Disputatio:Hobbit (liber)

E Vicipaedia

Shouldn't the opening sentence read "Hobbit est fabula [quae] scripta est a Iohanno Ronaldo Reuel Tolkien."? Alexanderr 20:05, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe, I'm not that good in Latin (yet).
I had a question myself also: what's the ablative of Johannes? I see I constructed it like it belongs to the first declination, which it obviously doesn't belong to. So, should it be Johanne? --Agricola 20:16, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not all that good myself :D and quite possibly am wrong. That's just how I'd phrase it... Anyways according to the vulgate the ablative is Ioanne. Alexanderr 20:31, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Iohannes, Iohannis, Iohanni, Iohannem, Iohanne, third declension.--Ioshus (disp) 20:35, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Also wouldn't it be "ab Io(h)anne"? Alexanderr 20:36, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex and Ioshus! Had a look myself in the Vulgate (an online edition) and had found out already, but thanks anyway!
Don't know whether it should be a or ab. Does it matter that the I in Iohanne is pronounces as a consonant? --Agricola 20:40, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well it appears that Iesus is "ab Iesu" in the ablative so if it follows the same pattern it would be "ab" aswell. Also I do wonder if "visus est" is the right word, for "is recognized as" in latin. It seems like an anglicism. Alexanderr 20:43, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I've indeed found in the Vulgate the phrase ab Iohanne; so that's correct.
Visum est basically means, of course, it is seen/perceived, which is what I meant to say.
As to your other edits: proferre is a good word for publish, IMHO, and I don't see, why that sentence should be cut in two. The first sentence can be rendered, I think, as Hobbit fabula ab Iohanne Ronaldo Reuel Tolkien scripta est. --Agricola 20:57, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Ab is correct before vowels, semi vowels, h, and anywhere else you might not be sure. Visum est is past tense, it does not mean it is seen, but it was seen. This verb, in the passive, does mean "seem". "Videtur insolitum"=>"it seems weird". Proferre is not the best word for publish.--Ioshus (disp) 23:05, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't mind which word we use for publishing, but I don't see why those sentences should be conjoined. It seems to me that there is no obvious correlation between the two subjects, but maybe we can write it as " In anno 1937 Liber, qui saepe visus est praelusionem esse libri Tolkiniesis Domini Anulorum, prolatus est". Or at least that is how I'd do it. Not saying its correct or anything, just that that's how I'd phrase it. Alexanderr 21:25, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
edo, edere, edidi, editus - to publish, nisi fallor. Sinister Petrus 23:09, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Cave ne falli, Petre! Edo, edere significat "cibum ingerere". Edo, edare, ededi, edatus est "to publish."--Ioshus (disp) 23:30, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Mehercle, Ioshe! Ecce:
Edo, edere, edi, esum = 'to eat'
Edo, edere, edidi, editum = 'to publish'
IacobusAmor 01:07, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Summisse miror...--Ioshus (disp) 01:14, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Vae mihi! Fallor iterum. Ita vero, bene sciebam esse discrimen inter "edere" et "edare." Sed partem secundam oblitus sum, ergo "edere" nec "edare." Quamquam tres partes correctae erat. Nonne? Sinister Petrus 01:29, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)