus igitur". "De Brevitate Vitae" is much better known as the name of the work by Seneca. --rossb (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . Neıl ☎ 11:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: What? No mention of Seneca, who first coined the title...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seneca 

message: I contest the authenticity of the verses 8-10. The only "sourcing" refers to the ingeb.org web site, which makes no claims of quality or critical reception and indeed is a simple collection of stuff from all over the place. Most actual sources I am aware of (which are printed books, all a with a history of several editions, one of them with an editorial history of 150 years and 165 editions) list seven verses, the first printing of the modern text (in Kindleben's "Studentenlieder" (Halle, 1781)) even only has the first six. But none goes beyond the "Pereat, tristitia" verse.
If you want more details, see the German Wikpedia article, which has a detailed history of the song and an extensive bibliography. 
So, unless someone presents valid reasons why not to, I plan to remove verses 8-10 from this article. Wefa (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: since there was no objection, done. Wefa (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocryphal verses (8-10) and lack of sources 

message: The following sentence is inconsistent: The song dates to 1287 and was already known by the time of founding of the first European university, the University of Bologna.  Bologna was founded in 1088. --达伟 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this comment.  Ileanadu (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I third this comment, indeed as I have just updated the reference link so it does function the text from reference refers to keeping with an "academic tradition" dating back to the founding of Bologna - does this perhaps refer to the content of the song rather than the actual song? I do not know, just a casual reader who picked up on the inconsistency. I propose it is removed unless resolved as it creates confusion. Benjamin Dickson (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent 

message: Is this sentence:
:The International University Sports Federation (FISU) adopted the song like his anthem which was played during the medal-awards ceremonies and the opening ceremonies of the Universiades.
Supposed to mean something like "adopted the song as its anthem"?  Also, is it "Universiades" or "Universidades"? Should there be a link?
Was this just for one event ("was played"), or has this been adopted as its permanent or standard "anthem" ("is played")? Reference? Ileanadu (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FISU Factoid Unclear 

message: How come Io Vivat is linked to, but not a live article? Joepnl (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Io vivat 

message: The text of the song and its translations keep getting deleted by an anonymous user; he has (in the edit summary) claimed, repeatedly, that the Latin version is copyright by either the International University Sports Federation or by the Pan American Sports Organization.  This song is traditional and public domain.  More recently, I added and gave credit to a CC translation by Mark Sugars.  This also keeps getting deleted by the same user.  His IP address keeps changing, but I am certain it is the same user as I have whoissed each of them and repeatedly get the same information: Tripletnet from Thailand.  The IP range is 180.183.0.0 - 180.183.127.255.  Can this page be semi-protected so that anonymous vandals can't futz with it?
--Nmatavka (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the evidence that that's CC-licensed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an important point. The 1997 English translation by J. Mark Sugars is the one that has been getting deleted in the most recent edits. As it is from 1997, it has presumptive copyright for Mr. Sugars unless there is a Creative Commons license that can be identified, and there is no indication of one on the cited web source. The Latin version and the two Germans are clearly in the public domain. The "traditional English" one is a bit dicier; it would have to date back to the early 1920s to be clearly public domain. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated vandalism 

message: Just a question: Is there a reason two German versions are given in this article, in the English Wikipedia?  It would seem to me that those versions would be of little (if any) use to English speakers, and a more appropriate place for them would be in the German Wikipedia.  Unless, of course, said English readers happen also to speak German, which isn't all that common, and even then, if they wanted information in German it's still reasonable to expect them to look in the German Wikipedia.
I can understand that the German versions may have more authority (for whatever historical reason), but I'm still unsure what a reader (who presumably is looking for information in English) gains from seeing two German versions alongside the two English translations.  Neonumbers (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing myself. I'm going to get rid of them. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  German versions 

message: I took PowerSpeak High School Latin I & II language courses, and one of the two presented a few verses of Gaudeamus Igitur in the last lesson.  It cited the first verse, however, as ending with "Nos exspectat caelum" ("Heaven awaits us") x 2, in place of "Nos habebit humus."  I recognize that those compiling the curriculum may have changed the verse to soften the message, and that the source can only be accessed by purchasing and registering the course and is thus unusable.  Nonetheless, there may be other, more fitting sources that also contain "Nos exspectat caelum."  I will search for any, and I figured I would mention it, should anybody want to do the same.
Thanks.  BlueCaper (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaudeamus pig manure .... 206.125.145.230 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate lines 

message: In the "TV and film" subsection, I found this statement: 'The melody is woven through the soundtrack of Harold Lloyd's silent film "The Freshman" (1925)'. Perhaps it means the soundtrack on a re-released version, but it needs explanation, so I have added a "clarification needed" tag. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent movie soundtrack? 

message: I question whether the article benefits from a growing list of places where the song is or has been sung. Such a list is potentially interminable and its contents are entirely irrelevant to the subject. If I'm judged wrong by a consensus, I am prepared to add an equally voluminous new section of pubs in which I have heard students sing Gaudeamus and other ditties. Bjenks (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of disagreement, I am deleting the lists. Only one institution (the University of Sydney) provided substantial verification of its use in a rather innovative "Thank you to our donors". I'm preserving this as an external link because, though being a little soapy, it both plays the hallowed tune in style and displays the university's witty reverence for it. I am also tagging a section for consideration of largely unsourced lists of "popular culture" appearances. Bjenks (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universities, secondary schools, etc 

message: I read "It is a jocular, light-hearted composition that pokes fun at university life.[citation needed]"
What sort of citation can be given? You just have to read the text to see the irony!
Franciscus montmartinensis (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony ? 

message: Verse 4 includes the line Vivant membra quaelibet which was recently restored after I had amended the second verb to plural quaelibent on the basis of what I've always sung (and supported by my age-old schoolboy Latin). Puzzlingly, this apparently reputable source (Ref no. 6) differs and, therefore, I'm reluctant to revert to the plural form in the absence of a more reliable Latin authority. Could this possibly be an 'impersonal' construction? Bjenks (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the verb libet is impersonal and is not pluralized. Burzuchius (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And through the Helpdesk TSventon has raised the idea that this may be not a verb but a neuter plural of the pronoun quilibet. Either way, it seems I have to admit quaelibent would be wrong. Bjenks (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin scholar needed