Disputatio:Programma fontium apertorum

message: Relationships of case implied in English objective constructions may be opaque to nonlinguists, or to people generally who don't think much about how English syntax works. Consider the butting nouns of cow pasture. The underlying sense is of 'a pasture having to do with cows' (pascuum bovinum) or 'a pasture of cows' (pascuum boum) or conceivably 'a pasture [set aside] for cows' (pascuum bobus [dicatum]), but one thing it most definitely is not is bos pascuum ('a cow, a pasture'). Similarly, if open-source software is to be translated "literally," apertus fons programmatus is an inadequate rendering of it because that Latin "literally" means 'an open source that has been programmed'. Note that 'cow pasture' involves cows (plural), not a single cow: the word cow looks singular, but its sense is typically plural (or abstract); likewise, baseball, a game of bases (plural), and card shark, a shark with regard to cards (plural), and rose garden, a garden featuring roses (plural). So here, to get the aptest Latin gloss, reimagine open-source software as software of open sources (plural), or software having to do with open sources (plural), or software from open sources (plural), or even openly sourced software, and you're on your way. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:39, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: -We should avoid being quantitative like sugar, rice air ?

text: -We should use neutral genders?

text: -Is the apposition --pg.xxiii in the Tyl by G Betts-- applicable here. e.g. noun or maybe nominative as an adjective?

text: -I am still studying or trying to understand your above suggestion.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:07, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Collective nouns are another matter, as are one-of-a-kind items (e.g., breadbasket, saltshaker, timepiece). That's why I put the phrase "(or abstract)" up there: it's a complicated issue! The bottom line for Vicipaedians is that the deep syntax of phrases having the seeming shape of NOUN + NOUN (e.g., source software, open or otherwise) can be anything but obvious. You wouldn't want to translate world war, for example, as mundus bellum. The underlying relationship of the words isn't that straightforward. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your insights Iacobus. I would like to go for: 'software of open sources (plural)'. I dug deeper and thus  would like to propose Programmatura/Programma patentium fontium. Quod opinaris?--Jondel (disputatio) 14:49, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, going through the "paginae movendae", I came to this one and I don't see how that genitive works. Aren't we really talking about "programmatura aperta"? Or perhaps rather (since software is not really "programmatura" but "programmata", see Corpus programmatum) it should be "programma fontibus apertis"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 15 Martii 2016 (UTC)
The idea is the program 'source' code is open and revealed. Like Wikipedia or Lego blocks for programming, you can use the source to build other things. Even if you could, you can't change Windows or Word because the program is hidden by propriety rights. Many major softwares continue this way of open source like Linux, Apache web servers, etc. You can see the source code and improve on it, just like a wiki. It's like the ultimate t--Jondel (disputatio) 12:49, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)oy for tinkerers, ie, 'hackers'(the good kind). --Jondel (disputatio) 22:41, 15 Martii 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes. So "programmata (pl.) fontibus apertis" says software whose source is open. That's surely what the English compound means. To translate an English compound noun expression into a Latin phrase you have to deconstruct what it means [another way of saying what Iacobus said, far above].

text: Since our usual rule is to put pagenames in the singular, and because it's uncomfortable in Latin to tag on an ablative at the end, we'd probably try to finesse that initial translation. Neander chose the parent pagename  "Corpus (sg.) programmatum" software for that reason among others :) We could use that same idea and say "corpus programmatum fontibus apertis editorum" [the class of] software issued with open sources, or we could try being briefer and say "programma (sg.) fontibus apertis editum", meaning [any instance of] software issued with open sources.

text: NB -- all comments welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Programma fontium apertorum has only three words, each echoing one of the English words. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:40, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The genitive doesn't make the meaning very clear to me, but maybe that's just me. If you're happy with that form and if you move the page to it, I certainly won't object. Far better than what we have now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
I think this is the best we have for now. Let me  initiate the move. Thanks Andrew and Iacobus.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:49, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)

text: Just go right ahead and move, I would say, Jondel Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Ok then.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:29, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma