Disputatio:Harrius Potter

Harrius Potter fuit pagina mensis Februarii 2012.

Nomen

Formam genitivam "Harri Potteri" (vel "Harrii Potteri" nonnumquam, videtur) non intellego. Si "Potter" est nominativum, cur "Potteri" genitivum nec "Potter" nec "Potteris"? Plurima nomina insolita peregrinave esse aut indeclinata aut tertiae declinationis cogitaveram. Quae nomina hominum (non modo "puer, pueri") in lingua Latina classica ad hunc modum declinant? -Adamas 14:16, 11 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odoacer, Odoacri; ergo Potter, Pottri (non Potteri)? IacobusAmor 01:38, 23 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asper, Asperi; Falacer, Falacris --Iustinus 03:33, 23 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liber ipse ita nomen declinat. Ut videtur, Needham redditor voluit casus nominativos similes formis Anglicis tenere: ita, Potter, Potteri; Hagrid, Hagridi; Norbert, Norberti. (Etiam 'Voldemort', qui certe 'mors, mortis' indicat, habet genetivum 'Voldemortis' cum nominativo 'Voldemort'.) —Myces Tiberinus 11:05, 20 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latinizationes quibus usus est ille sunt omnino malae, et inopinatae. Sed cum sit versio sollemnis et latina, non possumus obstare. --Iustinus 22:43, 22 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Oops. I seem to have edited an obsolete version. Could somebody revert it to the previous version, but change "Mortales Insigniae" to standard Latin? IacobusAmor 03:20, 12 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro certo!--Ioscius ^(disp) 03:54, 12 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de libris

I changed

[[Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum]] ([[December 2006]], interprete [[Petrus Needham|Petro Needham]], ISBN 0-7475-8877-5)

to

[[Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum]] (December [[2006]], interprete [[Petrus Needham|Petro Needham]], ISBN 159990067X)

because I failed to find the former ISBN on both Barnes & Noble's and Amazon's websites. If I missed something, please change accordingly. --UV 17:12, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henricus Figulus?

Do we have a fons for this? From a quick googling it looks like it's just a few extreme bloggers getting offended by the book's title. Harrissimo.

Abdidi. Mattie 18:13, 17 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corce

Nomen "corx" non scio. Lapsusne orthographicus esse potest? (I.H. 14.10.07)

Ego quoque sentio erratum esse. Quid dicunt Harrii Potteri studiosi?--Rafaelgarcia 23:30, 13 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tituli transducti

Fontem pro "HP et Philosophi Lapis" et "HP et Camera Secretorum" habemus, sed unde veniant hi tituli?

Harrius Potter et Captivus Azkabani (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) (1999, ISBN 0-7475-4215-5)

Harrius Potter et Ignis Calix (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) (2000, ISBN 0-7475-4624-X)

Harrius Potter et Phoenicis Ordo (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) (2003, ISBN 0-7475-5100-6)

Harrius Potter et Princeps Mixticius (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) (2005, ISBN 0-7475-8110-X)

Harrius Potter et Mortalia Insignia (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) (2007, ISBN 0-7475-9105-9)

Mea scientia libri in linguam Latinam non transducti sunt; an Needham hos titulos probaret nescimus. Nisi displicet, titulos Latinos inter parentheses ponam, et Anglicis titulis nexus erit. Mattie 18:21, 17 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consentio (nisi fons reperitur). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 17 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the source is the same one I had suggested for lingua Vallensis -- the page that goes something like "Titles available in the Harry Potter series (in reading order)." Which is not a good source because we don't know whether Needham wrote it himself (as we discussed on Lingua Vallensis!). To emphasise that point, HP et Philosophi Lapis states on that very page that the second book is called HP et Camera Rerum Arcanarum, while it's actually called HP et Camera Secretorum! Mattie 19:00, 17 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may think me inconsistent, but I would accept that as an OK source, temporarily, for the titles of future Harry Potter translations. They may indeed change, as you exemplify -- people change their minds -- but publishers are the best available authority on their own future plans. So if those titles have really been published in that form, I think I would favour adopting them (indicating in the footnote where we got them from, and revising them if necessary when a translation is published). But I don't feel strongly about this, and you give a very good reason for making the other choice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 18 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That I know of, there are no plans to publish any more Latin translations, which is why I'll have to disagree. The book "Harrius Potter et Captivus Azkabani" doesn't actually exist — HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban does, as well as HP et le prisonnier d'Azkaban, etc., but since there's no Latin translation, I'd stick to the original English. Mattie 15:44, 18 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I don't object! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 18 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! Mattie 16:47, 18 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

x becomes y

Hmm, I'm not sure what the proper Latin phrasing is for sentences such as "The books were made into a film series." Help? :) Mattie 07:05, 2 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be wrong:Libri series pellicularum facti sunt.

"Libri in pelliculas (con)versi sunt"? IacobusAmor 14:26, 2 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutavi. Gratias ago! Mattie 22:59, 2 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero would have been a bit puzzled by it (he wasn't a great filmgoer) but, yes, I think Iacobus's is the right answer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 3 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'The books were turned into pictures'. (Preserving series is unnecessary.) It's just a suggested extension of the idiom for the idea of translating: e Graeco in Latinum (con)vertere 'to translate from Greek into Latin'. A more closely parallel extension of that might be something like Narratio e libris in pelliculas conversa est. Of course something apter could be possible. IacobusAmor 11:19, 3 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work as a translator(Japanese) in real life. I tend to include each word, almost verbatim, in translations. --Jondel 04:32, 4 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographia

I've written:

Rowling, J. K. Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis. Londinii: Bloomsbury, 2003.
Rowling, J. K. Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum. Londinii: Bloomsbury, 2007.

... but this doesn't acknowledge that theses are translations by Peter Needham. Am I supposed to add his name in the bibliography, and if so, where/how? Mattie 22:20, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, the translator deserves mentioning! E.g.,

*Rowling, J. K. Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis. Latine convertit Petrus Needham. Londinii: Bloomsbury, 2003.

Neander 00:15, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and your usefulness :) Thank you! Mattie 04:51, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of Camera Secretorum (Latin translation)

Amazon says December 2006 (see article), but my printed copy says 2007. Mattie 22:20, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general amazon is not a reliable source -- it's merely a mirror of the publisher's files, often including mistakes. On this one detail (December 0000 vs. January 0001) amazon may often be right, because books often begin to be sold at the end of the month preceding the official publication date. The date printed on the book should always appear in a bibliographic record, however, followed by a correction if it is known to be wrong. So I guess you would put "2007 [Dec. 2006]" to please the many who love details of this kind! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Mattie 18:23, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to a representative from my publisher (who mentioned this in the 1990s), any work published on or after 1 July in a given year can legally bear the copyright date of the next year. It's a minor marketing-related deceit, so as to make the work look newer than it really is. :/ IacobusAmor 14:29, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore is Harry's mentor

I'm not sure how to render this sentence into Latin: (1) I can't find a word for mentor, and (2) using a word that could also be used for "teacher" is dangerous, because Dumbledore is the Headmaster of their school: it would make it sound as if Dumbledore was just another Hogwarts professor. Thoughts? Mattie 20:11, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Le petit Robert and other sources, "mentor" was first used as a common noun in French, in the 18th century, because of the importance of the Odyssean character Mentor in Fénelon's Télémaque. It was then borrowed into English.

In Latin there is the possibility of "tutor", although that is often an official or legal position. Or I suppose you might try "rector". I could even imagine you borrowing "mentor" (from French of course) back into Latin ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's offers suasor, consiliarius, auctor, but these may have unwanted political or legalistic dimensions. To the extent that English 'mentor' is equivalent to 'minder' (one who minds), you might have qui animadvertit, attendit, curat, agit. IacobusAmor 19:08, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing's very, very tempting in this case... the form wouldn't even need any altering to work in Latin! Mattie 19:18, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The form actually exists in Latin as a proper name (genitive Mentoris: Cicero, In Verrem 4.38), making it even more tempting, but so far as I know it hasn't been used in Latin in the metaphorical sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of research in Wiktionary, and it seems the word's far more widely used than just in French and English: (it) mentore, (fi) mentori, (es, da, nl, et, pt, sv, cy, de) mentor, (bg) ментор, (el) μέντορας, just to name the ones I came across within a few minutes. On top of this, the French mentor actually came from Ancient Greek: Μέντωρ, the "trusted counselor" in the Odyssey. So I say, it's borrow-time! Mattie 17:51, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means; switching from a proper sense to a common one (usually lowercased in writing) is a widespread linguistic process. In English, we have cicerone and lethe and macadam and macadamia and nemesis and teddy bear and other such terms. IacobusAmor 18:09, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Mattie 19:30, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and bobby and boycott and china and kaiser and tsar and (heh) santorum. :) IacobusAmor 19:55, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bachmann will one day be used to describe a woman married to a gay man but convinced he magically stopped being gay? :D Mattie 20:06, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Iacobe, they're too political (but also probably the best strictly-Latin translations there are :/ ). Suasor, which I thought was the best of the three, is described by Gaffiot as "celui qui conseille... celui qui appuie une loi." Mattie 19:25, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Iacobus's suggestions I think "consiliarius" might work best. A "suasor" would maybe steer you in a certain direction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

Thanks for the edit, Iacobe! There's only one thing I'm unsure about: you changed "Harrius tandem Ginnia Vislia romantice utitur" to "...Vislia pro corporis voluptatibus utitur." I don't think that's quite right -- they kiss, but they don't have on-screen (on-page) sex, nor is it implied in any way. I'm hesitant to put what I had written back in, though, in case it's wrong...? Mattie 17:42, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought the subject was supposed to be Ginnia (Ginnia eo utitur), but forgot to ablativize him. Cassell's says (corporis) voluptates = 'physical pleasures', which might of course include kissing, eating, listening to music, whatever. I was trying to work around romantice, which doesn't sound classical at all, though it may not be "wrong" if we're allowing unnecessary new twists on old idioms (romanice = 'in the Roman manner'; the t in English romantic apparently intrudes from French), and an adverb with utitur may be just the thing for he's [hic adverbium scribe] intimate with her. Incidentally, Ainsworth has an intriguing gloss for the verb 'to romance': splendide mentiri (which, an experienced observer of life might suggest, acu rem tangit), but it may not fit well here. Cassell's has utpote, but not ut puta, so when you had puta magiam, I though you meant putam magiam 'pure magic' (accusative). My suggestions were limited to the text at hand, and didn't derive from knowledge of the subject-matter. What I read of the text looks excellent:

Thank you! :D Mattie 19:15, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but noster Neander, once he casts his ministering eye in its direction, will bring it to admirable perfection, no doubt. IacobusAmor 18:54, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it has utputa -- one word? Mattie 19:15, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't utpote usually used in clauses of characteristic? like quippe? Mattie 19:26, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]