Disputatio:50412 Ewen

in orbem vertitur": Seneca, Quaestiones naturales

Sed Luna circa tellurem movetur 'The moon moves round the earth' = exemplar in Bradley's Arnold, #21. IacobusAmor 12:25, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quomodo ergo hunc locum Bradley's Arnoldio duce scribere vis? --Neander 12:30, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scripsi a principio "in orbem agitur" (duce Iosephus Esmond Riddle et Thomas Kerchever Arnold, A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon (1849-1872) (Textus apud Google Books)), fonte antiquo a me ignoto. De motione circa solem hic disserimus; ergo, duce Arnoldo, possumus dicere "circa solem movetur". Verba "in orbem vertitur" apud Senecam non reperio, sed fortasse male scrutatus sum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sen.QN 7.5.2 "Praeterea turbo omni nube velocius rapitur et in orbem vertitur". Sed per me sit "circa solem movetur". --Neander 13:02, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't in orbem vertitur then mean something vivid & particular, like '(re)turns to its orbit' or 'devotes itself to its orbit', rather than merely 'revolves in its orbit'? In any case, I agree that circa solem might be useful, lest (mis)readers assume circa tellurem! IacobusAmor 13:19, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides, a whirlwind is borne along more swiftly than any cloud, and rotates as on a pivot." (tr. by John Clarke). --Neander 14:24, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago. CD PHI textuum Latinorum interdum "u consonantalem" habet, interdum "v". "uertitur" igitur non repperi!

N. B. temptavi verba "perihelion" et "aphelion" in textu explicare, sed nescio an bene feci. S.v.p. emendate! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tellus/terra

A side issue to the above: in commentario Tellus (planeta), the nameless 188.142.138.1 has overnight changed all the text's instances of tellus to terra. Which is better? IacobusAmor 13:19, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed at Disputatio:Tellus (planeta). I'll copy your comment there in case anyone wants to take it up again ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Axis orbitalis habet unitatum astronomicarum 2.68"

Quae locutio est optima?

1. Axis orbitalis habet unitatum astronomicarum 2.68.

2. Axis orbitalis habet unitates astronomicas 2.68.

3. Axi orbitali sunt unitates astronomicae 2.68.

Et ordo verborum: "u.a. 2.68" aut "2.68 u.a."??? IacobusAmor 13:27, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et ego dubito, an unitatum genetivo casu uti possimus. Si litteris 2.68 scribimus, nonne est: "... habet unitates astronomicas duas et sexaginta octo centesimas"? Vel fortasse "ex unitatibus 2.68 constat"? --Neander 15:10, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volui exprimere "It has an orbital axis of 2.68 astronomical units, being at the furthest 2.91 units distant from the sun, at the nearest 2.46 units"; igitur mihi oportuit "axem orbitalem" scribere, non "axis orbitalis". Mea culpa. Quo dicto, si quis melius exprimere potest, facito! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A/ab, E/ex

Praefero "ab" et "ex" quia recipiuntur aut consonante sequente aut vocale. Textum in omnes paginas idoneum oportet praescribere, si possumus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's: "a stands before consonants except h; ab before vowels, h, and sometimes consonants; abs only sometimes before c, q, t—esp. te"; "ex before vowels always; e often before consonants." IacobusAmor 13:37, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, once got stung hard by the "e OR ex before consonants (but often e), but a ALWAYS before consonants" rule. It's why I know it so well now :) -- Robert.Baruch 14:46, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bene! Robertus et scriptum suum has distinctiones intellegunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:06, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula "Haec commentatio, ab automato incepta. . . ."

De: "Haec commentatio, ab automato incepta, data astronomica incorporat e pagina respectiva {{{Data}}} sitús Small-Body Database Browser[,] quem elaboraverunt NASA et Laboratorium Iactationis CIT":

1. Cassell's: commentatio = 'reflection, careful consideration, meditation, dissertation', sed fortasse meliora commentarius et commentarium = 'note, memorandum, note-book, diary; legal brief'; sed fortasse optimum commentariolum 'a short treatise' (which might have served for 'stipula' in the first place)?

2. Verba incorporare et respectiva videntur postclassica? IacobusAmor 19:01, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrige igitur! > {{NASA JPL}} Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ab + abl" nonnisi de agentibus humanis (vel intentionalibus); alias abl.instrumenti aut "per + acc" vel sim. § Incorporare tardioris Latinitatis est, classice fortasse colligere. § Equidem dixerim: Haec commentatio, automato praeparata / automatice praeparata, res astronomicas colligit excerptas e pagina quaque sitús Small-Body Database Browser, quem elaboraverunt NASA et Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Californiense Institutum Technologiae [cf. Massachusettense Institutum Technologiae, si rectum est]). --Neander 01:32, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et automaton non agit intentionaliter? ... ita, ita, consentio! Gratias multas ago ob mutationes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula celanda est?

If it's of interest, Wikipedia hides a partial equivalent of this formula. For example, en:Hypseleotris tohizonae is a little stipula for a little fish, but not until you go into the code do you learn, right at the top, that "This article was auto-generated by User:Polbot." IacobusAmor 00:25, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few changes

My Latinitas is pretty poor, so would someone be kind enough to make the following changes:

The ellipse formed by the orbit is described by its semimajor axis and its eccentricity. So perhaps the eccentricity phrase could be moved to the axis phrase. The perihelion and aphelion can be computed from these two parameters, but are minor (but interesting nevertheless) because the semimajor axis and eccentricity are the usual way of measuring the ellipse.
All the parameters in the second paragraph are "as of (epoch time)" as given in the infobox. The parameters are always in flux because of gravitational perturbations, so it's important to give the epoch.

-- Robert.Baruch 23:09, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try that now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go. I would be happy as usual for others to take a hand. In my mind was that we are describing things that were the way they were at a certain moment (the epoch); that's why I've used imperfects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus

De: "Asteroides 50412 Ewen per dies 1609 circa solem movebatur." The change to imperfect ('was moving') makes clear that the description refers to a specific observation, made at a specific time, but shouldn't it then be footnoted or attached to a source in a bibliography? IacobusAmor 13:21, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert may answer better than I can, but as I understand it it refers not to a specific observation but to a calculation (based on all relevant records) which was considered to be accurate for that date -- the date now given in the last sentence of the paragraph. And the source is the same source as the rest: it is the NASA JRL database, which supplies calculations for that date. Although it could be footnoted for this detail, I don't see particularly why it should be -- it's the source for the whole of our information, and is acknowledged as such. Does that answer make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is correct: these are calculated, not observed. ALL of the asteroids currently have an epoch of 4 Ian. 2010 for their orbital parameters, and they are updated monthly or less frequently, I think. Observations serve to refine the calculation, and possibly reset the data. -- Robert.Baruch 17:36, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the imperfect here may nudge readers into thinking of the asteroid's actions as if they were occurring at the time of discovery (in this case, in 2000), but if the calculation occurred so recently as this week, and is always going to be updated so as to approximate the present, wouldn't the present tense be apter than the imperfect? IacobusAmor 18:04, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know! Or you might try rephrasing so that the 'epoch' comes at the beginning of the paragraph rather than the end? Then, I think, the confusion you suggest couldn't arise. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried that solution. See if it makes better sense now. Beginning, I hope, "The calculation of orbital matters was established for the epoch of 4 January 2010 ..." and then proceeding to state how things were looking on that day. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:03, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The orbital element data isn't going to change unless someone regenerates all the data files. So it's possible that the epoch will remain at 4 Ian 2010 for the next year or more. For example, see the epoch at en:990 Yerkes which hasn't been updated since 2005. -- Robert.Baruch 22:08, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excentricitas?

Nonne excentricitatem? Nescius mutare non audeo, sed syntaxi carere videtur. --Neander 13:56, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ita! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cur 'exc-' ? 'centr-' non est Latinum, nec 'ex-' debet ita esse—est 'ἐκ-' Graece, ut in ἔκκεντρος. Libri apud Googlen frequentius habent 'eccentricitas' quam 'excentricitas'; ut videtur, eccentricitatem dicit Ioannes Keplerus [1]. —Mucius Tever 16:22, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recte mones. Mutavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]