Disputatio:Avifer aureus

message: I tried to find a latin equivilant to "retriever", but I decided to form the agentive "-er" form of ferre by adding the agentive suffix "-or"  to the supine stem "latus". I think that already means something like "someone who proposes a law" but I can see how that is a figurative meaning for a strightforward work like "bringer" or "bearer" --02:22, 17 Maii 2007 Usor:70.139.115.211
replies: text: Traupman dicit:

text: lator, -is, m : bringer, bearer, proposer (of a law)

text: Nec recuperator nec recipitor sit melius... Sine me hac de re putare.--Ioshus (disp) 02:34, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Textus a "Disputatio:Lator aureus"

message: "Avifer", I hope, obviously means "bird bearer" i.e. "retriever". To the best of my knowledge, I've coined this tearm, and it referres to any retriever. I wrote an article on the goldie under the title "lator aureus", but I think "lator" isn't a good translation. The other article should be deleted, but I don't know how.
replies: text: I've done that for you. "Avifer" is a very good name, certainly, but Vicipaedia is getting strict about refusing newly-coined Latin in titles: if only you could find a source for this Latin name elsewhere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:08, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: when you write on talk pages, please add four tildes at the end of your note: ~~~~. This will automatically sign for you. And, welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine

message: I don't understand why word coinage is frowned upon. I can understand why borrowing modern words en mass is bad, because many of them are already latinate, and would cause confusion, but if we are going to make a Latin encyclopedia that containes modern subjects, we will need to come up with words that are forrign to ancient Roman culture. What does the pope do when he writs encyclicles? Doesn't he just borrow stuff from Italian?
replies: text: : For Wikipedia in particular, the reasoning against inventing words is touched on at WP:NEO.  For Latin in general, see en:Renaissance Latin.  —Mucius Tever 06:05, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

text: It's frowned upon because that's the pedagogical tradition. For English students, here's a famous admonition:
replies: text: :"It sometimes happens that a piece of English deals with some modern concept such as 'bullets' or 'House of Lords' for which the Romans had no word at all. Do not waste time inventing a word or trying to evolve some descriptive periphrase, but use your knowledge of Roman civilisation and adopt a word which will be a reasonable equivalent. There are few contexts in which sagittae will not be an adequate rendering for 'bullets' or senatores for 'House of Lords'" (Bradley's Arnold, [1938] 1961, p. 302).

text: That doesn't mean we shouldn't invent or evolve words when we have to (Linnaeus must have invented or added new senses to thousands!); I'm just pointing out the tradition. IacobusAmor 13:55, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm sure some of us are interrested in the revitalization of Latin as a living language, and if this ever comes to pass, we will be making up words all the time. I'm sure "avifer" would be perfectly understood in the Roman repubic because it's formed predictably. "nubifer" means cloud-bearer (or cloud-bearing), "lucifer" means light bearer (morning star?). Just take the dative and add -fer, obviously from "ferre". I hate prescriptive grammar.

text: As for breed-names of pets: if each is to have its own lemma, then there should be a categoria to organize them all, and they should be listed on the page that treats of the binomial. In other words, 'avifer' (or whatever) and all the other breed-names should be listed somewhere in the article on Canis familiaris. IacobusAmor 13:55, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :No one, usor ignote, is asking you not to make words up. We're just saying they have their proper place, and that place might not be in an "encyclopaedia" which tries, at all costs, to describe and enumerate the work of others, not of it/ourself.--Ioshus (disp) 14:36, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Bradley's Arnold quote really covers what is going on here. Honestly I find that tradition somewhat annoying (though it too has its place). We're not saying, for instance, that you should translate "guns" as arcus or even manuballistae, just rather that you shouldn't invent a word for the when there's the perfeclty usable Medieval/Renaissance sclopetum. Is there already a Latin word for Golden Retriever? I don't know. But I do have a friend who read a renaissance Latin book on dog breeds, so maybe he can say. --Iustinus 06:20, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and since you asked about the pope, if you want pre-existing resources that give Latin names for modern things, see Lexica Neolatina. I also recomend this site as well as WorldCat Latin searches. --Iustinus 06:49, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Iustinus that the Bradley's Arnold idea (if it's a bullet, call it an arrow) won't do for us here.

text: What happens in other languages when (let's say) a dog breed is first introduced to a different country? Either (a) they adopt an existing name from another language ("Golden Retriever") or (b) they devise a new name in their own language, probably a translation of the existing name ("Avifer Aureus"). Both cases are common. But the choice isn't usually made by people writing encyclopedias (I'm agreeing with Ioshus here). If encyclopedists try to devise a new name, they just cause confusion, because other users of the language are unlikely to follow them.

text: Therefore (I say) it's better always to use a borrowed name as title ("Golden Retriever") unless and until someone, somewhere, publishes a nice new Latin name. But meanwhile there's nothing to stop us putting our beautiful suggested Latin version in parentheses, right up there in the first sentence, and by doing that we might very well find that it's adopted elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree with all this except the slighting of Bradley's Arnold: what that eminent tome is suggesting is that we not ignore one of the fundamental ways by which vocabulary evolves: metaphorical extension, the process by which languages stretch meanings to accommodate new concepts. It's a process we see affecting almost any lexicon, wherever we look: for example, sagitta (arrow) is to sagitta (bullet) as mouse (animal) is to mouse (computer implement). If you accept the new meaning of mouse, you have no standing to decry the new meaning of sagitta, or of any such old word. ¶ Metaphorical extensions may even crowd out original meanings: mention a mall, and most people will think of a 'usually large suburban building or group of buildings containing various shops with associated passageways'; that must annoy our friend Iustinus no end, for, as our dictionaries show, a mall is really 'an alley used for pall-mall, a 17th-century game, in which each player attempts to drive a wooden ball with a mallet down an alley and through a raised ring in as few strokes as possible'. That's the notion of mall (read: sagitta = 'arrow') that always comes first to mind, right? Wrong? What?! IacobusAmor 12:46, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oh please, I'm not saying we can never extend the meanings of words, I'm just saying that we can call a spade a spade. For example, on world cat there are several Latin books on the English parliament which use the word parliamentum. This may be highly questionable latinitas, but I see no reason why every country has to have a senatus. Furthermore, I suspect that BA woudl suggest we call the American President consul, rather than praeses or praesidens. As for "bullets," in fact the normal way to say that in Neo-Latin is glans, which classically could be used for a sling bullet, so it's exactly parallel to "mouse."—
replies: text: :::—But that glans 'sling bullet' is already a metaphorical extension of glans 'acorn'! IacobusAmor 03:25, 9 Augusti 2007 (UTC) —

text: ::—Well, maybe not exactly: a gun bullet and a sling bullet have much more in common than do a biological mouse ad a computer mouse! That, by the way, is why I used "gun" as my example, and not "bullet." (I suggested arcus, despite the glans-not-sagitta thing, because it seemed to me that it would never occur to most people to translate "gun" as "sling.") And on Wikipedia we do need to be careful with such things, because we want to be able to describe both the ancient and the modern world--some disambiguation is often necessary. For example, see... um... glans. Anyway, much as I love all the modern Latin dictionaries out there, there is not one which I would say should be immitated exactly, and the BA route (with a bit of acknowledging that things have changed) leads to the Vatican Dictionary, where vodka is called potio fortis Slavica and so on. --Iustinus 17:11, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I agree with all this too. What could be wrong with vodca, -ae? The phrase potio fortis Slavica is a definition, not a synonym. Glans is a funny example, since quite a few non-Latinists will know it—as a delicate way of referring to part of the penis (another metaphor!). If British Latinists of a couple of centuries ago called their Parliament Parliamentum, that should be attestation enough with us; in fact, the British Parliament published Latin summaries of its actions well into the nineteenth century, and if Parliament then called itself Parliamentum, we can't imagine a more authoritative source. (Somebody check it out?) ¶ As for "I suspect that BA woudl suggest we call the American President consul." To judge from recent American political "debates," all the announced Republicans except Ron Paul are running, not for president, but for dictator—and we have a perfectly good Latin word for that! IacobusAmor 18:38, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ambrosius Bierce might say, praeses Americanus- qui se credit pium rectumque esse, contra vultum veritatis...--Ioshus (disp) 18:51, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems we are in a rather sticky situation here. I agree that the primary function of an encyclopedia is to compile pre-existing knowledge, and that works fine when we deal with languages which already have an original corpus of modern literature, but, I suppose, in many ways, vicipaedia is somewhat of a primary source for Latin information. It's highly unlikely nowadays that you might find a professional dog breeder who's also a Latinist, let alone an intire community that recognises one word equating to "golden retriever".
thread_title: word coinage