Disputatio:Hobbitus

message: I will try a shot at this article some time in the near future. --Agricola 20:07, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Start by renaming it. Creatura means a female who is about to create something, or in very late latin, a creation, or servant. It does not mean "creature".--Ioshus (disp) 23:01, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, if you regard it as a future participle. But according to the Perseus Project it does mean (in Late Latin) creature. Would anima be a better translation of creature, though? --Agricola 18:31, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Animal is probably best.--Ioshus (disp) 18:35, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Species hominum, perhaps. Clearly not dwarves, and not wizards. But the dispositive answer to this question is what the book itself says hobbits are. I know where my copy is, but it's buried too deep to get at. Anybody can check. The answer is probably in one of the first few pages. IacobusAmor 03:02, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: :Iacobe, the Hobbits are indeed related to Men: It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours (....) But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. As animal means a living being, and can be used for Men, I think it can be used for Hobbits? Or is it too much like the English word animal? --Agricola 15:32, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Tolkien's dwarves, elves, and hobbits are essentially human in form, and would therefore seem to be members of genus Homo, best describable in most contexts as homines, not animalia. Latin words already available for such creatures include homunculus, nanus, and pumilio. It might be more fun for inept readers to encounter a term they recognize, something like hobbitus, but I'm not necessarily recommending that strategy. IacobusAmor 16:48, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: :I suggest nothing here either, but reply to Agricola's question. The english word animal is more restrictive than the latin word. It is simple derived from anima which means roughly spirit, or life force. So an animal in latin is anything alive.--Ioshus (disp) 17:13, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, I think we'd best go with Iacobus' suggestion, to put the Hobbit in the genus Homo, as well as Nani and Alfones. Just one more move ....

text: ::Ioshe, I've (at long last) think that a more specific word as Homo is better than a less specific term as living being / creature. --Agricola 18:49, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Could some admin move this discussion to Disputatio:Hobbit (anima). Thanx! --Agricola 18:52, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I will, but you can move pages yourself...--Ioshus (disp) 20:19, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :But you mean to Hobbit (animal)...anima means alive, it does not mean creature.--Ioshus (disp) 20:21, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, we're on the move again *sigh* --Agricola 20:31, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: ::And here we are!--Ioshus (disp) 20:34, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
As a wise man once said Homines sunt animalia, sed non bestiae, so animal shouldn't have been a problem. BUt I don't think homo is quite right either. Probably the best plan is to use Hobbit (genus), thereby sidestepping the question of what they are a race of. --Iustinus 21:14, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move please! 

message: I used the first one, belonging to the third declination, while IacobusAmor changed it to the latter. I like the first better, but what do other people think? --Agricola 08:57, 10 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was recalling that, in scientific taxonomy, all names that don't end in -a take -i in the genitive singular, implying that they're in the second declension. Otherwise, phonological analogies suggest:
replies: text: :miles, militis, m. —> Hobbes, Hobbitis, m.

text: :lapi(d)s, lapidis, m. —> Hobbi(t)s, Hobbitis, m.

text: :caput, capitis, n. —> Hobbut, Hobbitis, n.

text: Of course usage could establish an alternate rule—that, taxonomy notwithstanding, all names that don't end in an obvious declensional marker (-a; -um, -us; -men, -tio; -es; etc.) are third-declension nouns.  So: Hobbit, Hobbitis; Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejadis; Bush, Bushis; Blair, Blairis; Chavez, Chavezis; Chirac, Chiracis; Putin, Putinis; and so on: but would everybody agree? We've already seen (in another thread) that the poet John Milton printed his surname in his own book as Milton, Miltonis; Miltonium, Miltonii; and Miltonum, Miltoni. Regnat Chaos! IacobusAmor 12:25, 10 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Personally, I'd like the nominative to be the same as the word we're so familiar with, Hobbit. To decline the name like miles would make it to sound like the famous philosopher, and when like caput, it would make it neutrum, wouldn't it?  So, the only one appealingly enough to me (after Hobbit itself, of course) would be Hobbis, -tis. --Agricola 17:48, 10 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
If we are to Latinize this, I definitely prefer hobbitus (which I myself have used in my own compositions). Of course Tolkien himself might have prefered something like fossicola ;) It is true that forreign words are sometimes auto-Latinized by adding third declension endings, without worrying about nominative -s'es and such, but in general it is better to either not Latinize them at all, treating them as indeclinables (and of course italicizing them), or to Latinize them more naturally (typically, but not always, by putting them in the 1st/2nd declension). --Iustinus 23:48, 10 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbit, -tis or Hobbitus, -i? 

message: I wanted to put this picture of Wood as Frodo Baggins on this page, but somehow, it doesn't seem to work. Could anyway do the job for me? --Agricola 20:55, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the picture has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia. We can only use pictures that are on Commons. If it's possible to upload the picture to Commons, that's what you need to do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for the info; I don't have a Commons account, though ... --Agricola 15:18, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I added the three ancient Hobbit lineages — Fallohides (Pallicutes), Stoors (Stori) and Harfoots (Villopedes). I also explained the meaning of their names in the section I wrote. Alexander Gelsumis (disputatio) 19:48, 4 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De divisione generum