Disputatio:Consortio Populorum

message: * +1 (inspecta1) from the history 21:40, 2 Martii 2007 Alex1011
* +2 (inspecta2) from the history 22:25, 2 Martii 2007 Marc mage
thread_title: LATINITAS

message: * foedus liberarum civitatum – "an association of free States"
* foedus liberum civitatum – "a free association of States"
Choose whichever you prefer! Greetings, --UV 14:22, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course I prefer the latter, since that's what I wrote & meant to write. :) All I meant by my comment in the edit history was that I was not blind to the possibility that the word "liberum" isn't attested in that slightly figurative (if that's the word I mean) way when what's really meant is a "foedus libere ictum." Sorry for not replying Latine; it's too early in the morning. Vale, Doops 16:37, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: foedus

message: Neander, commentarium de Consortione Populorum ad titulum Nationum communitatem movisti, fictam cuiusdam Ebbe Vilborg auctoritatem citans, but her majesty the queen and head of the commonwealth has told us herself, in no uncertain terms, what the Latin name of the Commonwealth of Nations must be:
replies: text: Our style and titles shall henceforth be accepted, taken and used as the same are set forth in manner and form following, that is to say, the same shall be expressed in the English tongue by these words:—

text: "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ".

text: And in the Latin tongue by these words:—

text: "Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor".

text: Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, and in the Second year of Our Reign.
This has been known in Vicipaedia since 11 January 2007 (vide sub "Problem solved: 'United Kingdom' = Britanniae"), years before your Mr. Vilborg vouchsafed us his opinion. Quis est ille, et qui sumus nos, ut mandatum ipsius reginae et principis consortionis libere praeterire possimus?! :o IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:57, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

text: It may be that the cited Swedish dictionary is confusing a description (a potential definition) with an official name (the necessary lemma), which together might serve as the beginning of the article: "Consortio Populorum est communitas nationum quae. . . ." 'The Commonwealth of Nations is a partnership of peoples which. . . .' ¶ Even that formulation, however, is vastly inferior to the precision found in Wikipedia (with four key internal links, here italicized): the Commonwealth of Nations is an "intergovernmental organisation of 53 member states that were mostly territories of the former British Empire." Of the wikis I've checked, the French puts those four ideas (and more!) right up there at the start, and the German & Spanish have most of them. Compare the weak wordiness of the current Latin (omitting two of those key ideas): "est foedus civitatum liberarum, quae negotia communia agere volunt. Hodie 54 civitates liberae sua sponte ad eam se adiunxerunt, quarum pleraeque Imperii Britannici pristini partes fuerant." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:17, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Commisi igitur scelus maiestatis nescius istius proclamationis. (Feliciter quidem evenit, quod civis Consortionis non sum. :-) ) Demiror tamen, cur lemma fonte tam gravi careat. Ergo, editionem meam revertam miratus tamen, cur in commentatione Elizabetha scriptum sit, etsi usus litterae <a> finalis proclamatione vetari videatur. Neander (disputatio) 13:36, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Vicipaedia freely imposes the mos vicipaedianus on forenames, but perhaps, in this proclamation, the queen insisted on keeping her English regnal name and her privy council conceded that point. Everything else, of course, would have been carefully worked out by a parliamentary committee, presumably checking with authorities at the major universities—or maybe not, since more than a handful of parliamentarians would certainly have known their Latin. Even today, the Mayor of London is a dab hand at the classical tongue: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100041362/boris-johnson-gives-a-latin-lesson-and-turns-out-to-be-an-excellent-teacher/. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Vicipaedia freely imposes the mos vicipaedianus on forenames". Well, but, if there are contemporary Latin sources and if they are consistent, I think we go with them, don't we? That's exactly why we have "Elizabeth" queen of England and "Margareta" queen of Denmark, because that's what those ladies call themselves in Latin. (NB I have just added a source for "Elizabeth" on the relevant page.) I believe I'm agreeing with you, Iacobe, in slightly different words :)

text: :::Once we get beyond the pagename and lemma, I'd say it's for the Vicipaedian to decide how best to continue in good Latin, e.g. how to deal with "Elizabeth" in running text.

text: :::On the original question, "Consortio Populorum" clearly has the best source on its side ... but those of us who previously touched the page were at fault for not citing it right here! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen