Disputatio:Index Mimarum mundi cinematographicorum (L-Z)

message: Mima? This specifically means an actress acting in mime... Jennifer Lopez, for instance, is not a mime...--Ioshus (disp) 15:28, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wrong on so many levels.

text: #THe already existing articles Index Histrionum mundi cinematographicorum (A-K) and Index Histrionum mundi cinematographicorum (L-Z) were vacated to do this, with the words "vir aut puer" added to specify that those pages are for male actors (so why not mas?).

text: #See Disputatio:Index Histrionum mundi cinematorgraphicorum (A-K) for how these pages were formed in the first place.

text: #Nevertheless, cinematographicorum has been kept in the masculine.

text: As to why the author has chosen mimarum over histrionum, I quote Smith's English-Latin Dictionary:
replies: text: :Actress: NOTE. As females were not employed in the Roman regular drama, there is no word exactly suitable: mīma signifies a low kind of theatrical dancer and pantomimic performer: scēnica (for scenica mulier) occurs in Cod. Justin.  Lūdia (Juv.: Mart.) is apparently equiv. to mima.

text: Now, most dictionaries consider ludia to refer to a woman somehow connected to the arena, rather than the stage. Mime in the ancient world was more like the British travesty/farce-style pantomimes, than Marcel Marceau. And unlike tragedy and comedy, real women were allowed to act in mimes. However, ROman mimes were not the sort of thing one would be proud to take part in—the sex and violence were apparently real. Furthermore, if we are going to describe modern mime, what word do you think is going to end up used?

text: At Conventicula I have always heard histrio used as a common gender word, when speaking of the modern world. I should know, because my girlfriend is one. But if we must, there is always David Morgan. In his super secret updated draft he sent me some months ago, here's what he has:
replies: text: :182 actress  scênica, ae f., actrix scênica (Egger S.L. 37), actrix (cinematographica*)

text: So in my opinion, we should just keep this at histrionum, and have it contain both male and female actors. But if we must, we can move out the females and put them s.v. Index scenicarum muni cinematographicarum (L-Z) and so on. --Iustinus 16:45, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, and cf. olympionices, and various other words that in ancient times had not female application. While we are using an ancient language, we are not in an ancient culture. --Iustinus 21:23, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Also, there is no need whatsoever for the inclusion of this term in any of the three languages you referenced here...--Ioshus (disp) 20:44, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure this was to make clear what he meant by histrio and mima. You and I would read "actor" and "female mime," afterall. --Iustinus 21:24, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vulgis 

message: Also, there is no need whatsoever for the inclusion of this term in any of the three languages you referenced here...--Ioshus (disp) 20:44, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure this was to make clear what he meant by histrio and mima. You and I would read "actor" and "female mime," afterall. --Iustinus 21:24, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vulgis 

message: I bow to your greater knowledge, Justin. My Latin master treated histrio as a male actor and mima as an actress, but perhaps he was a porcus Chauvinensius. It seems the thing has hidden depths.
With regard to cinematographicorum, I flinch at my mistake. I'm afraid I was blinded by the -r- which had to be extracted from cinematorgraphicorum. 
One problem I had with histrio as a common gender term was that every single name in that list was in fact female. If the separation is useful, which I think it is, can we both live with actrix? So should that be Index Actricum mundi cinematographicarum? Xn4 05:42, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's because the list started out as being one of actresses, under I-forget-what title. I suggested the change to histrio, and a merger with male actors. HOWEVER, if we want to reintroduce the distinction, we can either use scenicarum (but I suspect that if you say scenicae cinematographicae people will totally misunderstand taht), histrionum marum and feminarum, or... well note the rather odd genitive in the title. It modifies histrionum/mimarum. So if we want a separate males and females, all we really need to do is change the gender of the adjective ;) --Iustinus 06:41, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I neglected to mention: in my orriginal comment that I linked to above, I suggested that histrio was merely "more common" than actor/actrix. Now I am pretty sure that actor is never used in the theatrical sense. It is true that [partes] agere can mean "to act," but I think an actor is generally undestood to be one who ago's in some other sense, like the English expression "State Actors." --Iustinus 06:55, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
My dictionary doesn't agree that actor is never used in the theatrical sense. It has these meanings for actor, as follows:  (general) driver, performer; (law) plaintiff; (business) agent; (rhetoric) orator; (drama) actor. 
The main meaning of actrix in present day Latin seems to be actress.  Tuor wrote of King Edward VII "amator erat actricum multarum"! 
Xn4 07:57, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Well done, then I concede: at least in this instance. I would say that in general actor/actrix is too vague a word to use, but it is clear from the title what it means here, so I cannot obstare. I would not necessarily cite wikipedia articles to prove such points, though, as ... well, it is wikipedia ;) --Iustinus 08:08, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mea culpa, Iustine