Disputatio:Theoria glaciationis globalis

message: And here I thought a globus niveus was going to be a snowglobe (paperweight)! IacobusAmor 13:45, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that's what I thought, too. I was excited. --Ioscius  ∞ 14:13, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I thought it would be a snowball. Maybe Tellus nivata or Tellus nivea are less confusing? Pantocrator?--Xaverius 16:41, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: :Of course, idf we don't want to go for a copy of the English term, we could say Gelatio/Congelatio/Glaciatio globalis--Xaverius 17:24, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You just say that because you like the Spanish title =P

text: ::I think the Czech approach is best: :cs:Teorie sněhové koule, giving us Theoria terrae niveae, better still would be Theoria terrae nivis contectae (Telluris be fine, too).

text: ::As PC's own dubsig proves, though, the current title is unacceptable. I propose moving this to Theoria terrae nivis contectae and coming back and making this an article on :en:Snow globe.

text: ::--Ioscius  ∞ 20:14, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The lemma of that Spanish article though is a translation of the English; I would think that if we should follow any modern language, it should be English or Romance, not Czech. With this title I intended to translate the English phrase; if we are not to do that, I would prefer glaciatio globalis which is the 'formal' name in English ('global glaciation') and other languages. By the way 'snow globe' should probably be globus nivalis, not niveus. Pantocrator 20:31, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The Czech says theory of the snowy ball, which is not what I have suggested following. I just meant the inclusion of theory in the lemma.

text: ::::The English works great in English, but not in Latin. Snow ball earth in Latin is "snow ball. earth." so we have to go for something better. Lacking a citation, I'd go for an explanation of what is a theory.

text: ::::That being said, glaciatio globalis wouldn't make me terribly unhappy, it's a lot better than what we have now, but I see no reason to follow English or Romance as I have said plenty of times before. Could we compromise for once and do with Theoria glaciationis globalis?

text: ::::You're probably right about nivalis for snow globe, although niveus need not explicitly mean covered with snow.

text: ::::--Ioscius  ∞ 21:10, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Outside Vicipaedia (recalling our "noli fingere" constraint), I'd make a brand-new compound nivipila 'snowball' and write an article on Terra nivipila... I know Latin generally shuns N+N compounds, but after all, is this much worse than, say, aurifodina? --Neander 22:38, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: Or basipila? IacobusAmor 22:51, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :The only one-word Latin gloss for 'snowball' I've found so far is nivaticum.  No idea how common it is; that sense doesn't google well.  —Mucius Tever 13:38, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Well the English name does consist of two nouns in apposition - if there is a Latin word for 'snowball' we could do the same thing, right? Here I decided that globus could mean both 'ball and 'planet Earth'. Pantocrator 12:18, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see that. I see a positional adjective, like computer table. This here earth is a snowball earth, that there one is a fireball earth.--Ioscius  ∞ 14:11, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :That's correct, that's what an appositional construction is - 'an earth that is a snowball'. Pantocrator 14:48, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes that is correct PC, that is what an appositive is. Like I said though I see a determiner here. computer table is absolutely not apposition, but an adjective made from the noun computer.

text: ::Word order plays a part here in English. There is a difference between Earth snowball and Snowball Earth, the first one looking more to my eyes like a plausible appositive. For instance, we might start a sentence with, "The explorer Chris Columbus" where Chris and explorer are in apposition, but if it's in the form of a lemma, we say "Chris Columbus, explorer" where the first word is more or less the point. Here, I think Earth is the point, and snowball is the qualifier, not the other way around.
replies: text: :::The two orders may have a slightly different emphasis, but are grammatically the same. Pantocrator 17:42, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: ::You never answered my question about compromising with Theoria glaciationis globalis?

text: ::--Ioscius  ∞ 16:05, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::This made me curious as I had thought, like PC, that "computer table" was an example of nouns in apposition. As well as I can judge from the en:wiki articles, it isn't :en:apposition and it isn't adjective + noun either: it's an :en:English compound of the "open" or "spaced" type. However, I'm sure other views exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Right, exactly, computer is doing the work of a determiner, not an appositive. It is not a table which is a computer but a table apt for computers. Definitely not apposition. --Ioscius  ∞ 17:40, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::No, I do not think that. 'Computer table' is clearly not apposition, while 'snowball earth' is. The relation between the two parts is totally different in the two cases. A computer table is a table FOR computer(s), and may be considered a compound, while a snowball earth is an earth and a snowball. Pantocrator 17:42, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Well your Romance languages don't help. Portuguese sees it your way terra bola de neve, but Italian mine terra a palla di neve.
replies: text: :::::::The subject was the grammatical construction of the English phrase 'snowball earth', and you once again turn it into an attack on me, first introducing the different phrase 'computer table' and falsely suggesting that I consider it to be appositional, then appealing to other languages which should be irrelevant as it originated in English. Anyway I don't see how the Italian phrase supports your construction, all it shows is that Italian prefers to avoid apposition and idiomatically use the preposition 'a'. Pantocrator 18:25, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Dude, this was in no way whatsoever an attack on you. If you think my looking at what other wikis  and/or languages do is an attack on you, you are really quite paranoid.
replies: text: :::::::::No. As you know, the attack was that you ascribed a ridiculous grammatical opinion to me, that 'computer table' is an appositive construction. Looking at other languages is fine, but not to determine English grammar! Pantocrator 10:34, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::I ascribed nothing to you. Certainly nothing that could be interpreted as an attack. I compared the analogy of computer table and snowball earth which to my native eyes and professionally trained linguistic sensibilities does not look like an appositive. They look like equivalent constructions to me. That is an attack? --Ioscius  ∞ 10:56, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: ::::::::::Actually what happened was I agreed with you about globus nivalis said that glaciatio globalis wouldn't kill me (even though Iacobus' objections are valid), and tried to reach a compromise with you about a title. That's an attack?

text: ::::::::::Then I explained to you that I don't see an appositive here and gave an example why. Then you explained to me what an appositive is, as if I were a 5 your old child. All this is an attack? Paranoid, like I said.--Ioscius  ∞ 11:03, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::I can't see the two as equivalent; as I stated, one is clearly an appositive, the other can't be. The only reason I defined apposition as not that I thought you didn't know, but that I that you just didn't see that phrase correctly. Pantocrator 12:30, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: ::::::::If Italian prefers to avoid apposition, why are you so sure we should have it in Latin?--Ioscius  ∞ 18:43, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Latin is not Italian.
replies: text: ::::::::::I've been telling you that since you got here. Latin is Latin, not the watered down romance language you want it to be.--Ioscius  ∞ 10:56, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::You used the example, not me. And yet, apparently, I'm wrong either way! Pantocrator 12:30, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: :::::::::If it were, we would use the preposition ad as Italian uses a there. Pantocrator 10:34, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: ::::::Twice you've ignored my request to reach a compromise. theoria glaciationis globalis it is. --Ioscius ∞ 17:57, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Meanwhile, what on earth does globalis (hoc nomen arcanum) mean? A globus, other than in its basic sense ('round ball, sphere'), is a 'troop, crowd, mass of people'. If you want to refer to "the globe," is something wrong with Tellus? ¶ A suggestion: Conglaciatio terrae, vel orbis, vel fortasse telluris. IacobusAmor 00:35, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::I was just going to state that I agree with Iacobus against "globalis", and suggest the alternative of "mundialis", when I noticed the similar discussion at Disputatio:Calefactio globalis, where Iacobus actually defended "globalis", which afterwards won the day, while "mundialis" among other things was rejected. However, I applaud Iacobus' suggestion of "conglaciatio" which, better than simple "glaciatio", conveys the notion of complete freezing. --Fabullus 11:24, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Actually here this, as a matter of the problems with the theory, conglaciatio might be misleading. There is the slush version of the hypothesis, in which the Earth did not completely freeze. That's the only reason I didn't suggest that myself.
replies: text: :::::::::::But here, the idea of complete freezing is already contained is the adjective globalis. His conglaciatio terrae would be an acceptable way to describe it, though, and at least here the prefix con- actually is being used properly (as I wrote at the taberna, conglaciare is not classical, and was apparently invented only as a redudant equivalent to glaciare). In any event I would support the current title over that, as seeming more scientific. Pantocrator 12:30, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::::De: "conglaciare is not classical, and was apparently invented only as a redudant equivalent to glaciare"—Tell that to Cicero & Livy! IacobusAmor 17:34, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::Actually  is classical. --Fabullus 12:39, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::::Yes, apparently, I was wrong. I couldn't find it; it was nonetheless rare (and also doesn't affect discussion here, as I already agreed it would not be wrong here). Pantocrator 10:52, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: ::::::::::I also didn't object to globalis by analogy with our article on calefactio.--Ioscius  ∞ 12:01, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::That article also supports not having theoria in the title, though. Or is that a bit of ideological bias? Pantocrator 12:30, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: :::::::You haven't presented your reasoning for including theoria in the title. We have evolutio, not theoria evolutionis, mechanica quantica, not theoria mechanicae quanticae, etc. Pantocrator 18:25, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::I think theories should be presented as such. I probably would have argued for theoria in the lemma of those too. Look at relativitas specialis: Relativitas specialis sive theoria relativitatis specialis est theoria physica. Theories should be presented as such. Further, this is a pretty sketchy theory, sketchier certainly than evolution or relativity, and has a lot more holes in it. I mean the English article goes one step further and calls it a hypothesis. --Ioscius  ∞ 18:43, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Yet still they do not have 'theory' or 'hypothesis' in the title, and that is the general rule, is it not? I personally think this theory is pretty well confirmed, after having looked at the evidence myself. Pantocrator 10:34, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Yes but string theory music theory and other theories apud nos do have theoria in the lemma or theoria xxx redirects to x. Perhaps it should be done more often. Clearly our Czech friends see the need for it, and I happen to too. Having looked at the evidence myself, too, I find this an interesting theory, but certainly not confirmed, with much more work to do.--Ioscius  ∞ 11:10, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma (dubsig)

message: Nivipila. Amo illud. Quam bonum. Ex hoc verbum fingi potest "nivipilasci" (barbare "to snowball i.e. grow").
thread_title: Speculationes de uerbo nouo