Disputatio:Thomas Aquinas

message: Cur Thomas nomen in casu ablativo positum est?  —Myces Tiberinus 00:05 ian 3, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#First_declension_Greek_nouns
replies: text: : Nunc casu nominativo est, sed olim (cum hoc scripsi) "Thoma Aquinas" dixit.   —Myces Tiberinus 10:39, 1 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
German traditio Thomas Aquin? Non -as. (H. Meyer, Thomas von Aquin Bonn 1938. --213.35.182.171 20:42, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The usor Thomas Aquinatis is editing this article with the translation Thomas Aquinatis for Thomas Aquinas.  Is this correct?? What justifies the genitive? A historical Source?--Rafaelgarcia 23:57, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

message: Apparently this is a quote. WHere does the quotation end. If this is an encyclopedia, where is the commentary pertainting to the quote?--Rafaelgarcia 01:31, 2 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductoria verba de Actibus Sanctorum:

message: This page is a total mess. The users are apparently having discussions right on the page! What ever happened to objectivity?--Rafaelgarcia 04:48, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How true! I have removed the discussion section and placed it below. That's a start, anyway. But the page is still a mess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:59, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I removed yet more (vide infra), but the page remains typographically confused, what with all those quotations & all. IacobusAmor 11:37, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A mess

message: :Secundum sententiam Reverendi Gilliami Lavadae , Doctrina Ecclesiae Catholicae  numquam mutaverit. Lege pro teipsum eius documentum: "RESPONSA AD QUAESTIONES DE ALIQUIBUS SENTENTIIS AD DOCTRINAM DE ECCLESIA PERTINENTIBUS"
replies: text: "1. Quaeritur: Utrum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II mutaverit praecedentem doctrinam de Ecclesia ?

text: Respondetur: Noluit mutare, at evolvere, profundius intellegere et fecundius exponere voluit, nec eam mutavisse dicendum est."

text: Cur Latina lingua utenda est ab Ecclesia Romana in Theologia Liturgiaque eius? Vide:  Qui est iste Gilliamus Lavadus?!  Nonne est stupidus episcopus de USA?! Nonne est de Portlandia Oregonensis qui novit nihil de Fide? Nonne est episcopus proferens multa conta Fidem Catholicam passim in localis? REMOVEATUR de Vaticani officio! Nunc! -- [Commentum anonymum a pagina Sanctus Thomas Aquinas remotum]
thread_title:  Commentarium in Ecclesia Romana Moderna 

message: In memoriam perpetuam: haec verba extranea ex commentario hodie removimus (IacobusAmor 11:33, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)):
replies: text: Introductoria verba de Actibus Sanctorum:

text: Deus, qui dixit de tenebris lumen splendescere, modernis temporibus quasi ad mundi vesperam, cum videbatur in suis manibus lumen suæ notitiae abscondisse, radiis novi luminis iterum Ecclesiae miseratus, illuxit: et quot Doctoribus fideles suos noviter docuit, quasi tot sideribus mundum mirabiliter illustravit. Nam cum illa Dei Sapientia, Verbum Patris, manifestata fuisset in carne, ut omnem hominem illustraret in mente, et prima dispensatione immediate Apostolis illuxisset, posita sunt per eos prima fidei fundamenta, sicut de ortu Domini, quasi de lapicidina totius Ecclesiae sunt excisa: a quibus velut a clipeis aureis, ab ipso Sole Iustitiae illustratis, secunda dispensatione divini Verbi, Doctores Ecclesiae quasi montes divinae speculationis altissimi splenduerunt. Qui, sicut exigebat errorum diversitas, et suadebat veritas fidei inspirata; de utriusque Testamenti velamine intelligentiam in apertam notitiam educentes, quot libros, Spiritu Sancto revelante, scripserunt, quasi tot turres cum propugnaculis adversus hæreticorum machinas fabricaverunt. Qui velut Ioseph providentiam imitantes, de veteris & novi Testamenti segetibus excussa frumenta divini eloquii, quasi in quibusdam horreis, collegerunt in libris.
thread_title: Verba remota

message: Item, haec verba removimus (IacobusAmor 11:36, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)):
replies: text: Intentio mea, contra Vicipaediae Mandationem in Vicificando, est tolerare sententias Thomae primerias. Loquetur se Ipse Thoma!
thread_title: Alia verba remota

message: Quid est rectum huius sancti nomen? Care usor ignote (nomine Thomas Aquinatis), est hominis nomen Thomas Aquinas (gen. Thomae Aquinatis) vel, secundum tu, ut videtur, Thoma Aquinatis (gen. Thoma Aquinatis?)? Si tibi placet, monstra nobis attestiones. Sicut rogat Rafael supra, "The usor Thomas Aquinatis is editing this article with the translation Thomas Aquinatis for Thomas Aquinas. Is this correct?? What justifies the genitive? A historical Source?--Rafaelgarcia 23:57, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)" IacobusAmor 01:08, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen rectum

message: Hoc novum "A.D." delevimus. Care usor (dico Anglice), you're making changes that aren't in keeping with Vicipaedia's style. I've left some unaltered, but they need to be readdressed. IacobusAmor 01:11, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A.D.

message: Would there be any objection to my making large revisions to the Sententiae praeclarae Thomae section? It seems that it was started as a famous quotations section and turned into a collection of passages attempting to summarise his system in his own words. 
It seems like it might be good to scale down the current section to truly famous lines (gratia naturam perficit non tollit, etc) and create a new section on Aquinas's system, breaking in his thought into major areas and attempting to breifly summarise his major points, using quotation as necessary to clarify, and drawing out those aspects of his thought which set him off from his predecessors and contemporaries. 
Perhaps sections on Moral and ethical thought (including natural and civil law, political theory, virues, double effect, and action theory), natural philosophy (hylomorphism, material individuation), epistemology, Meaphysics/natural theology. 
Any thoughts or oppinions?
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea in general. However, based on my own process of learning, I found it better to sharpen my latin by first writing articles on less philosophical topics, like short biographies of politicians, city summaries, simple inventions, etc... Dealing with philosophical topics means dealing with jargon, bad/ecclesiastical latin expressions of medievals, etc.. It is better to master arithmetic before attempting algebra, algebra before calculus and calculus before differential geometry.--Rafaelgarcia 15:52, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :IIRC, medieval philosophy developed new terms (e.g., ens, entis) and new meanings for old terms, so it'd be a way of learning new vocabulary. But then it would be useful to explain such new terms. For example, I see inquantum in the present text, but it isn't in Cassell's (though in quantum is, under quantum). IacobusAmor 16:16, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yeah, my guess is that inquantum is an attempt by Aquinas to translate qua in expressions such as being qua being in a non-greek latin way. So that he would say ens inquantum ens instead of ens qua ens. But I am not familiar with this to comment.  This is part of what I see would be the problem Wm taking this on straight away: he is still trying to master basic grammar, even as he simulaneously proposes taking on complex jargon-filled philosophical ideas. But these are ideas that certainly I do not understand and so cannot help in translating very much. I'm not sure any of us are. Maybe those interested should try to develop a Glossarium/presentation of terms used by Scholastics and Aquinas in particular, with english and latin translations.--Rafaelgarcia 16:30, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: I cut my (passive knowledge, latin to english) teeth on the De ente et essentia, so I'm much more comfortable with 13th cent. philosophical jargon and syntax than with more standard latin. I do, patently, have difficulty with composition (I've never had need to do much). Could I start on the glossarium of scholastic terms, as suggested? If so, where should it go? Aside from my own exposure to these terms I also own Defarrari's Thomistic lexicon, which tends to come in handy in these matters. Wmdiem 17:25, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good (the intention to remodel the quotation section in the way you suggest also sounds good). If you made a page such as Glossarium Thomisticum or Philosophiae scholasticae glossarium, it could then be linked to this and other relevant pages. The simplest way to format a list or glossary is to put an asterisk at the beginning of each line, thus:
*Esse: ...
*Non esse: ... 
*etc. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:06, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
It's started: Usor:Wmdiem/Glossarium Thomisticum. Wmdiem 22:59, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: Cur, cur, cur "SANCTUS"? Hic philosophus Thomas Aquinas a viris doctis laicis apelletur, "SANCTUS" est cognomen ab Ecclesia Romana ei datum et tunc non pars necessaria nominis sui!--21:47, 19 Ianuarii 2009 79.162.39.11 
replies: text: Sanctus est designatio eius in Ecclesia Catholica Romana.Exempli gratia habemus alias designationes sicut obispus, cardinalis, presbyter, etc...--Rafaelgarcia 01:54, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, sed talibus titulis ad initium nominum paginarum non utimur. Re vera credo, si nomina cum Sanctus ... incipimus, ecclesiae statuta posteriora et p. o. v. confirmamus. Thomas Aquinas (et Gregorius Turonensis etc.) propono. [-- P. S. De Gregorio vide id quod apud Disputatio Usoris:LionhardusCiampa#Some new saints olim dixi.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Probe dicis, amice. Fortasse lemma melius scribendum est "Thomas Aquinas, a multis Christianis dictus Sanctus Thomas Aquinas." Similiter fortasse "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, late dictus Mahatma Gandhi, ab Indianis Bapu, a suis Gandhiji." IacobusAmor 12:08, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

text: ::Ita, nunc video quod dicis. Consentio sic agere, sed nonne quoque oportet scribere postea "Sanctus Thomas"?--Rafaelgarcia 12:07, 20 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cur sanctus?