Disputatio:PEGIDA

message: Europaei Patriarum contra Islamismum Occidentis Anglice = 'Europeans of Fatherlands against Islamism of the West'. Revera? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:32, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Haud male, sed fortasse melius possumus. Quid suggeris? "Patrioticus" alias res Latine quam Theodisce sonat. Loco "Islamismi" fortasse "Islamizatio"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:48, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :'Patriotic' = amans patriae (Traupman), patriae or reipublicae amans (Cassell's). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:50, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oh I see. It's supposed to be "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West." So maybe Europaei Patriae Amantes contra Occidentem Islamizatum? Or, since they're being patriotic about the continent, not any particular countries, Continentis Amantes? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:57, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I don't think you can be patriotic about a continent (unless you're Australian). So "Europaei patriarum amantes ..." or, contra Cassellos, I'd go for "... patrias amantes ..." But it rather depends what the original devisers of this name intended, and I must say I don't know :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Well, I've checked the German (and presumably original), and what these folks are defending is "the West," which Vicipaedia gives as Humanus Cultus Occidentalis, so that may get us to some version of Europaei Patriae Amantes contra Humanum Cultum Occidentalem Islamizatum, or if that idiom isn't best, the more obvious in the light of later languages: Europaei Patriae Amantes contra Islamizationem Humani Cultus Occidentalis. Wordy, but that's their choice. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::That's fine, I'd say, except that, to be honest, the wordiness at the end is our wordiness, not their choice. So I'd replace "... Humani Cultus Occidentalis" with "... Occidentis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 24 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::…contra Occidentem Islamizatum mihi displicet: proinde quasi ista islamizatio iam perfecta sit. Theodiscum autem suffixum -ierung (velut in Islamisierung) in primis significat rem nondum perfectam, sed rem, quae agitur. (E.g. Verifizierung est actio verifizandi, non status, qui eo actu effectus est.) Ita suadeo egoquidem Islamisierung vertere in……contra Occidentem Islamizandum. --Bavarese (disputatio) 06:55, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::: Ut dicit Bavarese, "Occidens islamizatus" perfectionem prae se fert. E contra "Occidens islamizandus" processum significat. Ergo consentio. Neander (disputatio) 08:28, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Consentio et ego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Et nos quoque! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:21, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: Cum hac in pagina sub imagine lego stantes 'ante' cathedralem, in mente mihi fingo homines, qui ad cathedralem spectant: stantes cathedralem versus. Sin autem cathedrali terga praebent, nonne 'pro' cathedrali stant? Aut nimis fastidiose vobis videor iudicare? --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:19, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Iterum recte dicis, o Bavarese! Hannibal ante portas stabat, quod intrare voluit. Sed qui pro portis stant, adversariis aut spectatoribus se monstrant. Sine dubio pro cathedrali stant fautores Pegidae. Neander (disputatio) 15:59, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''ante'' et ''pro'': quam diligentes volumus esse? 

message: Andrew, user Jondel just changed "ille motus" in the last sentence of the first paragraph to "illum motus". That's incorrect any way one looks at it, because "illum" is the accusative masculine singular of "ille", and "motus" is nominative masculine singular. The movement is not supposed to be in the accusative case anyway, it is doing the accusing (grammatically speaking, of course). The sentence says the movement is against something, then it says what it's against. So actually, al Qaeda, the PKK, and Daesh are in the accusative case, not the movement, which is PEGIDA. The second thing I see is that Jondel took out "est" and replaced it with "esse", and I don't know why. "Ille motus" is third-person singular present active indicative of "sum", so "est" was definitely doing the job. The third thing Jondel did was take out "quod", which was fulfilling the role of "that", and was being used to introduce the clause that follows. Maybe Neander and Bavarese would also be interested in looking at this.
What the Der Spiegel article attached to that sentence says is that Siegrfried Däbritz (a member of the organisation team) said that PEGIDA is against al Qaeda, Daesh, and the PKK. If people want to say other things and add other articles, nobody needs to give them permission to do that. If people don't know what they're doing, they have the option of leaving the editing to people who do and reading until they find out more about something. In other words, when people edit, it will only be useful if their edits are correct. Jondel is changing someone else's work and the end result is definitely incorrect. 75.172.50.223 00:31, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Jondel's dicit illum esse is grammatically correct; but if the article is trying to say 'he says it's a movement', motus needs to shift to the accusative to agree with illum. That whole structure, however ('he says it's a movement against' something), may be a bit clunky. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:28, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thanks Iacobus. But motus is already accusative and agreeing with illum. It appears nominative though. I think there is confusion with the supine of movere.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:43, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: :I do know for sure that al Qaeda, Daesh and the PKK will be in the accusative because "contra" is followed by the accusative, but I don't know of any way to write them in the accusative in Latin. And yes, if "motus" is in the accusative, it needs to shift to agree with "illum", in which case we would have "illum motum". I also think we could use a "quod" after "dicit". Here's Job 32:5 in the Vulgate:
replies: text: ::cum autem vidisset quod tres respondere non potuissent iratus est vehementer (But when he saw that the three were not able to answer, he was exceedingly angry.)

text: :As for "esse", it is the present infinitive of "sum", which is the verb "to be" ("ser" in Spanish, "sein" in German, "être" in French). Don't we need something in the third person singular, like "est"? In English we might say, "PEGIDA is against al Qaeda, Daesh, and the PKK," or one could say (this is common in older English), "PEGIDA be against al Qaeda, Daesh, and the PKK," so maybe there's lots of ways to say it in Latin, but I'm not sure what a complete list would be. 97.126.101.248 03:30, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: In classical Latin, verbs of saying, when used with a sentential object indicating the contents of saying, normally require the accusative + infinitive construction. This is obviously what Jondel was out for but forgot to chance motus accordingly. The Vulgate is not a paragon of classical Latin. I did the change and "de-clunkified" the rest of the sentence (whatever Iacobus's "clunky" means 😊). Neander (disputatio) 09:55, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::It was clunky because the definition had already told us that PEGIDA is a movement ("est . . . motus popularis"), so the article doesn't need to quote anybody to remind us of that ("Siegfried Däbritz . . . dicit illum esse motum"), and the whole idea can neatly become "Siegfried Däbritz . . . dicit motum Daesh, PKK, et al-Qaeda adversari," or if "inter alia" was really meant to signify something, instead of being unintelligible filler, expand it, perhaps thus: "Siegfried Däbritz . . . dicit motum Daesh, PKK, al-Qaeda, aliisque societatibus Islamicis adversari." :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:07, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::: Iacobe, profecte dictionem quam optimam protulisti! Neander (disputatio) 13:27, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: ::::Yes Neander I  forgot. It seems everyone is fixated on the supine of movere. The accusative as well  as the genitive of neutral motus (meaning movement)  is also motus.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:40, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The supine accusative of movere is motum, but why would anyone use the supine here? Morphologically, motūs may be genitive singular, nominative plural, or accusative plural; but accusative singular is motum. And the gender of motus is of course masculine. Syntactically, what you need with dicit is accusative (illum motum) + infinitive phrase (operam dare). Neander (disputatio) 15:44, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: :::: You  are correct Neander!! I apologize!!--Jondel (disputatio) 16:21, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I meant motus to be in the accusative. There is  motum which I think  you would be more comfortable with and let us change it so. The accusative of  the neutral noun motus seem to be better than the supine of movere though. To the anonymous guy, wikipedia works  because everyone has good  intentions. However please read the warning that if you are not willing that others will change your work, perhaps you shouldn't submit it here. --Jondel (disputatio) 14:24, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: Here is an example of older English usage of "be" in Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1:
replies: text: :I think it be thine, indeed; for thou liest in't.

text: Neander, would it be legal to put in "quod" between "dicit" and "illum" the way it's structured now? Speaking of "ille", what is a good equivalent of the word in English? I wonder why it isn't used more often. One thing that fascinates me about Latin is the lack of usage of definite and indefinite articles. 97.126.119.9 14:34, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::That "be" in Hamlet looks subjunctive, but what's wanted here is oratio obliqua. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:16, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Why don't we use the forms recommended in textbooks? You know I've been here many years  now.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:45, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: ::ille  is meant to emphasize. Compare it is 'a  movement' and it is  'the movement'.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:51, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::To answer 97's first question, "dico quod" is Late Latin; its use in the Vulgate may also be due to a desire to replicate the Hebrew original. So:

text: :::"Däbritz dicit illum contra Daesh operam dare": classical, recommended

text: :::! "Däbritz dicit quod ille contra Daesh operam dat": Late Latin, not recommended

text: :::You can read a summary of the grammar here. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:37, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The Wikipedia article oratio obliqua that Iacobus brought into the discussion is quite interesting. It shows an example of a verb of saying followed by the infinitive + accusative that Neander was talking about. Evidently it's saying that "quod" was used in the Classical Latin era, but the construction that was preferred was the one Neander was talking about. Then in the Medieval Latin era the use of "quod" began taking precedence. When you use "quod" the only noun that ends up in the accusative is the very final noun, and instead of an infinitive verb a third-person verb is used. So the construction we have now in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the PEGIDA article is in the prevailing style of the Classical Latin era. The link Lesgles posted shows examples of this type of construction with infinitives of other verbs. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 07:04, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: :::Ut Neander dixit, oratio obliqua accusativum cum infinitivo postulat. Nemo ei id non assentiatur. Fortasse haec exceptio specialis attrahi potest: Pronomine demonstrativo neutrius generis (hoc, illud etc.) uteremur, si de una sola re ageretur; e. g. si dicimus Däbritz hoc unum de Pegida profert, quod contra Daesh operam dat. Taliter dicenti fortasse licet vocabulum id (vel similia) omittere. Tamen ea sententia non oratio obliqua putanda est. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:18, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of first paragraph 

message: UV, I know you were very well-meaning in attempting to change the Roman numerals back to Arabic numerals, but it says in Wikipedia's style manual that Arabic numerals are only needed when the number gets too unwieldy, like with the number 20,000. I would like to ask everyone to help us keep this article with Roman numerals, to be faithful to Latin culture as much as we can. Again, user UV was very well-meaning in posting the link and trying to help us. Ich bitte die Allgemeinheit, römische Ziffern statt arabischer zu schreiben, wenn die gegebene Anzahl nicht so unhandlich als zum Beispiel 20.000 wäre. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 05:15, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As has often been said in these pages, Vicipaedia is a Latin encyclopedia, not a Roman one. For the past ten years or so, Roman numerals have been used here to specify centuries, people with the same name, serial movies & games, and not much else. Dates have almost universally been given in the linked form of day & month, like today's: 12 Iulii. Your proposed Roman numerals, hardly more than a generous handful of them, have to seen against the backdrop of probably hundreds of thousands of dates already written in arabic numerals. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:32, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's true that Vicipaedia:De orthographia/en gives a guideline that is contrary to the more "official" Latin version [Vicipaedia:De orthographia]]. The former needs to be revised, and I agree with Iacobus that Arabic numerals are the overwhelming norm here. Note also that Arabic numerals have been used in Latin books (alongside Roman numerals) since the late Middle Ages. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:23, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
This issue has been discusssed and will probably be raised. Roman numerals are too cumbersome and not practical.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:25, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: :I agree with Jondel. If I had read the page I would have done the same as UV. Sincere apologies to Tim if he was misled by Vicipaedia:De orthographia/en, which evidently should have been rewritten years ago (Iacobus, above, states our current practice). Latin culture, for many centuries already, has embraced Arabic numerals. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I undid my edit, since the majority view is definitely in favor of Arabic numerals. Ich habe meine Änderung ungetan, weil arabische Ziffern definitiv in der Gunst der Mehrheit stehen. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 15:35, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numerals 

message: What does everyone think of the idea of using the anno Urbis conditae system rather than anno Domini? I was noticing that is one of the approved options at Vicipaedia:De orthographia. Should we change over to that system? It says a date can be written as 234 a.u.c., for example. Sometimes it is capitalized, for example 234 a.U.c., to reflect the fact that we're speaking of the City (Rome) as opposed to the generic term "city". Was denkt jedermann über die Idee, das System anno Urbis conditae statt anno Domini zu verwenden? Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 16:07, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm strongly against that, except perhaps occasionally in ancient Roman history articles. It would distract the reader and require tedious conversions (2016 AD = 2769 AUC). Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :I just think it would be very unifying, because the Lord (Dominus) is not everyone's lord, but the city of Rome has changed civilization forever. The Roman alphabet is used in so many places, for example Japanese romaji. Admittedly it would be tedious in the beginning, but it might actually be worth it in the end. Change could start here. It just doesn't reflect the actual reality when people everywhere, Christian and non-Christian, find themselves effectively saying, "In the year of our Lord [anno Domini] something or other," because they don't think they would be understood if they said it any other way. There's the Gregorian calendar which is sometimes called the Christian calendar, the Hebrew calendar, the Islamic calendar, and the AUC calendar. Do you think the AUC calendar would be more unifying than the Christian one? And it's worth noting that the AUC calendar is an approved option. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 18:16, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I appreciate the desire for secularism, but that would seem to replace an arbitrary but familiar convention by another arbitrary but unfamiliar one. And one might also argue that Christianity changed civilization as much as the Roman Empire did, for better or worse. Very few pages here use AUC; this is another area in which the guidelines don't necessarily reflect the common practice; we need to update them. Some pages here do use "E.V." (for aera vulgaris), a non-religious phrasing which has a history in Latin. But for recent history, as in this article, we don't really need to specify the era at all.

text: ::(By the way, I notice you are doing a lot of edits to make each comment. You may want to try out the "prospectum ostendere" button, which allows you to preview your change before saving it.) Lesgles (disputatio) 19:22, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Most Christians would agree that Christianity shouldn't be imposed on people. I don't see the AUC system as anti-Christian. In fact, the Christian calendar came into widespread use much after the advent of Christianity. In modern Israel and in Muslims countries people really like using non-Christian systems of dating. Rome is something unifying, from a Christian or non-Christian perspective. The remnants of the Roman empire are seen in ruins in North Africa and the Middle East. It is part of their heritage, just as much as it is part of European heritage. Chapter 30 of the Quran, Surat ar-Rum, talks about the Romans. Mohammed regarded the Romans as his Christian allies. In ayat (verses) 2-4 of that surah (chapter), it says that the Romans were defeated (see Pickthall's translation), but that within a few years they would be victorious, and that on that day the believers would rejoice.

text: :::Things Roman are inclusive of Christianity and of many other things, whereas Christianity consists only of Christianity itself, that is the very definition of Christianity. Otherwise we would be saying that Christianity is a mix of everything and therefore is nothing definite. Far from being something arbitrary, it would be a very rational move to change over to the Vikipaedia-approved AUC system. What is arbitrary is to pick one religion and say, "Let's use the calendar that pertains only to this religion," when we live in a pluralistic world. Aera Vulgaris, in the end, has the effect of being another way of saying, "After Christ." It's people trying to do the right thing, but the change unfortunately didn't go far enough, as much as they tried. If we say, "Well, we're stuck with the anno Domini system now," how many other things are we "stuck" with? I can't think of a better place to start an anno Urbis conditae trend than here on Vicipaedia, seeing how it is one of the Vicipaedia-approved ways of writing dates, it has no religious connotations whatsoever, and Roma antiqua is held in high esteem the world over. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 00:34, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's an interesting argument, but I don't think you'll find much support for it here. You mention the Jewish and Islamic calendars, but even on the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedias, the vast majority of articles use the originally Christian dating system. Making encyclopedias is a scientific endeavor, and even if Latin is a somewhat special language, our primary aim is to transmit knowledge in a readable way. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:09, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::There's nothing scientific about anno Domini or anno Urbis condita. I'm not really sure why you speak of science when we're discussing history and dating systems, although you can bring the subject up of course. If we're looking for a reason-based approach, which is one way to interpret what you're saying, then I think we would be looking at significant events throughout history to see when to mark year number 0. There's nothing unscientific about tacking on 753 years to every date. We can't scientifically prove which event in the history of the world is significant. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 05:09, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: Can we scientifically prove that Rome was founded in 753? Neander (disputatio) 06:36, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::And similarly with the birth of Jesus. These eras are conventions, as signalled by the fact that the originally Christian era can be adapted to secularism (e.g. in English) to call it the "Common era". And it is common: much commoner than any of the others. That's the reason why we need to use it. We want readers, and surely all of our readers, without exception, know about this era and where we are in it. You couldn't say that about any of the other eras.

text: :::::::By adopting it we were not doing anything new. Bede, writing in Latin about 1300 years ago, took great trouble to define and standardize this era and was among those who ensured that Latin writers and speakers (among those of many other languages) would be using it ever after. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::The year one occurred more or less at the peak of the reign of Rome's first & greatest emperor, and scholars almost universally agree that Jesus of Nazareth was born in the era before Christ, so if we want to attach the common era to a historical figure, it might as well be Augustus, who, for extra credit among those who might be moved by the contemplation of divinity, was the most important religious figure of his age, and was later proclaimed to be divus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:01, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::If we were to use AUC instead of AD, would we just tack on another 753 years, or is it more complicated than that? In other words, is today's date 14 Iulii 2769 AUC? Can we start using AUC now, since it is authorized by Vicipaedia? "Common era" is a misnomer, it is a coded way of saying "after Christ," and a lot of people would say Christianity is not something we all have in common. No one buys into the notion that "0 CE" isn't a veiled allusion to the birth of Jesus, although as Andrew and Iacobus pointed out, we don't even know when that happened. It states clearly in the guidelines that AUC can be used or AD. So doesn't that mean then that if Christians feel strongly about their beliefs, they can use AD, and if non-Christians feel strongly about their beliefs, they can use AUC? That would be one good way to compromise, and that is something the guidelines clearly allow. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 17:13, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::There was no year zero. The years of the common era begin a series that started in the twenty-third official year of Augustus's reign. Scientists recognize "the present" as the year A.D. 1950. The tradition in Vicipaedia has been to work with the concept of the common era, not to overthrow it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:21, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::I've blocked Tim for one day for trolling. Further discussion, if needed, should not take place here but at Vicipaedia:Taberna or Disputatio Vicipaediae:De orthographia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:25, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Lesgles, up at the top of this conversation, you said, "I'm strongly against that [the AUC dating system], except perhaps occasionally in ancient Roman history articles." Then yesterday at 20:51 hrs. you changed the guidelines to say the AUC system is not a listed option. Did you suddenly change your mind? I already know you have a consensus among you, so you don't need to explain that. Do you think people will stop using AUC now? I guess we can wait and see what happens, I doubt it. When you say "except" that means what? I can't figure out if you're advocating for occasional authorization of the AUC system or if you changed your mind in one day and you're against it now in every situation. Tim"DerTimotheus"Rice (disputatio) 19:40, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: I have been consistent: AUC may be appropriate is some Roman history articles, since it is a system that the Romans sometimes used (though more often they referred to years by the consuls who were in power at the time). Outside of those, the Vicipaedia consensus has long been to use the universally recognized Dionysian (Christian) era. That is now what the guidelines state as well. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:08, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anno Urbis conditae