Disputatio:The Wonder Years

message: This feels like it should be about Einstein, with this title. What do we think? It appears to be translated at least into several languages:
da:Mine glade 60'ere
de:Wunderbare Jahre
en:The Wonder Years
es:Los Años Maravillosos
fr:Les Années coup de cœur
he:שנות הקסם
nl:The Wonder Years
ja:素晴らしき日々
pl:Cudowne lata
pt:The Wonder Years
sv:En härlig tid
--Ioscius (disp) 22:55, 5 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do certainly remember watching that on Spain, although it was known as Aquellos maravillosos años.--Xaverius 22:58, 5 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Eligerem: Illos annos mirabilies<--During those wonderful years (of youth).--Rafaelgarcia 23:11, 5 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Interesting idea. But for a lemma? And most of the translations I see are pure articles, not demonstratives (including the original). --Ioscius (disp) 23:25, 5 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I changed it without changing the page name, just in case. Please have a look. Is having Illos in the page name is a bad thing?--Rafaelgarcia 00:02, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I'm pretty sure it is. As I said, I'm not sure where the demonstrative force came from in your Aquellos maravillosos años, but the English is a pure definite article. I'm still stuck on this accusative of duration, too. Again, judging from the pure article "the", I think that the title more describes the years themselves, than Kevin's time in them. --Ioscius (disp) 00:15, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: The series was shown in Finland for two years, first under the name "Kesä '68" (Summer '68) and then "Kesä '69", but "Kesä '70" never came... I agree with Josh that Anni mirabiles generates the feeling of (e.g.) Einstein. So, we have to reserve the lemma Annus mirabilis for Dreyden and Einstein, and let me add that in linguistic historiography, the year 1876 is often referred to as the annus mirabilis. What about "Aetas illa mirabilis"? Or is it too far from the English title? The Swedish name means "A lovely time". --Neander 00:34, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Re "So, we have to reserve the lemma Annus mirabilis for Dreyden and Einstein."—Et Roberto Schumann (1840)!!! IacobusAmor 16:28, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :::::: Illos annos mirabiles! is ok as an exclamation. --Neander 00:38, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Hmm. I see your point, but it isn't the age but "the years".  How about  Anni iuventutis miri <--the wonder years of youth (miri being a shortening of mirabilis similar to wonder for wonderful)?--Rafaelgarcia 00:52, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::How about De annis miris <--about the wonder years or just Anni Miri?--Rafaelgarcia 00:55, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::De annis miris suggests a narration where actually a narration was part of the show. The main character later in life narrates the events of his youth.--Rafaelgarcia 00:57, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the Illos annos mirabiles, maybe because it is closer to the Spanish version, but also because in my opinion, the demonstrative is as enfatic as the article (in this case at least)--Xaverius 08:57, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :First of all, Illos annos mirabiles is in the accusative and we do not want to title articles in a case other than the nominative (with a few exceptions). Secondly, definite articles in other languages shoul generally not be translated into "ille" in Latin. "Ille" means "that", which has a completely different meaning from a definite article. Other than that, I prefer "Anni Mirabiles" also, as it is close to the Spanish title and is a rough literal translation of the original English title. -KedemusKedemus 07:17, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It is an accusative indicating duration in time, so we can keep it. If other languages have made translations according what they found more telling, I do not seem why we should not do that here ourselves.--Xaverius 08:45, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::#I agree with Kedemus (is this a first?) about the definite article. The title was originally in English, so we should translate from that, and not from the Spanish title. An article is much less emphatic than a demonstrative.

text: :::#Yes, annos is accusative, Kedeme, and Xaverius is correct in saying it indicates duration of time.

text: :::##I do not think we should have an accusative of duration. The English title is "The Wonder Years" not "During those wonderful years".

text: :::#Anni mirabiles sounds like Einstein, as I've said. Anni miri sounds better, if only for the sake of distinction.

text: :::#Kedeme, why on earth would you want to translate the title, but not Latinize the names of the characters and actors? Baffling, man. It would be better by far to leave the title in English and Latinize the names than the other way around. Remember, Romans used to Latinize names as well, even if were as simple as changing -os to -us. You think Vercingetorix's name in Gaulish fit nicely into the Roman 3rd declension? Hardly, they Latinized it. We will too, as per VP:TNP.

text: :::--Ioscius (disp) 15:43, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: What's all this bother about the title? In The Wonder Years, 'Wonder' is a noun: in effect, the title means 'Years of Wonder' or 'Years of Wonders' (Anni Rerum Mirarum ~ Mirificarum ~ Mirandarum vel Anni Miraculorum ~ Portentorum ~ Prodigiorum), not 'Wonderful/Wondrous Years' (Anni Mirabiles). In English, objective nouns (like 'wonder' in this title) are regularly singular in form but often plural in reference (body count, an enumeration of bodies; football, played with feet; grocery store, where you find groceries; hence, a wonder year, a year of wonders). IacobusAmor 16:51, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonder is also a verb in this case and so it can also mean "years of wondering" or "years in which I wondered" or "years full of wonder" Given the nature of the show I think both meanings were intended.--Rafaelgarcia 02:49, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :In the construction wonder-year, the word wonder is a noun used objectively, an objective noun: a 'year of wondering' would be a wondering-year'. Maybe you're being excited & misled by Wanderjahr. IacobusAmor 02:54, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Perhaps, not knowing German, I am mislead by just plain misunderstanding. :) So what then would be your best recommendation for the title, Iacobe? To me Anni Rerum Mirarum would seem the best of the selections you provided.--Rafaelgarcia 03:07, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Do you think there a consensus developing on naming the article? Anni Miri, De Annis Miri, Anni Rerum Miri ? Given the above, the last version Anni Rerum Miri seems to be the most literal translation. Or should we just be undecided for a while? I think it just looks wierd having the title and first word not coincide.--Rafaelgarcia 21:51, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Res mirae, rerum mirarum. Ergo Anni Rerum Mirarum. Many of our elders would have had De Annis &c., but maybe we have a different understanding of titles today, and can make do with the bare nominative. IacobusAmor 21:56, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bother about the title

message: I do not think we should Latinize every first name, contrary to what some people may want. If it's an original Latin/Roman name that has been given a form in another language, we should Latinize it. However, for other names Latinizing them is not always a good idea. "Kevin" is not an original Latin name and the Latin version "Coemgenus" is not very similar to the English version, so we should just leave it as "Kevin". "Fred" is short for "Fredericus", and the Latin language does use abbreviations at times. If Fred Savage were to be occasionally referred to as "Frederic", it would make sense to call him "Fredericus". However, in all of his roles he is never referred to as that, so we should just call him "Fred", even in Latin. See the article for Ray Bradbury and they have a similar explanation as to why he's not called "Raymundus". Paul is a very Latin/ Roman name, that's why it was Latinized here. Ioscius, I know you might not like this, but, as I said before, respectusm auctoris monstra. -KedemusKedemus 07:17, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh...you have said all this before, and we have disagreed with you before. His name is Frederick, that's Fredericus. Kevin in Latin (attested) is Coemgenus. I know you may not like this, but respectum regularum monstra. It's a Latin wiki, man, not an English one. If you write about American topics, you still need to respect Latin.--Ioscius (disp) 15:36, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :And looking back, you Latinized Paul?! But not Kevin or Frederick? I don't get it. --Ioscius (disp) 16:52, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, Paul is a Latin name. I am going to leave Fredericus, as you can attest that Frederick is his real name. And not all articles use "decennium" and then the decade number. This system is confusing. Decennium 197, the 197th decade in the Common Era, is the 1960s, not 70s. You do not have to agree with me on everything, but I am asking you, especially as I do not write very many articles, to leave mine alone and not go hunting down my articles and decide to make changes that I do not agree with. -KedemusKedemus 00:52, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Annis septuaginta makes no sense, dude. I got the decade wrong, but it makes sense, now.--Ioscius (disp) 03:21, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :::And, frankly, I only look at your articles because I know, from experience, that there will be things which might need fixed. Further, you've got the idea completely wrong if you think this is "your" article. This is Vicipaedia's article, bud, expect people to want to improve it. --Ioscius (disp) 03:25, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::But can we please leave Kevin as Kevin. I really do not appreciate you changing my renderings of names after I ask you not to. Anni septuaginta does make sense. That is the form used in other languages, so why should it not be used in Latin? "Decennium 198" looks like it means the 1980s (even though it does not) and is not a form used in any other major language, so I do not want to use that form.
replies: text: ::::::Re: "That is the form used in other languages, so why should it not be used in Latin?" Because assumed parallelism is an unreliable guide as to how Latin works? Every language has its ways. IacobusAmor 13:10, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :::::Septuaginta anni means 70 years, not "the seventies". It makes no sense in Latin, which, you'll remember is not English.--Ioscius (disp) 04:10, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Would annos 1970 work? I can see that 1970 per se would not necessarily mean the ten years betwen 1970 and 1979, but it can be a solution--Xaverius 08:38, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::My solution in such cases was: decennio VIII saeculi XX or only decennio VIII.--Alex1011 09:38, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
===coemgenus===
Here's a font! http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045207/Saint-Kevin died in 618!! Kevin has been Latinized as Coemgenus for 1400 years, and iste Kedemus noster would object. Come, now.--Ioscius (disp) 03:30, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: Languages tend to translate names of people who lived several centuries ago, but not names of people who live now. For St. Kevin, it would make sense to call him "Coemgenus" in Latin, but just because it would make sense Latinize the name of a 7th century figure doesn't mean it would make sense to Latinize the name of a 20th century TV character with the same name. --Kedemus
replies: text: :I think that you should respect our rules for what they are. One does not walk into a room of strangers and ask that they change their culture to suit one's whims. A consensus has not been reached on every issue, but on this issue it has. It is traditional in modern latin to tranlate first names and first name only. Even for modern names, as you can see by reading any modern latin newspaper and other scholarly works. The motive is simple: the latin grammar requires declining names. If you wish to argue for changing Vicipaedia's rules do so on that page's disputatio. The link was provided above. Best--Rafaelgarcia 04:01, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::cum Romae fueritis, Romano vivite more, it is easier for all if you stick to the consensus and rules we have here. And definetly it is better to translate all the first names than just the title and none of the names--Xaverius 08:38, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latinization of names

message: Here's a font! http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045207/Saint-Kevin died in 618!! Kevin has been Latinized as Coemgenus for 1400 years, and iste Kedemus noster would object. Come, now.--Ioscius (disp) 03:30, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Languages tend to translate names of people who lived several centuries ago, but not names of people who live now. For St. Kevin, it would make sense to call him "Coemgenus" in Latin, but just because it would make sense Latinize the name of a 7th century figure doesn't mean it would make sense to Latinize the name of a 20th century TV character with the same name. --Kedemus
replies: text: :I think that you should respect our rules for what they are. One does not walk into a room of strangers and ask that they change their culture to suit one's whims. A consensus has not been reached on every issue, but on this issue it has. It is traditional in modern latin to tranlate first names and first name only. Even for modern names, as you can see by reading any modern latin newspaper and other scholarly works. The motive is simple: the latin grammar requires declining names. If you wish to argue for changing Vicipaedia's rules do so on that page's disputatio. The link was provided above. Best--Rafaelgarcia 04:01, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::cum Romae fueritis, Romano vivite more, it is easier for all if you stick to the consensus and rules we have here. And definetly it is better to translate all the first names than just the title and none of the names--Xaverius 08:38, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: coemgenus

message: The verb interpretor is deponent, so "personae a Frederico Savage interpretatae" is ungrammatical; "personae quam Fredericus Savage interpretatus est" might work, except that its verb remains a calque from the English ('of a role that F. S. "explained"'?). An available idiom for "interpreting" a role is partem agere. IacobusAmor 17:11, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had actus, originally.--Ioscius (disp) 17:37, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yeah that was I, apparently working from late latin interpretare in the sense of translate per Words:
replies: text: ::interpreto, interpretare, interpretavi, interpretatus  V (1st) TRANS   [EXXEW]    Later  uncommon

text: ::interpretor, interpretari, interpretatus sum  V (1st) DEP   [XXXAO]

text: ::explain/expound; interpret/prophesy from (dream/omen); understand/comprehend;

text: ::decide; translate; regard/construe; take view (that); interpret to suit self;

text: :I agree that partem agere is better.--Rafaelgarcia 17:41, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Interpreting" roles

message: Re: "Coemgenus genitorum domum habitat in suburbio classis mediae situm." 'Kevin inhabits his parents' house, soited* in a suburb of the middle of the fleet'. [*Spelling to catch the gender mismatch of domum (f.) 'house' and situm (m./n.) 'sited'.] Classis media = 'the middle of the class, the middle of the military forces, the middle of the army, the middle of the fleet'. Or maybe word-order makes media classis 'the middle of the class', but classis media 'the middle class? IacobusAmor 02:23, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, doesn't the context make sufficiently clear that classis refers to social class rather than fleet?--Rafaelgarcia 02:44, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :There's no context: it's the first sentence of its section. IacobusAmor 03:11, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Classis mediana is a neologism. It's patterned after the Spanish "clase media".
replies: text: ::::(1) How old does something have to be before it stops being "neo-'"? My dictionary from about 200 years ago glosses 'the middle pillars' as columnae medianae. (2) Working backward to Latin from a Spanish (or other modern-language) model, as with Latin classis media from Spanish clase media, isn't always a reliable process: it may succeed, or it may not. The adjective medius, -a, -um poses a special problem in Latin; see below. IacobusAmor 12:54, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :::Dictionary (Pons) says medius = in between, so classis media (between the upper and the lower class) would go. --Alex1011 07:07, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::This medius, -a, -um, is one of a small set of adjectives that often require special treatment in English (and probably other languages) (see Bradley's Arnold, #60): though they're grammatically adjectives, their translation can make them nouns. So summus mons is 'the top of the mountain,' not 'the top mountain'; ima vallis is 'the bottom of the valley', not 'the bottom valley'; tota Graecia is 'the whole of Greece', not 'the whole Greece'; ab urbe condita is 'from the founding of the city', not 'from the founded city'; in mediam viam is 'into the middle of the road', not 'into the middle road'; media nocte is 'in the middle of the night', not 'in the middle night'; media hieme is 'in the middle of winter', not 'in middle winter'; medio aestu is 'in the heat of the day', not 'in middle heat'. Therefore, we might anticipate that media classis is 'the middle of the class', not 'the middle class'. ¶ I see that medius generates some useful idioms referring to common life: in medium 'for public benefit, for the public good' (Cicero, Vergil), e medio excedere 'to die', de medio tolli 'to be put to death', e medio discedere 'to retire to a private life' (Suetonius), dare in medium 'to make public' (Lucretius), proferre in medium 'to make public' (Suetonius), procedere/venire in medium 'to make a public appearance' (Cicero), in medio sit 'let it remain undecided' (Suetonius), and so on. ¶ Perhaps the (reversed) order of classis media makes a difference, and Iustinus, Ioscius, Neander, or any of our other worthies will set this right. IacobusAmor 12:54, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Ceasar's Quam ob rem placuit ei ut ad Ariovistum legatos mitteret, qui ab eo postularent uti aliquem locum medium utrisque conloquio deligeret is about a place in the middle, not in the midst of the place. --Alex1011 13:53, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's why I asked about the extent to which word-order makes a difference. IacobusAmor 14:21, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
===after talking with iustinus===
Ordo is better than classis. Medius or perhaps burgarius would work. I would call it either a suburbium medii ordinis or a suburbium burgarium.--Ioscius (disp) 20:06, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: It might not matter that much in this article, but generally "class" or "Klasse" is not the same thing as "Stand", "état" in French and so on. So we cannot avoid classis as terminus technicus in more sociological or political articles. A "class struggle" is not a struggle inter ordines, but inter classis. --Alex1011 08:45, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :According to White's dictionary, an ordo is a technical term in politics, meaning 'an order, i.e., a rank, class, degree of citizens' (with reference to Cicero). Doesn't the concept of a "middle class"—whatever Latin term proves aptest here—therefore apply basically to people, not geography? (A neighborhood isn't middle-class, but the people who live there might be.) Which in turn makes the first of Iustinus's/Ioscius's idioms preferable (assuming medius, -a, -um is OK there)? IacobusAmor 09:10, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The Merriam-Webster people trace the English term middle class back to 1812—long enough ago that a meet Latin rendering of it may have been coined in the nineteenth century. IacobusAmor 09:41, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::PONS (dictionarium) says "middle ages" aetas media, class classis, "class struggle" dimicatio classium (or ordinum). --Alex1011 10:53, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :::Joannes Jaurès: burgenses subst. and adj. for bourgeois.
replies: text: ::::Once again, D. Morgan swoops in:

text: ::::*class: bourgeois, middle-class (person) (subst.)  civis medii (or inferioris)

text: ::::*adj. medii (or inferioris) ordinis

text: ::::Harrissimo.
Caesar and Cicero would probably have rendered 'the middle of the city' as media urbs (the attributive case), whereas urbs media (sc. inter alias urbes) (the predicative case) would refer to 'the city in the midst of other comparable cities'. Insofar as we have to do with concrete space and time, this difference is clear enough. But when it comes to an abstract space such as the social hierarchy space, we seem to lack clear models. 
Middle class is a politological term which presupposes an abstract space of an hierarchically ordered set of conceptually clear-cut social classes (ordines, and why not classes). According to the simplified logic above, middle class would be rendered as ordo medius (inter alios ordines), or classis media — whereas medius ordo etc would rather refer to what is in the middle coordinate of a given social class, whatever that medius locus ordinis would refer to outside of this conceptual world. 
It was scarcely the Roman way to speak in such abstract terms, but rather in terms of the contents of a class concept. If middle class is identified with bourgeoisie (itself an abstraction), it could be rendered as classis/ordo burgensium. But in the case at hand, we're speaking of the US middle class which, as far as I can see, is extensionally quite large and ambiguous, and so, ordo burgensium would scarcely exhaust the concept in the US context. I don’t know. After all, perhaps we should say suburbium ordinis medii? --Neander 20:07, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: en:Bourgeoisie comprises upper class and (parts of) the middle classes. Ordo is an officially recognised layer of society, in France first, second and third "état", in Germany Stände, whereas "class" is a disputed concept. Today, some would say, we have neither ordines nor classes, just individuals, others claim, there are still classes. --Alex1011 22:25, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Middle class' recte = ''classis mediana''? ''classis mediocris''? or what?

message: Ordo is better than classis. Medius or perhaps burgarius would work. I would call it either a suburbium medii ordinis or a suburbium burgarium.--Ioscius (disp) 20:06, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not matter that much in this article, but generally "class" or "Klasse" is not the same thing as "Stand", "état" in French and so on. So we cannot avoid classis as terminus technicus in more sociological or political articles. A "class struggle" is not a struggle inter ordines, but inter classis. --Alex1011 08:45, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :According to White's dictionary, an ordo is a technical term in politics, meaning 'an order, i.e., a rank, class, degree of citizens' (with reference to Cicero). Doesn't the concept of a "middle class"—whatever Latin term proves aptest here—therefore apply basically to people, not geography? (A neighborhood isn't middle-class, but the people who live there might be.) Which in turn makes the first of Iustinus's/Ioscius's idioms preferable (assuming medius, -a, -um is OK there)? IacobusAmor 09:10, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The Merriam-Webster people trace the English term middle class back to 1812—long enough ago that a meet Latin rendering of it may have been coined in the nineteenth century. IacobusAmor 09:41, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::PONS (dictionarium) says "middle ages" aetas media, class classis, "class struggle" dimicatio classium (or ordinum). --Alex1011 10:53, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :::Joannes Jaurès: burgenses subst. and adj. for bourgeois.
replies: text: ::::Once again, D. Morgan swoops in:

text: ::::*class: bourgeois, middle-class (person) (subst.)  civis medii (or inferioris)

text: ::::*adj. medii (or inferioris) ordinis

text: ::::Harrissimo.
Caesar and Cicero would probably have rendered 'the middle of the city' as media urbs (the attributive case), whereas urbs media (sc. inter alias urbes) (the predicative case) would refer to 'the city in the midst of other comparable cities'. Insofar as we have to do with concrete space and time, this difference is clear enough. But when it comes to an abstract space such as the social hierarchy space, we seem to lack clear models. 
Middle class is a politological term which presupposes an abstract space of an hierarchically ordered set of conceptually clear-cut social classes (ordines, and why not classes). According to the simplified logic above, middle class would be rendered as ordo medius (inter alios ordines), or classis media — whereas medius ordo etc would rather refer to what is in the middle coordinate of a given social class, whatever that medius locus ordinis would refer to outside of this conceptual world. 
It was scarcely the Roman way to speak in such abstract terms, but rather in terms of the contents of a class concept. If middle class is identified with bourgeoisie (itself an abstraction), it could be rendered as classis/ordo burgensium. But in the case at hand, we're speaking of the US middle class which, as far as I can see, is extensionally quite large and ambiguous, and so, ordo burgensium would scarcely exhaust the concept in the US context. I don’t know. After all, perhaps we should say suburbium ordinis medii? --Neander 20:07, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: en:Bourgeoisie comprises upper class and (parts of) the middle classes. Ordo is an officially recognised layer of society, in France first, second and third "état", in Germany Stände, whereas "class" is a disputed concept. Today, some would say, we have neither ordines nor classes, just individuals, others claim, there are still classes. --Alex1011 22:25, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: after talking with iustinus