Talk:The Art of Grammar

message: Stub -- more content of the grammar is described on the article for thrax himself
Perhaps some external references to the readable Greek text are in order
And other non Thraxine discussion, like scholarly argumentation on authorship
60.225.219.76 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Googling for
the author with the three-word and four-word titles (in each case in quotes) "works": four words, "About 2,390 results"; three 
words, "About 2,810 results". While the raw numbers are suggestive, doing the math goes further, viz.
: 2,390 articles that start the title, at least once (in each article), with "the";
: 420 that use it without "the" at least once (in each article), and never use it with "the".
IMO, we know that only about a fifth of uses of these obvious English titles, within the context of mentioning the author's full standard name, consider the "the" title unworthy of mention (but we would have to examine a representative sample of the other 4/5 to know what fraction among them ignored "Art of Grammar", and what fraction mention both). I don't strongly favor mentioning both titles, but i do think more evidence would be needed to overcome the presumption that "The" is preferred. Thus i agree with your suggestion that the rename to the 4-word title should be done. If you still agree, i'll proceed.   (I think you were unfamiliar with the Google-test concept; the reason i qualified my invocation of it is that i can't clearly recall any mention of the expression where the purpose was other than a substitute for other imagined ways of determining whether one given word or phrase refers, in a simple majority of the Web pages that use it, to one potential WP-article topic. If yes, the "bare" title goes on the article for that topic (and the Dab page's title ends with " (disambiguation)"); if no, the "bare" title goes on the Dab page, and the various articles "that lost out" each get some other title -- which (on a per article basis) may or not be the "bare" title followed by something in parentheses.)--Jerzy•t 02:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually familiar with the concept of googling a pair of words to determine which is used more frequently, but I'd never heard of it being abbreviated to "G-test". I thought "G-test" was some math concept that I'd never heard of, like "chi-squared test". It sounds like it's usual to include "The" in the name, so as far as I'm concerned, it's fine to move the article. If anyone else objects, at least there's a good argument for the move. — Eru·tuon 04:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google evidence 

message: Have you a view on what the significance is, at this page, of the inclusion of "Ars Grammatica"? The Latin title for the translated work, or for the Koine work? An assertion that the work is properly part of the Ars grammatica (or should it, on this talk page, read the ars grammatica, and/or have "the" omitted? A description, and maybe a subtitle, but not a title, for the work bearing it? (Pretty much just curious.)--Jerzy•t 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ars grammatica is just the usual Latin translation of the Greek phrase , and means, in Modern English terms, "grammar" or "description of a language" just like the Greek phrase does. There's nothing special or different about the Latin grammatical tradition; it's largely an importation of the Koine Greek one, with many of the same terms transliterated or loan-translated into Latin. I have no idea why the Latin translation of the title of Dionysius's work is given on the Greek Wikisource; perhaps there's a Latin translation of Dionysius's work, but I've never heard of one. — Eru·tuon 04:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:    I'm a self-proclaimed know-it-all, not a serious polymath, so i'm not bold enuf to assert that Ars grammatica deserves a hatnote like --Jerzy•t 06:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heehee. Well, I doubt a hatnote is needed. I'm not sure if Dionysius's work is ever actually referred to under the Latin name, aside from on the Greek Wikisource... — Eru·tuon 06:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  By the way... 

message: "... speakers of Koine Greek ... Homer and other great poets of their past" implies in context that all speakers of Koine were of Greek descent but IIRC Koine was a lingua franca thruout the territory of what had been Alexander's empire, or at least of its western end. There've probably been European historians who believed or even declared that Greek &/or Macedonian genes were what transformed those cultures, but if it were true, we'd hear white racists using the DNA evidence to prove it.--Jerzy•t 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled as to how the context implies that "speakers of Koine Greek" refers to ethnic Greeks. It's certainly true that Koine Greek was spoken by people of many different nations, and as far as I know, Dionysius wasn't excluding non-Greeks from his audience. It's true that Dionysius was writing primarily to help people read Greek literature. He quotes Homeric names as examples in his chapter on nouns and gives lines from the Iliad and Odyssey in many of his chapters, including the one on sounds or letters (the bits set off with indentation and having Greek numerals and line numbers after them). This doesn't imply that he was only writing for ethnic Greeks; people of other nations read Greek literature, such as the Romans. — Eru·tuon 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:    Thanks for speaking up abt your puzzlement, which results from my misreading "the" as "their" (and not double checking it). I've reverted that part of my bad, ugly edit.--Jerzy•t 05:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koine speakers & "their" Greek ancestors