Disputatio:I Have a Dream

message: == Translatio peto ==
For the article I have a dream I look for a Latin translation of the title of the political rally AD 1963. It was: March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The actual translation seems not to fit in my eyes. Gratias ago... El Suizo 12:51, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly doesn't, not least because agmen is neuter, so agminem (as the word stands in the current version of the article) is impossible. ¶ For the idiom of 'an attack on', Caesar gives us the idiom oppugnatio + genitive. An agmen is basically 'a driving movement' (hence, 'a line of march' and similar senses), but agmen Vasingtoniae may not be quite right. Closer to Caesar's syntax, using a noun from the same root (agere) with the -tio suffix, would be actio Vasingtoniae. ¶ For 'for jobs and freedom', a gerundive should work, perhaps in the form of something like ad laborem libertatemque petendas (capiendas?), though 'jobs' are perhaps more accurately translated as pensa or opera. Wait a while, and others may offer better solutions. IacobusAmor 13:17, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vel etiam "Iter Vasingtoniam operis libertatique petendis" ? --Utilo 13:54, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sive "Iter Vasingtoniense ..."? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:26, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Accedo!--Utilo 15:59, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Optime! I'll change accordingly. El Suizo 21:29, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
I can not agree. The desired meaning is 'march'.iter will be understood as 'travel/journey/a walk' I feel the best bet is really agmen(accusative).--Jondel 11:05, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)

text: Iter is surely OK: one of the first and main senses in Lewis & Short (see here ) is "a going to a distant place, a journey, and -- of an army -- a march". That's exactly the sense we want: often followed by the accusative for the destination, as Utilo suggested. Whether my suggestion of an adjective "Vasingtoniense"  in place of the accusative is acceptable, we might doubt! seemed OK to me :)

text: Agmen is also a good word for an army etc. on the move, but I haven't encountered agmen + accusative (or any other simple construction) to indicate the destination of this movement. Can that be found? The one apparent example in the dictionary entry cited by Jondel is Cicero, and it turns out not to be what we want: Cicero is talking about when he travels from Brundisium to Rome, not about the agmen making this journey. But maybe I missed something -- tell me if I did.

text: Incidentally, the link Jondel provides is to another copy of Lewis & Short, apparently not credited, and with a fair number of typos or OCR errors. Lewis & Short is in the public domain, of course. Useful to know it's there, though the version we link to at Formula:Lewshort seems much more reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :In case the problem isn't clear, it's possible to give a parallel example in English (I think). "March" and "Column" can both, in context, denote an army &c on the move in a certain direction. But "March to Washington" and "March on Washington" are both OK; "Column to Washington" and "Column on Washington" are not. In a similar way, the constructions we can use with "iter" and with "agmen" may be different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::[Written before the preceding:]

text: ::Maybe it will help if potential contributors focus on the fact that it was a march on Washington, not a march to Washington: nobody marched to Washington; and insofar as anything describable as "marching" occurred, it was a march to the Lincoln Memorial. It was not a journey to a distant place: people may have come from far & wide, but the only actual marching was the vague movement of a crowd assembled around the base of the Washington Monument to the area generally on the east side of the Lincoln Memorial. Many "marchers" probably "marched" less than 1000 feet; some simply showed up at the Lincoln Memorial, and didn't "march" at all. (As written descriptions imply, the crowd more or less "oozed" from one place to another; no "line of march," strictly speaking, developed.) The route of this movement, if it can even be considered a route, was entirely contained by a small part of the west portion of the Mall. Wikipedia does not define the event as a march: it defines it as "a large political rally." ¶ Whatever the title of the article, the definition should recognize that the event had nothing like the regular order of a parade: it was  a demonstration, itself defined as an "action by a mass group or collection of groups of people in favor of a political or other cause." IacobusAmor 13:32, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ha! That does change one's view entirely. I had no idea: I imagined something more like Mao's Long March. As you describe it, it was not an iter, and not really an agmen ... still, it called itself a march ... The only difference I see between "march to" and "march on" is that "march on" is warlike while "march to" may be peaceful: this may be my British usage ... how strange! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's why I was initially drawn to the pattern of oppugnatio + genitive. ¶ Other marches on Washington have been proposed or perhaps even held. IacobusAmor 14:35, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yes, I understand now why you suggested that. Maybe it's best after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Sorry If I didn't reply. I was expecting the Holocaust, a ban or something on me.  
Here is what I believe 'agmen'  really means and thus would be better: a procession or march to show the world or display something like for a religous purpose, festival, or celebrate military victory. Thanks for pointing out the link was a Lewis version. The accussative is because 'apud' is used ('made the speech at the march' apud agmen). Iacobus'ad laborem libertatemque petendas' seems much better because for example latin labor will automaticaly be understood as today's labor (in English). If this was totally Ciceronian, then pensa or opera etc would be better.   Please convert to iter if you /anyone really feels this is better or precise. I will not revert  Me paenit for my tactlessness.--Jondel 05:59, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)

text: Now that Iacobus has explained to me how this event unrolled, I agree, Jondel, that agmen is a definite possibility :) But I think, if I may, I'll leave further discussion of this to you others -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't know exactly, what the whole thing was like - I expected day-long marches from all sides to the capital with a final meeting at Lincoln memorial! If not, agmen to me seems to be the better choice.--Utilo 15:11, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Simulatus ex [[Vicipaedia:Taberna#Translatio_peto|taberna]]

message: For the article I have a dream I look for a Latin translation of the title of the political rally AD 1963. It was: March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The actual translation seems not to fit in my eyes. Gratias ago... El Suizo 12:51, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly doesn't, not least because agmen is neuter, so agminem (as the word stands in the current version of the article) is impossible. ¶ For the idiom of 'an attack on', Caesar gives us the idiom oppugnatio + genitive. An agmen is basically 'a driving movement' (hence, 'a line of march' and similar senses), but agmen Vasingtoniae may not be quite right. Closer to Caesar's syntax, using a noun from the same root (agere) with the -tio suffix, would be actio Vasingtoniae. ¶ For 'for jobs and freedom', a gerundive should work, perhaps in the form of something like ad laborem libertatemque petendas (capiendas?), though 'jobs' are perhaps more accurately translated as pensa or opera. Wait a while, and others may offer better solutions. IacobusAmor 13:17, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vel etiam "Iter Vasingtoniam operis libertatique petendis" ? --Utilo 13:54, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sive "Iter Vasingtoniense ..."? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:26, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Accedo!--Utilo 15:59, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Optime! I'll change accordingly. El Suizo 21:29, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)
I can not agree. The desired meaning is 'march'.iter will be understood as 'travel/journey/a walk' I feel the best bet is really agmen(accusative).--Jondel 11:05, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)

text: Iter is surely OK: one of the first and main senses in Lewis & Short (see here ) is "a going to a distant place, a journey, and -- of an army -- a march". That's exactly the sense we want: often followed by the accusative for the destination, as Utilo suggested. Whether my suggestion of an adjective "Vasingtoniense"  in place of the accusative is acceptable, we might doubt! seemed OK to me :)

text: Agmen is also a good word for an army etc. on the move, but I haven't encountered agmen + accusative (or any other simple construction) to indicate the destination of this movement. Can that be found? The one apparent example in the dictionary entry cited by Jondel is Cicero, and it turns out not to be what we want: Cicero is talking about when he travels from Brundisium to Rome, not about the agmen making this journey. But maybe I missed something -- tell me if I did.

text: Incidentally, the link Jondel provides is to another copy of Lewis & Short, apparently not credited, and with a fair number of typos or OCR errors. Lewis & Short is in the public domain, of course. Useful to know it's there, though the version we link to at Formula:Lewshort seems much more reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :In case the problem isn't clear, it's possible to give a parallel example in English (I think). "March" and "Column" can both, in context, denote an army &c on the move in a certain direction. But "March to Washington" and "March on Washington" are both OK; "Column to Washington" and "Column on Washington" are not. In a similar way, the constructions we can use with "iter" and with "agmen" may be different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::[Written before the preceding:]

text: ::Maybe it will help if potential contributors focus on the fact that it was a march on Washington, not a march to Washington: nobody marched to Washington; and insofar as anything describable as "marching" occurred, it was a march to the Lincoln Memorial. It was not a journey to a distant place: people may have come from far & wide, but the only actual marching was the vague movement of a crowd assembled around the base of the Washington Monument to the area generally on the east side of the Lincoln Memorial. Many "marchers" probably "marched" less than 1000 feet; some simply showed up at the Lincoln Memorial, and didn't "march" at all. (As written descriptions imply, the crowd more or less "oozed" from one place to another; no "line of march," strictly speaking, developed.) The route of this movement, if it can even be considered a route, was entirely contained by a small part of the west portion of the Mall. Wikipedia does not define the event as a march: it defines it as "a large political rally." ¶ Whatever the title of the article, the definition should recognize that the event had nothing like the regular order of a parade: it was  a demonstration, itself defined as an "action by a mass group or collection of groups of people in favor of a political or other cause." IacobusAmor 13:32, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ha! That does change one's view entirely. I had no idea: I imagined something more like Mao's Long March. As you describe it, it was not an iter, and not really an agmen ... still, it called itself a march ... The only difference I see between "march to" and "march on" is that "march on" is warlike while "march to" may be peaceful: this may be my British usage ... how strange! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's why I was initially drawn to the pattern of oppugnatio + genitive. ¶ Other marches on Washington have been proposed or perhaps even held. IacobusAmor 14:35, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yes, I understand now why you suggested that. Maybe it's best after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Sorry If I didn't reply. I was expecting the Holocaust, a ban or something on me.  
Here is what I believe 'agmen'  really means and thus would be better: a procession or march to show the world or display something like for a religous purpose, festival, or celebrate military victory. Thanks for pointing out the link was a Lewis version. The accussative is because 'apud' is used ('made the speech at the march' apud agmen). Iacobus'ad laborem libertatemque petendas' seems much better because for example latin labor will automaticaly be understood as today's labor (in English). If this was totally Ciceronian, then pensa or opera etc would be better.   Please convert to iter if you /anyone really feels this is better or precise. I will not revert  Me paenit for my tactlessness.--Jondel 05:59, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)

text: Now that Iacobus has explained to me how this event unrolled, I agree, Jondel, that agmen is a definite possibility :) But I think, if I may, I'll leave further discussion of this to you others -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't know exactly, what the whole thing was like - I expected day-long marches from all sides to the capital with a final meeting at Lincoln memorial! If not, agmen to me seems to be the better choice.--Utilo 15:11, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translatio peto