Disputatio:Clipeus aureus

message: Traupman gives "ludus hocceius glacialis" for "ice hockey" and "ludus hocceius campestris" for "field hockey", p. 319.--Rafaelgarcia 12:56, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: Fixed! Thanks! IacobusAmor 13:03, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hockey

message: Et nunc UNESCO =? IacobusAmor 13:07, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse illud acronymum sic sufficit. Sed UNESCO=United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization illam traducam sicut "Nationum Consociationis Institutum ad Eruditionem, Scientias et Culturas Addictum" = (literally)"United Nations Establishment Dedicated to Education, Sciences and Cultures"--Rafaelgarcia 13:52, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UNESCO

message: Macte, Neander! Thanks for the useful corrections. A few points. ¶ You might have changed the sense slightly near the beginning. The original, at :en:Gold medal, is "the highest medal," for whose adjective I used maximus because one of Cassell's definitions of magnus is "of price or value, high"; hence 'highest' in the superlative. You've changed it to illustrissimus, which Cassell's would gloss 'clearest, most famous'. ¶ In solum gloriam indicant, I was using solum as an adverb ('offer only prestige'), which you changed to an adjective (solam gloriam indicant). So is an adjective more idiomatic there? and was the adverb misplaced? or what? ¶ I see that you've used cusus for the perfect participle of cudo, cudere (a word I've never deployed before). Cassell's doesn't give a perfect & perfect participle for this verb, so I assumed (as is this dictionary's wont) that the supine would then be regular, as cuditus. Another dictionary indeed has your cusus, but a third says specifically that cudere has no perfect & perfect participle. What should we do? Use facere or some similar verb? ¶ I don't know where plurimes came from! I must have seen it too much in Vicipaedia! The quaerere box shows two examples remaining in other articles! ¶ De: "Suadeo ut totam sententiam 'More dandi...' denuo formes; nunc verbum finitum obiecto caret." I figured the sentence lacked a subject, but didn't have time to puzzle it out. I thought I'd recently seen syntax like that in Caesar's B.G., but maybe not. IacobusAmor 23:01, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ¶ I thought you're after 'most valued, estimable etc', and so I proposed "illustrissimus". If you want 'highest', summus or supremus suggests itself. Though "magnus homo" is usually vertically big, "magnus clipeus" might suggest a big one, in circumference. ¶ Qua adverb, solum tends to be located after its head word: gloriam solum. (But solam gloriam means precisely the same.) ¶ On cusus, see e.g. Symmachus, Ep. 4,55 nomisma auro cusum. ¶ That's what I thought too!   :–)   ¶ The sentence is still a bit problematic. I'd suggest Postquam clipei aurei, argentei, aerei Olympiis anni 1904 dari coepti sunt, hunc sibi morem multi eventus athletici non Olympici asciverunt. ¶ Addenda: (1) "apud Olympia" seems suspect because it suggests the concrete geographical place named "Olympia"; thus, the first games ever were certainly apud Olympia but thereafter Olympiis -- an institution. (2) re: "indicat" vs "dicit": "dicit" does not normally take on a non-human / non-animate subject. If indicat won't do, a better verb se cherche. --Neander 01:07, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fixed (I hope)! Thanks again. ¶ What's the best Latin for 'obverse' & 'reverse'? In the text, I used pars antica and pars postica, but those phrases are guesses, as I don't find them specifically in my English-Latin dictionaries. ¶ Now who will write articles on clipeus argenteus and clipeus aereus? and for that matter, on clipeus itself?! IacobusAmor 14:40, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: De nada. ¶ Good question! Güthling's Wörterbuch gibt s.v. Avers (= obverse): "ea pars nummi, in qua caput impressum est". From this helpful   :–/   definition we may conclude that we are free to coin more manageable Latin terms for the numismatic term-pair [is "term-pair" English?] obverse vs reverse or avers vs revers. The general oppositional idea is brought about by adversa (pars) vs aversa (pars) in Latin. (Confusingly enough, French avers is etymologically advers.) By this I'm not necessarily saying your "antica" vs "postica" should be replaced by "adversa" and "aversa". BTW, perhaps the obverse could also be rendered as frons. ¶ Please, go ahead! --Neander 22:52, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::De: ""ea pars nummi, in qua caput impressum est". From this helpful  :–/  definition"—It could be pointing toward the  colloquial English terms for the sides of a coin: 'heads' & 'tails' (each of which looks plural, but is singular in sense). I'll leave antica & postica (pars) for now, and they can be replaced if good attestations of other terms show up. ¶ Term-pair is intelligible, but I think most English-speakers would prefer pair of terms. IacobusAmor 00:23, 18 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc.