CIL 4.5296 has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 23, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: An interesting article..
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted much of the recent edit to the translation of the poem, and because the explanation was too unwieldy to fit within an edit summary, I wanted to go through my changes here.
"Oh, how I wish I could havehold your little arms wrapped around my neck"
I don't mind this too much, but I don't see it as an improvement. I'm not sure that "hold" makes much sense here. If you want to (with Courtney) construe the meaning as "I wish I could hold my arms around your neck" then it works as a verb, or (like Milnor) read "grasp with my neck your little arms as they entwine it" then the meaning is convoluted by apparent. But "hold your arms around my neck"? "Have" is a perfectly acceptable translation of "tenere" here, I think. (And I don't see where in the Latin the "how" as an intensifier comes from).
"Now go then, little doll, trust your happiness to the winds, my darling.
Why "then" rather than "now"? "Now" is surely the natural translation of "nunc". As for "little doll" vs. "my darling", "my darling" is a much more natural diminutive in English, and "pupa" can mean "girl" as well as "doll". If you want to keep the double meaning, Courtney says "poppet", which is at least a natural English diminutive.
"Believe me, the nature of men (i.e. males) is fickle."
This clarification is surely not necessary. Yes, "men" in English can mean "humans", but in context I believe that the correct reading is more natural (and if any uncertainty remains, the third paragraph of the section on Interpretation makes all clear).
"Often when I would lay awake, lost, in the middle of the night,"
Again, why this change in meaning?
"oppresses" -> "holds to the ground": why? surely oppresses makes more sense here? "You think on these things with me" -> "Thinking to myself": I know why this change, but is it a more accepted reading?
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Caeciliusinhorto:: I'm gatekeeping this reply from those who're incapable of reading and replying in Latin for the same reason I'd be gatekeeping a discussion between me and another Russian speaker on the correctness of a translation from Russian from someone who's incapable of reading or replying in Russian. It'd be a teacher-student interaction instead of a proper discussion. If you find yourself in the position of the student in this instance, perhaps you will concede that my interpretation is correct if only because I find myself in the position of the teacher. Otherwise, I'll be happy to receive your reply in Latin and thus exclude another language as a source of possible misunderstanding and not to have to argue about the meaning of English words in addition to Latin ones.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eritha ( talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I plan to review this GAN but may not be able to get to it until later in the month
Eritha (
talk) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Graverini argues that the construction of the poem is not a so-called cento, but is an incomplete poem of its own based on various sources, on an intertextuality, and is not a uniform and delimited set of extracts, only thus he believes it occurred in the tenth verse, since it argues an intrusive hand and alien to the author of the poem. This would be so to him since it evidences that the theme of the poem is not necessarily lesbian, and that, as he has ascertained that a single 'lyrical subject' is discernible, in theme with the great intertextuality of the text, the first 2 lines of the text will indicate other contexts typical of the Roman tradition. Graverini then indicates a possible situation for the poem would be that of a family meeting between parents or close friendship; since in the Aeneid I. 256, a kiss (on the mouth) between relatives is not described as sexual, and since according to more sources it is of a social nature and as a token of affection; but he argues later for a possibility of a non-binary middle ground on affections and not a properly erotic one. (Graverini 2017, pp.119-126)
Some of this might be worth including in the article proper, but it's such broken English that it's of no use in this state, and it needs to be better integrated in the existing text of the article. When I have time I will see what can be done with it, unless someone else has access to Graverini 2017 and wants the challenge. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was customary in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum to use Roman numerals -- i.e. CIL IV 5296 and not CIL 4.5296. The numeral IV being the "Vol. IV: Inscriptiones parietariae Pompeianae, Herculanenses Stabianae" (1st edition, 1871). Should we not therefore move this to "CIL IV 5296"? Aszx5000 ( talk) 21:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
CIL 4.5296 has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 23, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: An interesting article..
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted much of the recent edit to the translation of the poem, and because the explanation was too unwieldy to fit within an edit summary, I wanted to go through my changes here.
"Oh, how I wish I could havehold your little arms wrapped around my neck"
I don't mind this too much, but I don't see it as an improvement. I'm not sure that "hold" makes much sense here. If you want to (with Courtney) construe the meaning as "I wish I could hold my arms around your neck" then it works as a verb, or (like Milnor) read "grasp with my neck your little arms as they entwine it" then the meaning is convoluted by apparent. But "hold your arms around my neck"? "Have" is a perfectly acceptable translation of "tenere" here, I think. (And I don't see where in the Latin the "how" as an intensifier comes from).
"Now go then, little doll, trust your happiness to the winds, my darling.
Why "then" rather than "now"? "Now" is surely the natural translation of "nunc". As for "little doll" vs. "my darling", "my darling" is a much more natural diminutive in English, and "pupa" can mean "girl" as well as "doll". If you want to keep the double meaning, Courtney says "poppet", which is at least a natural English diminutive.
"Believe me, the nature of men (i.e. males) is fickle."
This clarification is surely not necessary. Yes, "men" in English can mean "humans", but in context I believe that the correct reading is more natural (and if any uncertainty remains, the third paragraph of the section on Interpretation makes all clear).
"Often when I would lay awake, lost, in the middle of the night,"
Again, why this change in meaning?
"oppresses" -> "holds to the ground": why? surely oppresses makes more sense here? "You think on these things with me" -> "Thinking to myself": I know why this change, but is it a more accepted reading?
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Caeciliusinhorto:: I'm gatekeeping this reply from those who're incapable of reading and replying in Latin for the same reason I'd be gatekeeping a discussion between me and another Russian speaker on the correctness of a translation from Russian from someone who's incapable of reading or replying in Russian. It'd be a teacher-student interaction instead of a proper discussion. If you find yourself in the position of the student in this instance, perhaps you will concede that my interpretation is correct if only because I find myself in the position of the teacher. Otherwise, I'll be happy to receive your reply in Latin and thus exclude another language as a source of possible misunderstanding and not to have to argue about the meaning of English words in addition to Latin ones.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eritha ( talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I plan to review this GAN but may not be able to get to it until later in the month
Eritha (
talk) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Graverini argues that the construction of the poem is not a so-called cento, but is an incomplete poem of its own based on various sources, on an intertextuality, and is not a uniform and delimited set of extracts, only thus he believes it occurred in the tenth verse, since it argues an intrusive hand and alien to the author of the poem. This would be so to him since it evidences that the theme of the poem is not necessarily lesbian, and that, as he has ascertained that a single 'lyrical subject' is discernible, in theme with the great intertextuality of the text, the first 2 lines of the text will indicate other contexts typical of the Roman tradition. Graverini then indicates a possible situation for the poem would be that of a family meeting between parents or close friendship; since in the Aeneid I. 256, a kiss (on the mouth) between relatives is not described as sexual, and since according to more sources it is of a social nature and as a token of affection; but he argues later for a possibility of a non-binary middle ground on affections and not a properly erotic one. (Graverini 2017, pp.119-126)
Some of this might be worth including in the article proper, but it's such broken English that it's of no use in this state, and it needs to be better integrated in the existing text of the article. When I have time I will see what can be done with it, unless someone else has access to Graverini 2017 and wants the challenge. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was customary in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum to use Roman numerals -- i.e. CIL IV 5296 and not CIL 4.5296. The numeral IV being the "Vol. IV: Inscriptiones parietariae Pompeianae, Herculanenses Stabianae" (1st edition, 1871). Should we not therefore move this to "CIL IV 5296"? Aszx5000 ( talk) 21:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)