Disputatio:Rami Militares CFA

message: Por favor, what is this sentence trying to say in its original language? IacobusAmor 16:37, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the comments at the disputatio for the previous page Disputatio: Corpores Militare Vestimentum Habentes Civitatum Foederatarum Americae--Rafaelgarcia 16:49, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ex quimque horum exercitus constituitur."

message: there is not an original language,latine cogito ac scribo.
What are we going to do about this title...it makes me dizzy! It looks like this is the article about the armed forces, not the uniforms, yes? --Ioshus (disp) 17:30, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that he is trying to translate :en:Military of the United States --Rafaelgarcia 17:42, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I :en:Uniformed services of the United States This is the page.
How can I delete a page or change its title?

text: You can't delete a page and you shouldn't try. It's bad practice to empty a page. But changing its title is easy! Just click on the tab Movere at the top of the screen. However, best of all is to discuss changes, and wait for reaction, before renaming. There's no rush!
replies: text: :My apologies. It's been pointed out to me that anonymous users don't have the movere tab. Just one more reason to get an account and join us fully! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes you need to think about things afresh rather than just translate from the first language that comes to mind. Are the uniforms so important to the whole concept that they deserve three-sevenths of the title? And why the bodies? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:25, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, to be more constructive: for a branch of the armed services the word ala has been used in Latin ("wing", literally). I haven't found a good term for "uniformed/liveried" yet, unless signatus would do. My first suggestion for "uniformed services" is alae signatae. I bet someone will soon improve on it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hmm. I thought ala was more like cornu in indicating a part of an army on a battlefield, rather than a branch of service (air force, army, coast guard, marine corps, navy, etc.). IacobusAmor 18:08, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: ::In many cases copiae works very well for "services; corps" but whether or not it works here depends on what we figure out for "uniformed" (again, if that's really necessary). FOr the concept of "a uniform", Morgan cites Levine as using vestis distincta and Petrus Australianus cites Suetonius' habitus manipularius. But honestly I don't see why (vestis) uniformis couldn't work in the right context. But none of these address the adjective "uniformed," which while it does literally mean "having military garb," well... it's really a more subtle word than that, isn't it? In that sense signatus is pretty good. --Iustinus 17:32, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :I would think Rami militares would name the commentarius appropriately.  There's hardly any difference between the english pages :en:Military of the United States and :en:Uniformed services of the United States in terms of their content. The difference is only a matter of a legal distinction with regard to this section 10 thing mentioned but that is just a distinction to be made in the english language.--Rafaelgarcia 19:05, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think 'COPIAE' is very good instead of 'CORPORA'.If you can,change it.

text: The trouble I have with copiae is that it means troops as in forces bearing arms. Whereas apparently some military are not serving in such roles. If you want to name the pages so as to encompass the military of the USA then perhaps Militia CFA would be a better name.--Rafaelgarcia 08:52, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC) 
where are you all from?

text: You can see in our user pages who we are and wherefrom.  You should click the link on the upper hand corner and make yourself a user page too. --Rafaelgarcia 08:49, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ummm, North and Hillard should discuss this in full... somebody please remind me to look later tonight, when I unpack my books!! I have been running around like crazy, and I am sure to forget!--Ioshus (disp) 14:00, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Marinum Corpus": marines are classiarii. IacobusAmor 01:44, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  egad 

message: Rafael, significan "rami"?--Ioscius (disp) 16:09, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rami = Branches, as in "military branches of the united states" which I think is sufficiently more general than "Branches of the US military". Oh oops. Yeah should be Rami not Ramae.Grrr.--Rafaelgarcia 16:41, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Perhaps the thrust of Ioscius's question concerns the appropriateness of the word itself. To use ramus here may be imposing on Latin a development that happened in English. Let me explain. A ramus in Latin is basically a material offshoot of a tree. The first clearcut use of it in English to mean 'a component portion of an organization or system' dates from 1712 ("A mixt Government consisting of three Branches"). It's a fair guess that had that sense existed in Latin in prior centuries, it would have been taken over into English sooner. OED2 doesn't show any use of branch in a military sense. Therefore, that metaphor may be quite recent, even a twentieth-century concept. If so, the use of ramus for it may be, not a natural development in the Latin language, but a hijacking of Latin to meet the demands of English. This reasoning could be wrong, of course; and the discussion could be helped with more data: did the Romance languages develop ramus to mean 'a component portion of an organization or system' naturally, in the middle ages or Renaissance? or did they develop it at about the same time as English? or do they have such a metaphor at all? It may turn out that the most natural Latin term for this concept would be one of those heavy-duty little words that we ignore at our linguistic peril, like pars or genus. IacobusAmor 18:58, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Actually, my error in using rama rather than ramus came from my spanish background: Rama is spanish for branch and, yes, it is used in spanish quite generally in the same way that branch in english is used to indicate a branch of government. As to why the masculine in latin turned into the feminine in spanish, this is beyond me ability to guess.I would guess using tree branch to mean a branch of something not tree is general amongst most languages, but I haven't attempted a survey of it.--Rafaelgarcia 01:04, 11 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I'd guess the opposite. It doesn't in Hawaiian & Samoan, for example. My dictionary says Spanish rama 'branch' has the secondary meaning of 'a printer's chase' (a sense the English word branch doesn't have), and ramal 'branch, spur' has secondary meanings of 'offshoot' and 'strand of a rope' (the latter also missing from English); neither set of glosses mentions the idea of "a component of the national military establishment." What's metaphorically obvious in one language may not be in another.  IacobusAmor 03:28, 11 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Iacobus I think you know more languages than I do. However, I can only assure you that it does work in spanish and italian as simple google seaches on "ramas del gobierno" and "rami del governo" will demonstrate. On the other hand, I also admit it would not necessarily work in Latin, which is what matters, and so it may have been presumptuous for me to assume that it would. Nevertheless I think the present translation is as not as offensive as the previous one.--Rafaelgarcia 05:18, 11 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: nomen