Disputatio:Hierosolyma

message: Uhmmm...why can't we just title this article Jerusalem? I mean that appears to be the word used in the Vulgata. Alexanderr 06:21, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
The Vulgata uses 'Hierusalem'. And as far as I know, the quote form the Psalmorum liber in the beginning is incorrect. It sounds: "1 [...] laetatus sum in his quae dicta sunt mihi in domum Domini ibimus 2 stantes erant pedes nostri in atriis tuis Hierusalem" source: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/psalms.html#121 --89.134.19.17 19:01, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

message: The use of the verb 'usurpo, ~are' is far from neutral in this article and, indeed, very controverisal: "Israel civitas hodierna sibi Hierosolyma sicut caput usurpat". Such publications as encyclopaedias should never present one's opinions as facts. Why not reformulate this sentence and write, e.g. "urbem caput fecit"? - [Anon]
replies: text: There's a whole lot about this on the English page, and it may be that in distilling the whole lot into one word I didn't get the right word :) But your solution would be worse: it would hide the fact that there is a dispute. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 25 Martii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :According to Cassell's, Latin usurpatio means 'a using, use, making use [of]', not 'a usurpation'. Perhaps our anonymous friend thinks Latin usurpare means the same thing as English usurp. According to Cassell's, the Classical Latin verb generally means 'to make use of, to use, to bring into use'; it has the technical legal sense of 'to take possession of' (so used by Cicero). It's often a term of recourse in modern Latin because of a conjugational peculiarity of the basic verb, uti 'to make use of'. Still, in some contexts, the senses of English 'use' and 'usurp' might overlap a bit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:15, 25 Martii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: I'm afraid that "sibi Hierosolyma sicut caput usurpat" may have, certainly unintendedly, an anti-Israel POV in it. In classical Latin, (sic)ut tends to be understood, not as simple 'as', but rather 'as though it were', and certainly usurpare doesn't alleviate this problem. Given this, I changed the construction, making use of uti. The presence of the dispute is duly indicated by what follows. Neander (disputatio) 05:51, 26 Martii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Your version reads better, but be aware that the conjunction as in native speakerish is indistinguishable from as if, which Merriam-Webster gives for a synonym of it (and as though is the same as as if). The statement A uses B as a C means the same as A uses B as if it were a C, so "Israel uses Jerusalem as its capital" is identical with "Israel uses Jerusalem as if it were its capital." Perhaps a clearer and even more neutral (if such a thing were possible) solution would be something along the lines of "Israel, by law #... passed in 19.., declared Jerusalem to be its capital." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:49, 26 Martii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Iacobe, thanks for pointing out this! I agree that uses/utitur may not be the most adequate way to describe the status of Jerusalem. I changed the wording in accordance with your suggestion. Neander (disputatio) 16:00, 26 Martii 2013 (UTC)

text: :::Fine, that solution works well as far as I'm concerned. Yes, you're right, the existence of a dispute was indicated anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 26 Martii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: usurpatio?

message: Qui christiani sunt, nonne Palaestinenses sunt? (Et re vera, ut puto, non dicti. Nam si Palaestinenses re vera non sunt, quid profecto tandem sint?) --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:55, 7 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Partem sententiae omittis: tam "Iudaei, Israelitae dicti" quam "Mahometani, Palaestinenses dicti" insunt. De participatione Christianorum in hoc tumultu recenti, nihil dicimus. Compendiose scribere voluimus, sed tibi certe melioribus verbis augere licet, mi Bavarese. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 7 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "incolae enim Mahometani, Palaestinenses dicti," 

message: Imagines heri ab usore 95.187.249.177 inseritae exsistentiam civitatis Israël negant. Peto a curatoribus, ut correcturam aptam invenirent. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 07:15, 7 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Talia infantilia quater hoc anno addita sunt. Primo Vicipaediano, qui additionem videt, oportet removere. Tu autem (qua ratione nescio!) mutationes nuper factas accipiens alias mutationes fecisti. Ita correctionem vandalismi praecedentis paulo difficiliorem reddidisti ... sed res est parvi momenti, mi Bis-Taurine. Correxi mutationesque tuas denuo restitui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 7 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Num Israël non exsistit?