Disputatio:Exercitus Salvationis

message: Exercitus Salvationalis until someone can come up with a googlable attested form.
replies: text: Your first footnote is asserting that The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church attests the Latin term Exercitus Salvationalis. Neander has asserted an attestation for Exercitus salvificus, but I haven't confirmed it via Google. IacobusAmor 11:52, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :While I was writing that, Andrew was adjusting the footnote to imply that it's the English name that's attested in that dictionary. IacobusAmor 11:54, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::[And I was about to add :)] I take it, then, that Cross is a source for the English name, not the Latin one; so I have adjusted the first sentence accordingly. Googleability isn't compulsory (see Vicipaedia:Taberna#The Salvation Army)), but, yes, if there's a more satisfying already-published version than Exercitus Salvificus, let's find it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Sorry, I am not very clever with the reference thingy. Cross was the source of the article NOT the name. "Exercitus Salvationis" is actually attested by a google search unlike 'salvificus'. It features in a school magazine of Cotton College, Birmingham, but in what I suspect is a somewhat jocular context. Exercitus Salvationalis is a compromise for the benefit of those who don't like the 'erxeritus +noun (genitive) relationship (even though that is the form chosen by every other world language, as far as I can see!) TV
replies: text: ::::An English objective noun that precedes another noun, as in the construction Salvation Army, can function in effect as an adjective. The seeming "genitives" you're finding in other languages don't always catch this quirk. A tea cup is not the same thing as a cup of tea. IacobusAmor 14:57, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I don't think there is anything "seeming" about it in other languages. 'Du', 'della, 'des' all indicate the genitive to me. I agree that Latin often prefers an adjective where modern European languages use the genitive e.g. Episcopus Birminghamensis rather than Episcopus Birminghamiae. However W.Booth did not call his organisation the 'Saving Army' or even the 'Salvific Army' but the Salvation Army, so the Latin should really bear that element. Given that followers are called 'Salvationists' ('Salvationistae' nos diceremus), would not Exercitus Salvationisticus be most suitable, even if a bit of a mouthful? It would be consistent with some other names of Christian denominations eg Ecclesia Methodistica and Ecclesia Baptistica.Tergum violinae 17:01, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::You seem to be saying that a salvation army is an army of salvation in the same way that a tea cup is a cup of tea. But a tea cup is NOT a cup of tea, and a salvation army is NOT an army of salvation: a tea cup is a cup for tea, and a salvation army is an army for salvation. Other examples: a flu shot is a shot for flu, not a shot of flu ; sun glasses are glasses for sun, not glasses of sun ; neck ties are ties for (the) neck, not ties of (the) neck. Treating the first noun in a two-noun sequence as a genitive, no matter what other languages (because of the constraints of their grammars) do with it, isn't always the best analysis. ¶ Footnote: yes, of course teacup & sunglasses & neckties are ordinarily solid, but I'm spelling them open to make sure the point is clear. IacobusAmor 18:03, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Mihi videtur te circumscribere usum casus genitivum. Non sunt soli usus possessivus et qualitativus. Quoniam sunt etiam usus subjectivus et obiectivus, et exercitum sententiam verbalem ex 'ercerceo' habere intelligi potest, phrasis 'exercitus salvationis' significaret 'quod salvatione exercetur' aut fortasse 'quod exercet salvationem'. Cum de Factione Laboris in rebus politicis loquamur, non 'partem operis' aut 'factionem ex labore factam' significamus. Ambiguitas linguae Anglicae perutilis modo inutilis modo est. Exempli gratia quomodo Latine diceremus Democratic Unionist Party? Factio Unionistarum Democraticorum vel Factio Unionistica Democratica vel Factio Unionis Democraticae?Tergum violinae 19:19, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::: Usum genetivi vocabulo exercitus attributi ea ratione circumscribo, qua fontes philologici commendant. Videas quaeso Thesaurum linguae Latinae (s.v. exercitus). ||| Quod ad verbum exercendi attinet, nomen deverbativum est exercitium. Exercitus autem, licet etymologico quodam nexu cum verbo exercendi sit coniunctus, usu cotidiano Latinitatis cuius cognitionem habemus nihil aliud significat nisi copiam hominum exercitatorum. Itaque nego "exercitum salvationis" significare posse 'quod salvatione exercetur'. Si quid significat, est 'copia hominum exercitatorum ad aliquem ducem, populum, locum pertinens'. ||| Si exercitus salvificus tibi displicet, quin a Vaticano requiras? --Neander 23:45, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Care 82.36.94.228, usor ignote, litterae in Cassell's Latin Dictionary sunt ADSECTATOR, et libri editor nobis ait: "My aim has been to conform to the fashions of the present day, both in English idiom and in Latin spelling" (p. vii). IacobusAmor 15:06, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith's Latin Dictionary which I thought we held to be authoritative has 'assectator' and I was under the impression that assimilation was preferred my most vicipaediani.Tergum violinae 17:06, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Smith's dates from about 1881; Cassell's, from 1968. Which is likelier to reflect usage in "the present day"? ¶ That said, this isn't a major issue. IacobusAmor
thread_title: ''Adsectator'' vs. ''assectator''

message: Novus usor "societas" in "ecclesia" bis emendavit. Apud en:wiki verbum "Church" non video; igitur reverti. An re vera Exercitus Salvationis "ecclesia" sit, explicemus hic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 25 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis, amice. Verbum in en:wiki est movement, non ecclesia. IacobusAmor 12:42, 25 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Exercitus Salvationis dico ipsum ecclesia. "The Salvation Army is a worldwide evangelical Christian church and human service agency.".  Consociatio Ecclesiae in Britannia et Hibernia (Anglice: Churches Together in Britain and Ireland) agnitio Exercitus Salvationis ecclesia est. percunctor constitum.  Alius radix congruo: Britannica Radiodiffusionis Corporatio Jpb1301 21:32, 26 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In pagina quam :en: memorat, hic exercitus se appellat motum, non ecclesiam, sic: motus inter civitates, . . . evangelica universae Ecclesiae Christianae pars ("an international movement, . . . an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church"). Prima commentarii sententia in :en: est "The Salvation Army, an international movement, describes itself as an evangelical movement part of the Christian Church"—in other words, not a church, but a part of the church. IacobusAmor 01:46, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The Salvation Army is a part of the church universal - in the same way that Baptists, Episcopalians, and other denominations are - but it is also an independent denomination and church in it's own right.  Contrary to what has been stated above, even on the en.wikipedia page there are several references to it's being a church, as well as a movement. (If you read beyond the first paragraph.) (For example: "The Salvation Army's position is that because it is a church, Section VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly guarantees its right to discriminate on the basis of its religious beliefs in its hiring.")  Movement is a broad general term which reflects the broad sweep of the Army's activities - church is a more specific term which reflects it's doctrinal and denominational status. But these terms are not mutually exclusive: It is possible for both to apply to the same organisation - and in this case they do. Jpb1301 04:56, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Thanks for explaining and supplying references. Seems fine to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Of course it's fine, so long as this army calls itself a church. But saying that, and only that, misses a nuance that the beginning of the English article catches: it's not just a church: it's more than a church. IacobusAmor 15:47, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Very true! This is a common difficulty for those trying to describe and understand the dual character of the Salvation Army.  Simply calling it a movement is an equally unsatisfactory description. What we really need is a latin phrasing to convey the sense of a church and a movement. Jpb1301 18:14, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Would something like " Exercitus Salvationis est ecclesia Christiana,(quoque motus et agenturae societatis)..." be on the right lines?? 86.149.227.35 23:21, 28 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Quoque typically follows the word it emphasizes, but I don't think you need emphasis here, and might say merely Exercitus Salvationis est ecclesia Christiana et motus. . . . Your choice of the continuation. IacobusAmor 01:42, 29 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecclesia seu societas?