Disputatio:Hudson (Dacota Meridionalis)

message: I can't understand the grammar of this page. The first sentence:
* The usual rule (which can certainly be varied, but for a reason) is "A est B": so "Hudson est oppidum"
* You could go on and say "Hudson est oppidum Dacotae Meridionalis", but why a comma in the middle of that statement?
* Since Dacota Meridionalis in turn belongs to the CFA, you could continue "... Civitatum Foederatarum", but why another comma? It would be all one simple statement, which should not be interrupted by punctuation.
* But then the sentence ends with "situm". So you have Hudson is a town of S Dakota of the USA; located. Located where? Well, it's located in S. Dakota. But we haven't said that, have we? If we want to use "situm", the grammar has to be different. We have to say "Hudson is a town located in S. Dakota." So that would be "Hudson est oppidum in Dacota Meridionali situm", and we can continue e.g. with "... in Civitatibus Foederatis".
The second sentence:
*How is "census" linked to the rest of the sentence? It seems to be nominative: but incolae is also nominative. A simple sentence can't have two different subjects. Or is "census" genitive? But then they would be "inhabitants of the census". No, they are inhabitants of Hudson.
The third "sentence":
*We're writing Latin, so, if we include a foreign word for some special reason, we should then explain it in Latin. (qui in certaminibus iudicat? something like that?)
*What's the grammar here? We have "umpire" (meaningless in Latin), then in the nominative "a woman weighed first", then "to be that thing".
I don't think any sentence gets close enough to Latin. I've set this all out here because I can see at least one more page following the same pattern. I think the pattern needs to change! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ;Comma signs etc

text: I see. Then no need for the comma sign between those two names. In the data hominis, like the one in the article of "Amanda Crew": there are for example cities with the same names. These we can mention with their, for example, states where they lie in so we know which cities we mean. Then maybe we do not need to use comma signs here also, or should we?
replies: text: :In the Data hominis formula, if you want to use that formula (I don't use it myself!) you can use parentheses, just as we would in a page title. I have edited the infobox at Amanda Crew to show you what I mean. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::This sentence we speak about would then become like this: Hudson oppidum Dacotae Meridionalis Civitatum Foederatarum Americae est (the most normal one in grammar), or Hudson oppidum est, Dacotae Meridionalis Civitatum Foederatarum Americae situm (little bended in grammar).
replies: text: :::Re "the most normal one in grammar": yes, but esse is special and behaves differently; see the discussion re "A est B" in Taberna years ago. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:32, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I think the comma between town and region is a trap laid for us by American English. (I say this because I'm not American, and I don't speak or write that way!) It really doesn't work in Latin.

text: ::::I'm off to sleep now, but (unless others have commented first) I'll answer more tomorrow! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:08, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I agree and think "standard" Vicipaedian forms would be the following (repeating what Andrew said at the top):

text: :::::*"Hudson est oppidum Civitatum Foederatarum Americae, in Dacota Meridionali situm."

text: :::::*"Hudson est oppidum Dacotae Meridionalis Civitatum Foederatarum Americae."

text: :::::*"Hudson est oppidum in Dacota Meridionali in Civitatis Foederatis Americae situm."
replies: text: ::::::Hudson est viculus in Comitatu Lincolniensi Dacotae Meridianae Civitatum Foederatarum situs? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:32, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Viculus may well be the mot juste! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::I also like "Dacota Meridiana" better, and since there was no source on that page, I renamed it and added one. It seems that the state pages still need a fair bit of checking. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:50, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Don't hold back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

text: ;About the census

text: I am little insecure how to write the census statistics in Latin. I have used census anni 2010 250 000 incolae sunt, where census is written in genetive. So litteraly it becomes "of the census of the year 2010 there are 250 000 inhabitants". I am insecure if secundum works here.
replies: text: :OK, but that's the problem we started with. They are not inhabitants "of the census". So the statement doesn't make sense either in English or in Latin.

text: :You have to try to devise a statement which is simple, true and clear, then say it in Latin. My suggested statement is "When a census was taken in [the year] 2010, there were 250 inhabitants." (Were because, in truth, let's face it, 2010 is in the past.) "Censu [anno] 2010 habito erant incolae 250." A Latin sentence often ends with the nugget of new information, which, in this case, is the number. I believe "erant" (imperfect) is appropriate here, because that was the situation (imperfect) at the moment when the census was taken (perfect).

text: :Note two variants on this model: (1) if the number is in the thousands, e.g. 250 000, then you say "incolarum" instead of "incolae"; (2) if the source is an estimate rather than a census, you could maybe say "aestimatione ... facto" or "computatione ... facto" instead of "censu ... habito". I am using the ablative absolute: it often works well in expressing briefly the source or event which precedes or underlies your main fact. I agree with you that "secundum" is not needed and is better avoided.

text: :For full disclosure :) I wasn't sure what would be the best verb to use with "census", so I checked Lewis & Short and found examples using "habere" and "agere": I chose "habere". Friendly advice: for any subject known to the Romans, Lewis and Short is a very good source of phrases etc. Just find a Latin word, then look it up in Lewis & Short. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I like that; I admit that I had been using "secundum censum" until now, of which there are attestations, but perhaps not in the sense we need. This Russian-Latin dictionary gives something similar to your phrasing, and they seem to base theirs on Caesar: "Eorum qui domum redierunt censu habito, ut Caesar imperaverat, repertus est numerus milium C et X." Lesgles (disputatio) 15:03, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I used to use "secundum" a lot, and became bored with it ... my opinion may have no more logical basis than that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::To write the population with the word "census" and its year in Latin can be tricky. But you gave some good examples. In the town of Hoopstad I wrote censu anni 2011 16 033 incolae habebat. Do you think it sound okey? -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:31, 18 Aprilis 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :::::Not quite right, because, if incolae is nominative, this must be the subject of the verb. So you want a plural verb, and the verb has to be erant (or something like that): incolae 16033 erant, there were 16033 inhabitants. Or, if the town is the subject, then habebat may be OK but the inhabitants are the object of the verb: incolas 16033 habebat, it had 16033 inhabitants. Either of those would work, but your way is a mixture of the two and doesn't make sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 18 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

text: ;About "umpire"

text: For "umpire" in Latin I had no idea, but thanks for the Latin word you added. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 20:16, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :Another translation for umpire could be arbiter (compare the Romance languages and "arbiter pugnae", "the judge, umpire of the contest". Lesgles (disputatio) 21:44, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, better, I think. Didn't occur to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Latinitate