Disputatio:Baracus Obama

message: De: "quem populus Americanus die 4 Novembris 2008 elegit ut praesidem quadragesimum quartum." This is quite wrong, but I don't have time to fix it at the moment. According to the federal constitution, the president is NOT elected by the people (voting as individuals): he or she is elected by the states (voting through their electors, 538 individuals, who have been elected in whatever way the state legislatures have specified). The constitutionally irrevocable election occurs in December, when the electors—the ones actually elected yesterday—meet in their state capitals and cast their votes. The election is not official until January, when the newly elected Congress meets in Washington and counts the electors' votes. Each of the 538 electors has the constitutional right to vote for whomever he or she wishes. If, by some chance, something disqualifying or unacceptable about Obama's (and/or Biden's) history or character were to emerge before the electors shall have voted, then the electors have the power to elect somebody else. Yes, the odds that the electors will elect Obama president next month (if he's alive then) may well be greater than 99.999999 percent; but the Constitution does allow some flexibility here, so that technically, even today, the day after the "election," any native-born citizen over the age of 35 could still be elected president for the term that begins on 20 January 2009. In any case, the people, voting en masse, did not elect a president yesterday. Encyclopedias should be clear about these points. IacobusAmor 14:53, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fix it when you can! Sorry: I knew it wasn't right, but it is slightly better than what was there before -- the claim that the American people created him. I didn't want to attribute that achievement either to his parents, or to God, as both might be POV, so I had to change the subject slightly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hehe. Even en: isn't perfect on these concepts, but it's clearer in phrasing it thus: "Barack Obama defeated John McCain to become the 44th President of the United States and the first African American President in U.S. history." ¶  I'm still giddy. Fireworks were randomly going off here until maybe 3 a.m. IacobusAmor 15:09, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::What have you done to "Quid novi est" so that I can't find a way to edit it? In addition to the constitutional quibbles raised above, it uses the dreaded noun praesidens. IacobusAmor 15:18, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: I haven't done a thing, have I? I believe you have to edit Formula:Nuntii. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I don't think the text as it is written is wrong; it just says the people elected him that he be president; the electoral college must now decide whether to honor the people's election, which they must under penalty of state law, barring an assasination, sudden incapacitating illness, or unforseen circumstances that disqualify him at the last moment.--Rafaelgarcia 17:15, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::De: "it just says the people elected him." That's precisely the point: they didn't. The candidates for whom the people were voting were not Obama & Biden, but electors pledged to vote for Obama & Biden. The last time I looked into it, the applicable state laws had caveats saying to the effect that even though the ballot says to make a mark for specific candidates (e.g., Obama & Biden), the mark is really for the electors. Some ballots had language to the effect of "Mark your ballot for electors for X & Y" or other such explicit language. I believe that some state ballots used to name all the electors. It's only a technicality, of course, but encyclopedias should try to get even the technicalities right. The "penalty of state law" varies from state to state (and many states don't, or at least didn't, have any such penalty), and if a state attempted to apply it, the case would surely be litigated to the Supreme Court and would probably lose, since it's hard to see how a state has the right to deprive an elector of a freedom expressly granted to electors in the federal constitution: in a battle between state law and the federal constitution, guess which one wins! IacobusAmor 22:20, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
Well, Iacobe, I certainly take your point, but nihilominus, the populus most certainly did eligit him yesterday. While it's ambiguous, the way the Latin is written, it actually is what happened.--Ioscius (disp) 21:37, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

text: Only if you're talking de facto; I'm talking de jure. IacobusAmor 22:20, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstandings of the U.S. constitutional system

message: Vide Lewis and Short s.v. creo, I. b.: "to make or create for any jurisdiction or office, i. e. to choose, elect (freq.)"
e.g.: Caes. B.C. 3.1: "Dictatore habente comitia Caesare consules creantur Iulius Caesar et P. Servilius...."  Here the comitia are the ones doing the electing.  According to :en:Roman assemblies, "The assemblies functioned in a similar manner as the Electoral College of the United States."
Also: elegit...esset.
130.253.44.192 19:41, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text I was emending said "quem populus Americanus creavit et a die 4 Novembris 2008 quadragesimum quartum praesidem". That may well not be what anon. originally wrote: this page has changed many times today, for some reason! As to the sequence of tenses, anon. may be right: I didn't find it easy to decide, since they chose him (past) but he is still to be (future) president. By the time others add their views on this, the sentence may well have changed again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Putting all the above-mentioned ideas together, maybe quem civitates praeses (ab) futuris electorum suffragiis creaverunt (or whatever any better grammar might be) might work. IacobusAmor 22:27, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  creare "to elect" 

message: Confer:
replies: text: de: Dort wurde seine Halbschwester Maya geboren.  :: Maya est Obamae soror.

text: en: Barack Obama and half-sister Maya Soetoro, :: Maya est Obamae soror.

text: fr: où naît Maya, la demi-sœur de Barack Obama :: Maya est Obamae soror.

text: it: dove nacque la sorellastra di Obama, Maya Soetoro-Ng. :: Maya est Obamae soror.

text: la: ubi Maya, soror vitrici, nata est. :: Maya est Obamae amita.
Prius rogavi "Massimo, I thought Maya was O's half-sister, but you keep saying she's his (step)aunt." Nunc iterum rogo: est Maya soror? vel amita? IacobusAmor 11:24, 7 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
I used as alwyas : sorellastra (half sister) soror ex noverca (=figlia della matrigna, ergo when the father is the same) aut soror ex vitrico (=figlia del patrigno ergo when the mother as for Obama the same is) --Massimo Macconi 20:17, 7 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quis est Maya?

message: Vero possumus! --Iustinus 07:14, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sententia 

message: We don't decline modern surnames here as a rule, so why is Obama shown as a 1st declension? And is the source for Baracus a reliable one? Just because someone else once stuck a '-us' on the end of name doesn't mean that the use is established. It is a Muslim name of Arabic origin which doesn't have equivalents in other European languages, so doesn't need one in Latin. To make it easier to fit into the grammar of the sentence, I should say we should follw Bede's rule with non-Latin names and leave them as they are for Nominative and Accusative, and only sticking 2nd Dec endings on for the other cases.Tergum violinae 19:40, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your doubts, but these Latinizations are footnoted. We generally accept already-published Latinizations. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:03, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The name Baracus

message: In the Latin Vulgate Bible, the book of Judges 5:1 says the following:
cecineruntque Debbora et Barac filius Abinoem in die illo dicentes 
I say we ought to adopt the original Vulgate translator's word, Barac. It has been in continuous use since the 5th Century. See Vulgate article.
Why should we go with Baracus when the Vulgate says Barac? SimonATL 05:38, 24 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These are etymologically unconnected names derived from completely different roots -- the "Barak" of Deborah and Barak has a qoph (ק) as its last consonant, while the root for "bless" has a kaph (כ) as its last consonant.  AnonMoos 15:34, 1 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yup. 'Barak'/'Barac' is apparently 'lightning'.  The Vulgate form you actually want is Baruch.  —Mucius Tever 03:08, 2 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Vulgate Bible uses Barac

message: * "sive BenedictusVide Barack - WikiName apud wiki.name.com et confer Benedicto (sive Baruch) Spinoza Obama" 
# quia molestum est nomen Latinum fictum praebere si fontes habemus alii nominis Latini
# quia situs generis wiki non sunt fontes fideles;
# quia hic situs mortuus est! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 12 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removi 

message: (Mi pardon'pet'as je skrib'i tiu'n ĉi en Esperanto, mi ne parol'as la Latin'a'n. Se iu pov'us traduk'i ĝi'n por la ne'Esperanto'kon'ant'o'j, ĝi est'us tre ŝat'at'a.)
Ĉu oni pov'us al'don'i detal'o'j'n pri la afer'o je la disput'o pri la lok'o de nask'iĝ'o de Barack Obama, bon'vol'u ? Li fin'is per liver'i li'a'n nask'iĝ'atest'o'n por montr'i li'a'n nask'iĝ'lok'o'n sur la Uson'a ter'o...2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:7447:82BF:CF79:66CA 21:17, 19 Februarii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  detal'o'j'n pri la afer'o je la disput'o pri la lok'o de nask'iĝ'o