Disputatio:Trafalgaris Pugna

message: Fuitne haec pugna anno 1805?--Schulz-Hameln 15:44, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Errorem pudendum! Itast, mehercule! Errorem in scribendo feci: nam, si leges descriptionem imaginis, scripsi "1805". Potesne mihi dicere quo modo possim titulum redirigere et revertere? Gratias tibi.--Alexander Gelsumis 15:48, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mutavi. Sed (si necesse sit) et tu potes id facere: vide "Movere" ad caput huius paginae. Gratias ago ob paginam novam! Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
replies: text: ::Id faciam si sit necesse. Gratias ago tibi, Andrew. Vale! --Alexander Gelsumis 16:05, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

message: According to Ainsworth, the usual preposition for denoting an offshore point specified in relation to an onshore point is ante, not apud. That's not to say, of course, that anybody would misunderstand the sense intended. Are there perhaps early nineteenth-century Latin attestations of the name of the battle? IacobusAmor 15:38, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I perfectly understand what you mean and I have to say that ante seems to be more correct than apud. Actually, I have checked up on this and I have found that Tacitus himself used to write "apud promunturium", denoting an onshore point. Instead ante was used to refer to an offshore place - I have read this especially in Pliny the Elder. I haven't found any earlier attestation of the name of the battle but I think it wouldn't be uncorrect to modify the title of this article to be a bit more accurate. Thank you for your help. Alexander Gelsumis 14:16, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Since Trafalgaris Pugna, an attestation from only a couple of years after the battle, has turned up, that should probably be the primary name of the battle, followed by Pugna ante Trafalgarem as an alternate name. IacobusAmor 14:21, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I have just seen it in the notes. Pugna navalis ante Trafalgarem (1805) could be a good alternative, I suppose. Alexander Gelsumis 14:36, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Ante'' vs. ''apud''

message: Poematis versus
replies: text: Conjunctas classes prope saxa Trafalgaris alba
nobis rectam dat locutionem: Trafálgar, Trafálgaris (non Trafálgar, Trafalgáris). IacobusAmor 14:56, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hispanico sermone dicamus Trafalgár--Xaverius 15:21, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::No importa. Latín se habla aquí. :) IacobusAmor 16:10, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trafálgar, Trafálgaris

message: May I inquire why the definition describes this great victory as a military defeat (clades)? Surely that's a POV? And it's not sanctioned by ancient attestation, as is the Clades Variana, which of course for the non-Romans wasn't a defeat at all, but a great victory. IacobusAmor 16:21, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry for that, I changed it for proelium. And it is nontheless a great defeat for the French (and us).--Xaverius 17:10, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, but wasn't Spain at the time Napoleon's puppet?—in which case, you can blame it entirely on the French! IacobusAmor 18:50, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::We do blame the French, but until 1808 we did not get a truly puppet king!--Xaverius 19:29, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clades?

message: I was about to move the page to Trafalgaris Pugna, but noticed that someone thought it important to include the year in the title. Is there more than one battle of Trafalgar?--Rafaelgarcia 19:16, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am aware of--Xaverius 19:29, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus