Disputatio:Kibbutz

message: Can I ask what is dubius or unintelligible in this article?--Jondel (disputatio) 10:40, 23 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the way I prefer to do it -- I prefer to put things right myself when I have a moment -- but, since you ask, Jondel, here goes:

text: *"Pluralis" is an adjective, masc. or fem. nom. or gen., so what does it agree with?

text: *"Collective" seems to be an adverb, Eng. collectively: don't know how that fits or what it means in context

text: *Israel is a link to a discretiva page -- needs correcting

text: *"qua" is fem. ablative sg. or neut. nom./acc. plural: not sure what it relates to in the main clause or what its status is in the relative clause

text: *"fuit" is 3rd pers. sg. perfect. What is its subject? The subject of "est" is "kibbutz", so "fuit" would call for a separately identifiable subject

text: *"traditione" is ablative, "by tradition". Not sure how that's going to fit in yet

text: *"colonia rustica Israeliana" could be nominative or ablative. Might it be the subject of "fuit"? If so I'd have expected it to come before "fuit". Might it be the predicate? But then I don't see how "traditione fundata in agricultura et in effectu" fits in as part of the same clause

text: *"in agricultura et in effectu" sounds OK, but is hard to get a logical meaning from it: in agriculture and in effect?

text: *Word forms in the second sentence are probably OK: we shouldn't repeat "fundata" but use the synonym "condita" perhaps. The word order is odd: we need to decide what the news is (was founded in 1990 perhaps) and what the bonus info is (called Degania perhaps) and rearrange a bit. But my problem with the second sentence is that surely there were kibbutzim many years before 1990: so maybe I have completely misunderstood this after all?

text: *Assuming "agricultura" is the subject of the third sentence, what does it mean exactly? I guess perhaps "the form of agriculture practised in kibbutzim"? I need help on that 
Of course, someone else may understand these things better than I do, and anyone is free to revise my estimate, or of course to go right ahead and improve the text! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 23 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Andrew. I regret imposing so much work on you. I will look at these , this week end.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:16, 23 Maii 2014 (UTC)

text: Since you asked, I did just this. Afterwards I found that your "1990" is only a tiny slip of the keyboard -- kibbutzim actually began in 1909 :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:28, 23 Maii 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again Andrew!
My violent reactions sweet and groveling suggestive comments:

text: *"Pluralis" was meant to say 'The plural of Kibbutz is 'Kibbutzim'

text: *<S>"Collective" </S>remove

text: *Israel is a link to a discretiva page -- needs correcting
Create correct link

text: *"qua" change to et.

text: *"fuit" - What is its subject? The subject of "est" is "kibbutz", so "fuit" would call for a separately identifiable subject=> no change, the qua to et change fixes this.

text: *"traditione" =>more maiorum

text: *"colonia rustica Israeliana" could be nominative or ablative. Might it be the subject of "fuit"? If so I'd have expected it to come before "fuit". Might it be the predicate? But then I don't see how "traditione fundata in agricultura et in effectu" fits in as part of the same clause
Ans:Nominative: It was meant to say , I believe: It is a rustic Israel colony  See below

text: *"in agricultura et in effectu"  => for practical purposes Would you know a great way to express this?: in agriculture and in effect?  =>founded in agriculture but for practical purposes , it was a rustic Israel colony.

text: *Word forms : I will try to fit in subject est adjective forms , or subject object verb.

text: fundata =>change to condita, and minimize repetitions.
in the second sentence are probably OK: we shouldn't repeat "fundata" but use the synonym "condita" perhaps. The word order

text: 1990 was probably a mistake which I will check at the English wiki and change appropriately (to 1909)

text: Kibbutzim = many Kibbutzes or maybe we should try to latinize the plurality of kibbutz( yes?): Kibbutzi?

text: Degania was the  the first kibbutz.

text: The first kibbutzes were based on agriculture, then they got industrialized.
I will be making appropriate changes. Is this ok?--Jondel (disputatio) 12:33, 24 Maii 2014 (UTC)

text: I think you should stick with kibbutzim. People will probably understand "pl." in this context, but if you want to spell it out it would be "plurale" (neuter, because a word is neuter). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:33, 24 Maii 2014 (UTC)
The suggested changes were made. Do you think we can remove the '-4 (corrigenda) Latinitas ' notice now?--Jondel (disputatio) 11:23, 31 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Latinitas