Disputatio:Memoria fulgurea

message: De: "Multa data simul leguntur scribunturque in multos locos memoriae in quos non potest EEPROM." Scripsi: "Caret verbo? Anglice: into which EEPROM is unable." Scripsit Jondel: "Yes. Flash memory can simultanewously read and write a lot of data where EEPROM is uanable." The question was about the grammar of the ellipsis. The sense of the English is shaky because of the ellipsis after can't: 'Many givens are simultaneously read and written into memory's many places into which EEPROM can't'. Is the grammar of the Latin OK? Just asking! IacobusAmor
replies: text: In one clock cycle, the Flash memory can read from a location and write at a different location with/in the same clock cycle. The EEPROM is limited to only either reading or writing at one time. The EEPROM can not do both.--Jondel 12:21, 2 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'm merely asking for confirmation of what's meant. You're saying that EEPROM can't simultaneously read and write, but the expanded ellipsis (at least in English) means "EEPROM can't simultaneously be read and written." Reading & writing isn't the same process as being read and being written. It's the discrepancy between the active & passive voices that's at issue. IacobusAmor 12:33, 2 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Both EEPROMs and Flash memory's have the functions to read and write into their own internal memory. They read and write from and into themselves. The explanation focuses on how they operate. If needed this explanation can be expanded. --Jondel 12:40, 2 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

text: ::I understand what your saying. I will get back to this later.--Jondel 12:42, 2 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::OK, meanwhile, I'll make the Latin grammar explicit, and you can then adjust it if necessary. IacobusAmor 13:01, 2 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::'memoriae locos in quos EEPROM simul legi scribique non potest.' locations of memory to /in which the EEPROM can not simultaneously read and write. Thanks I think this is sufficient.--Jondel 09:19, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::legi scribique 'be read and written' is not the same as legere scribereque 'read and write'. What you're saying in legi scribique is that EEPROM is being read & written, not that it's reading & reading. IacobusAmor 12:27, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Active and passive voices. Ok. agreed.--Jondel 13:18, 7 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ellipsis

message: Does this word come from somewhere?  The only other hit (outside of interwikis) for "memoria fulgoria" is in memoria computatralis, where it may have been an invention of the person who created the page.  Anyway, 'fulgorius' doesn't seem to be a common word (it's not in Lewis & Short); the closest thing is , and while  may not be exactly the same as , "fulgur photographicum, lampas fulgurea, photographema fulgureum" are the options given in Morgan for words relating to flash photography (which en.wiki says is the relevant metaphor).   —Mucius Tever 22:23, 2 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right! Memoria fulgurea has the qualities of real Latin, while "fulgoria" is highly suspect and virtually unattested. The same goes for "memoria fulminaria", mentioned in the article. If synonyms are needed, let it be memoria fulminea. But we scarcely need two words for the same thing. --Neander 14:59, 5 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok. What do you think if we move and and start of as "Flash Memory", Latine Memoria fulgurea (aut memoria fulminea) , est....etc etc . Since this is the original name and we are not supposed to invent.--Jondel 09:07, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Egad! I'm the one who invented the word! Yikes. Was it so long ago, I forgot. Ok. I think I will move to "Flash memory" as above.--Jondel 09:14, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Moving to "Flash memory" is silly I think, since the memoria is well attested translation for memory and the term isn't a proper name, so a translation is proper to do. Memoria fulgurea is fine.--Rafaelgarcia 13:51, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I like memoria fulgurea too, but I'm wondering why "flash" figures in so many languges, suggesting "memoria flash". Does the English word bring in something not captured by other languages' vocabulary, or is this just another example of the snowballing belief that when you say it in English, you're putting it properly? --Neander 14:42, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The word captures the idea of a sudden burst (of anything, not just light). For example, a few weeks ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged about a thousand points in one day (in context, an extraordinarily large amount), and the media have taken to calling that event a "flash crash." IacobusAmor 15:10, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Also, of course, we have flash mob, a surprisingly large number of people who suddenly convene at a site, often do something notable there, and with equal suddenness disperse. IacobusAmor 13:52, 7 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

text: ::::: Interestingly, neither fulgur nor fulmen seem to be connected with the imagery of a sudden burst or speed but rather with the pernicious effects of a lightning. In this respect, the semantic fields of flash and fulgur/fulmen seem not to overlap. (Rather, the verb emicare comes closer to the idea of a sudden burst of anything.) On the other hand, as pointed out by Mucius, the original metaphor is that of the flash of a camera, so maybe, Morgano auctore, memoria fulgurea will do the job. --Neander 18:01, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Great! Phew. About flash. Aside from 'camera flash' the 'metaphor is used in flashlight, flash flood, etc.  --Jondel 13:05, 7 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fulgoria? 

message: Thanks to the anonymous guy. The existence of >the< reference, this would make the term more reliable/authoritive.--Jondel 13:22, 7 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Morgan