User talk:Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Larry Sanger 22:52, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Welcome aboard, Georgeos. Just noticed the Calcidius article you started and it looks good. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me and I'll try to point you in the right direction. --Todd Coles 12:13, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Todd has pointed me in the direction of that article, and I'll do what I can to help, which alas may not be a great deal, given my ignorance of the subject. My first question: I corrected 'subscriptio' to 'subscript' once, but encountering it again, I'm wondering whether the Latin word might not after all be correct. So I'll leave it there for now, hoping to hear from you. Ro Thorpe 11:20, 7 March 2008 (CST)

subscriptio, "a writing beneath, subscription", is Latin word (fem nom sg), and is used by the palaeographists, lexicographists, and philologists, in general. You can see examples of the use of this Latin term (at the International) among all specialists in the Edition "Timaeus Calcidius" by Henricus Aristippus, Brill, 1962. ISBN 0854810528; in the article "The Date and Identity of Macrobius", by Alan Cameron. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 56, Parts 1 and 2 (1966), pp. 25-38. doi:10.2307/300131. Also in works in others languages like French, in "Paléographie des chartes et des manuscrits du XIe au XVIIe siècle" by A. Aubry; also in "Dictionnaire raisonné de diplomatique chrétienne contenant les notions nécessaires pour l'intelligence des anciens monuments manuscrits". Maximilien Quantin. Chez l'Éditeur. 1846; and in the "Dictionnaire de paléographie de cryptographie, de dactylologie, d'hiéroglyphie, de sténographie et de télégraphie". Louis Mas Latrie, J. P. Migne, éd. 1854, in the page 1162:

"Les signatures sont exprimées dans les anciens titres par des termes qui leur sont particulièrement affectés ou qui leur sont communs avec les sceaux et les chartes mêmes Au nombre des premiers nous comptons subscriptio signatura sacrameiilum propriœ manus paraphas..."

I believe which you no have read my personal page in Citizendium. I know the Latin very well, very best which the English. I bear many years (more of 20) in the studie of Latin, and also old classic greek, and others indoeuropean old languages, and also african and asiatic old languages, like egyptian, phoenician, an hebrew... The palaeography, the lexicography, the etymology, the epigraphy, and other related specialties Philology, in general, are my great pasion and dedication, "in corpore et anima". I am convinced that if you had read my profile, would not have thought that the way subscriptio was a possible error on my part, or a possible impropriety Latin.

In any case, I am very grateful for his concern for wanting to help in my edits, but I insist, in all education and greater respect for all editors of Citizendium, that the biggest and foremost is that I need help in English prose. But, I can guarantee 100% which the use of words in Greek, Latin, Egyptian, phoenician, etc., and any other old languages which I know (as they are listed in my profile) will always be correct. I always revisit many times before publishing; and if you make a mistake in this regard, it is highly likely to discover myself what in the editing process, because I am very jealous of perfection, in relation to the old languages, and applied disciplines such as palaeography and lexicography, among others. Again, I am very grateful... Kind Regrads, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 20:58, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Georgios, Welcome here, and I hope you thrive. I've read your comment on the Talk page of Calcidius. There's no need ususlly to explain changes, corrections or ammendments in detail, a few words in the edit summary is enough. Editors here have their main role in Approval, often only after an article has been completed to a high standard, otherwise editors are mainly authors themselves. Everyone makes mistakes when trying to help, its often best just to accept the good intent and fix them rather than point them out unless it's a major difference of opinion that needs agreement. Often you'll find that a change is a mistake, but is made to try and change something that itself is a bit wrong, so its often worth thinking why did he (or she) want to change that? Often I find that although I disagree with the change that is made it was made for a good reason - perhaps because what was changed was badly phrased unclear or ambiguous. Translation is a difficult art, as you will kow, as a literal translation doesn't always carry the intended meaning. So if the translation doesn't make perfect sense or perfect Engish, it may need copy editing even if literally it is accurate. Gareth Leng 12:18, 8 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Georgios, you wrote: In any case, I insist, in the example of Latin in Calcidius, "apparent vestigia", the correct grammatical and lexicographical translation in Spanish is "aparentes vestigios", and just in the prose of the English, have been retained the two words, also derived from the Latin, with identical meanings, "apparent vestiges"; therefore there is no reason really philological or grammar for to change to the English translation: "visible vestige" This illustrates the problem exactly. The English "apparent vestiges" does not really mean anything - it is so ambiguous that it would probably never be used. It might mean "visible vestiges" or "obvious vestiges" but equally it might mean "things that seem to be vestiges" , (and in the latter case "seem" is also ambiguous). So the words exist in English, but in English they have more meanings, and maybe meanings that have changed slightly. Whatever, "apparent vestiges" is just no good, unless the original was ambiguous in the way that the English is. I'll take a closer look at Calcidius myself though, and think about it more.Gareth Leng 07:38, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

OK, I've started to go through this - a nunmber of references are missing, so I am unsure about these and haven't been able to start to check them. I've removed all "self references" by the way - It's Citizendium policy not to allow these, but have left (and will support retaining) a link to your work in External Links. I'll do more on this article later.Gareth Leng 08:57, 9 March 2008 (CDT)