Disputatio:Doc McStuffins

message: ... of emending boldly, since I wanted to make this a page of the day. Doesn't stop anyone reverting or editing further, and any of this might be (slightly) more widely noticed than otherwise!
It isn't, in my view, proper for an encyclopaedia to state as true (present indicative) things that are reported or presented but aren't true. The way to do it in Latin, luckily more easily and completely applicable than in any other language I can think of, is the accusative and infinitive (along with which go subordinate clauses in the subjunctive). See Caesar De Bello Gallico for many lengthy examples. So I tried to apply this. I may have erred because I have never seen this programme: I assumed that Doc McStuffins is a virtual puppet, a creation of the animators, but if Doc McStuffins is a real puppet the result might not be very different.
Dottie could well be Dorothea in Latin, but who knows? I suggested "Doctula" rather than "Doctiola", but, unsure whether this would be approved, I changed some of the mentions to Dottie ad interim. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 11 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know why she is "Dottie". My assumption is that it's either another diminutive of "doctor" or due to her freckles - or more probably a bit of both.  I have seen many episodes in French, and there she always was "Doc" only.  Same for the rare ones I've seen in German and for the one I just checked in English on Youtube. So, I think it's fair enough to just go for "Doctula".  As for "Doctiola", that was my inspiration from Cicero's daughter (Tullia=Tulliola), but I'm fine with "Doctula". Sigur (disputatio) 20:45, 11 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :The Ciceronian parallel didn't occur to me, sorry! Yes, better to drop "Dottie" if we don't really understand it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:05, 11 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Let's hear more voices on this, if possible. As to your syntax, I think I've finally understood most of it (tough one for me...). Just two questions: What is this "ipsamque que", and why is "possint" in the plural? For me the subject was Doc (it's her who can do that with her stethoscope). Sigur (disputatio) 21:17, 11 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, thank you: a typo: the -que didn't demand repeating. And a slip: the subject of "possint" is "res ... pueriles" but the subordinate infinitive should have been passive "with which toys ... can be called to life". Does that make sense? I don't know that there was any special reason to use the passive, but that was my (unachieved) aim! I've corrected the sentence now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 12 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I haven't seen your changes, so I've done them myself.  I've also eliminated the name "Dottie".  I think that your passive makes a lot of sense, because now I'm thinking of this, if my recollection is correct, Doc doesn't need to do anything special with her stethoscope, the magic kicks in whenever she is alone with her toys and stops when another human approaches. Sigur (disputatio) 13:43, 12 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Thanks again ... I made the changes in the edit window and didn't save ... It's been a busy day. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 12 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I took the liberty ...