Disputatio:Technologia

message: SCUBA DIVING
Sum natator subaquaticus ut Anglice nominatur "scuba diver", ut describitur hic  et hic. Quid est verbum Latinum pro "diver" et "diving"? Lexi in dictionariis et aliter hoc verbum esse "urinator", "urinari" ... sed est functio corporis quae nominatur similiter ... et linguae Romanicae omnes reicerunt hoc verbum: e.g. nunc dicitur: Francisce "plonger" de *"plumbiare"; Portugalice "mergulhar" de *"(im)merguliare". Quid verbum debeo uti hic pro "diving"?
replies: text: "Dive" verbum anglicum (id est, germanicum, non romanicum) est. Anglice etiam "plunge" est, ab Latina. Sed Latine, verbum "urinare" (sive "urinari") est. Urinator es, nisi alium verbum creare velis - fortasse "mersator" aut "demersor"? Adam Episcopus 21:06 oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Adamus noster recte respondit, nam 'urinari' solet esse potius 'in aquam insilere' quam 'mingere.' Confitior autem me et Latinistam et natatorem subaquaticum nonnumquam verbo pseudo-latino "SCUBA, -ae, f." uti. --Iustinus in Italia
Mehercle multa verba significant aliter in Latino Romano et aliter in Latino medicale aut scientifico, ut:-
[cruciatus] :: Rom: extortus tormentum // Med: posus in forma litterae X, in nomine "ligamenta cruciata" in genu hominis.
[tibia] :: Rom: anglice "flute" // Med: os maius cruris
[pelvis] :: Rom: anglice "basin" // Med: os coxae
Erat similiter mihi petenti transferre nomen "Ghostbusters" in Latinum. Pro "ghost" lingua Latina Romana habebat verba "larva" et "lemur", sed nunc biologistae mutaverunt significationes horum duorum verborum. Et audivi de Manibus, et de "auceps" quod est de *"avi-caps", conavi ergo uti "Maniceps". Sed etiam "mani-" potest esse "manus", et etiam "-ceps" potest esse "caput".

message: In the sentence "Scientificus vel ingeniarius vel inventor dicitur qui nova instrumenta, rationes, et cetera excogitet, faber vel fabricator qui bona producat vel fabricet, mercator vel tabernarius qui vendat, et doctor vel magister qui illam rem rationesque doceat.", I believe the use of the subjunctive is incorrect, it should be indicative since the person called scientist is one who presently or in the past does or did what it says not one who intends or intended to do it.(in oratione "Scientificus vel ingeniarius vel inventor dicitur qui nova instrumenta, rationes, et cetera excogitet, faber vel fabricator qui bona producat vel fabricet, mercator vel tabernarius qui vendat, et doctor vel magister qui illam rem rationesque doceat.", ego non credo modum coniunctivum vim habere, credo autem indicativum, quia scientificus appellatur qui nunc excogitat aut excogitabat non qui excogitet aut excogitaret.)--123.192.69.44 23:19, 25 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For Scientificus vel ingeniarius vel inventor dicitur qui nova instrumenta, rationes, et cetera excogitet, one reads: 'Whoever devises new tools, methods, and other things is called a scientist or an engineer or an inventor'. And so on. Wouldn't that require the subjunctive? We don't know who they might be. The subject is qui, its reference is indefinite (thereby invoking Gildersleeve's section 631.2), and the scientificus &c. look like predicates of some sort. IacobusAmor 01:13, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't think that is correct or you are misinterpreting it; there are lots of examples to the contrary everywhere in latin literature of qui+indicative being the subject of a sentence with that sense, eg.  and also in the bible all over...--123.192.69.44 07:18, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::This is discussed in Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax section 155 and 230(3): a descriptive, generic qui-clause. My understanding, after reading Woodcock, is that the subjunctive is classical in this context, not the indicative (though I feel guiltily sure that I have often, Biblically, used the indicative). The Vulgate wouldn't be a good guide to classical usage, I think, (a) because it is late, (b) because it often literally translates the Greek text.

text: ::Your link is to the proverb "qui bene amat bene castigat". There is a logical difference between this and the example we're discussing here. To Woodcock (section 230(2) if that's any use) the proverb is a generalizing qui-clause, and the use of the indicative is indeed classical. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:16, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, the "descriptive, generic qui-clause" may afford an apter angle, the original being understood as 'The sort of person who devises new tools, methods, and other things is called. . . .' The example in Cassell's is that qui takes the subjunctive when it serves "to express a general description, parallel to an adj.: mihi carus et illum qui pulchre nosset, Hor." Perhaps a pertinent section in Bradley's Arnold is #503: "Especially common are consecutive qui-clauses which define a quality of the antecedent. [But is there a real antecedent in the sentence at hand?] Is est qui haec dicat. He is the sort of man to say this." But maybe not, though one returns to the tentativeness of the clause: since not every person who 'devises new tools, methods, and other things' is 'called a scientist' &c., the qui-clause here isn't a factually true statement, and contrafactual  expressions often invite the subjunctive. Is this clause perhaps a cousin of sunt qui constructions? All sources checked here agree that existential qui-clauses with indefinite references (Sunt qui, Erant qui, &c.) require the subjunctive. IacobusAmor 11:02, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: I must add a few words in defense of 123.192.69.44. Generally, the same rules of modal use (indicative vs subjunctive) apply to the relative clauses as to normal sentences. I don't think there's a syntactic mechanism by which we should say Ingeniarius ... dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitet instead of the normal and straightforward Ingeniarius ... dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitat (cf. Apul. de mundo 12 Turbo autem dicitur, qui repentinis flabris prosilit atque universa perturbat). If the writer or speaker wishes to add a pragmatic, modal (causal, concessive, conditional, consecutive, final) nuance to it, he may use subjunctive in the relative clause. In the case at hand, it's not necessary to think of any such nuance that should be added to the proposition. In other words, Ingeniarius ... dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitat gives an extensional definition of the concept 'ingeniarius', and that should be sufficient in an encyclopedia. I don't think anything important is achieved by forcing out an added consecutive interpretation. I suggest excogitat instead of excogitet. Neander 11:28, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::OK then, so long as it's clear to the reader that Ingeniarius [&c.] ... NON dicitur qui nova instrumenta ... excogitat is also a true sentence! IacobusAmor 12:24, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Thanks, Neander, I'll go with that opinion and not feel guilty after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Could you explain your intepretation Iacobe? It seems you object to the definition being given of what an engineer does. I can't think of a single person who satisfies the qui clause who wouldn't be called an engineer. But maybe I don't understand what you are objecting to.--123.192.69.44 13:24, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Many people who invent things aren't ordinarily called scientists, engineers, etc. IacobusAmor 13:46, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::True but the sentence says "Scientificus vel ingeniarius vel inventor dicitur..." and that collectively certainly covers that and every other ambiguous case, since all who invent are certainly all called inventors.--123.192.69.44 14:47, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  de subiuntivi usu 

message: Salve. Bene esse potest explicationem vocabuli "technologia" habere. Aliquem quem addet? Scio unde Graeca antiqua τεχνολογία, technologia, ipse ex τέχνη, techne, et λογία, logia, sed non certus sum de rectis significationibus. Sit "ars" et "studii"/"disciplinae", ergo "ars studii" sive "ars disciplinae".
Donatello (disputatio) 13:00, 1 Maii 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: De significatione vocabuli τέχνη 'ars' nullum est dubium. ¶ Vocabulum -λογία (non aliter quam -loquium in lingua Latina) est nomen quod nusquam nisi in verbis compositis invenitur (cf. ἀνα + λόγος ⇒ ἀναλογία aut ἀ + νόμος ⇒ ἀνομία). Derivatum est a nomine λόγος quod permultas res significat. Sensu valde generali, λόγος hos videtur habere sensus: (1) quod menti inest aut mente efficitur, id est, 'ratio; cogitatio, ratiocinatio'; (2) quod loquendo aut scribendo exprimitur, id est, 'relatio, expositio; sermo, sermocinatio ("discourse") '. Apud antiquos ἐτυμο-λογία Latine sollerter veri-loquium reddebatur, quod rem ipsam bene explicat. Itaque puta ἀστρολογία ab initio "astriloquium" sive 'rationem stellarum habitam', θεολογία "deiloquium" sive 'sermocinationem de natura deorum' significavit. Postea -logia illud  connotationem scientificam assumpsit. Itaque psychologia re vera 'sermocinationem scientificam de psyche/anima; sermonem scientificum ad psychen/animam pertinentem' significat. Quod ad etymologiam technologiae attinet, forsitan satis sit dicere technologiam a τέχνη 'ars' + -λογία (< λόγος 'ratio; sermo') derivatum esse. Quod ad significationem technologiae attinet, certe ingeniarias artes intra scientiam adhibitas significat, interdum etiam synonymum artium ingeniarum esse videtur. Neander (disputatio) 11:20, 2 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Video. Macte Neander. :) Optima explicatio. Magnas gratias ago. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:04, 2 Maii 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  Etymologia