![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think there is a small error in this good article: the absolut ablative consists in a participle in the ablative case and a substantive (noun, pronoun...) in ablative case too. In the locution "mutatis mutandis","mutatis" is the participle (plural, perfect, ablative), while "mutandis" must be read as "mutandis rebus" (gerundive, with the idea of necessity) and it is used as a substantive. Massimo — preceding comment added 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now (i.e., 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)), the last item in the Examples section reads:
I am rather surprised. Personnaly I would never use mutatis mutandis in this manner. Instead, I might have said:
I'm convinced that that alternative is better Latin. However, I suppose that the real question is not whether this suggested usage of mutatis mutandis is good or bad Latin, but whether it is an actually occurring usage (in the world outside the Wikimedia projects).
Thus, I'd like to ask whether really some people IRL are using mutatis mutandis rather than ceteris paribus, when they mean "all other things being equal".
PS. I looked up this item, since I just employed the expression in an article in mathematics, Cyclic module, and wanted to check whether the explanation was 'sensible'. IMHO, mutatis mutandis is a very useful 'shorthand phrase', when e.g. I want to gloss over details for right modules after having dealt in detail with left modules; personnally I use it in teaching mathematics, when I think its usefulness outweights having to explain it. Such usage seems not quite to be covered by the context description. JoergenB ( talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Picking up on the discussion above, I thought this article was quite baffling, and confused the concepts of "changing things" (MM's focus) and "keeping things the same" (CP's focus). As such I too think the expressions are opposite, rather than the same.
Particularly, this sentence really threw me:
The term is used when comparing two situations with a multiplicity of common variables set at the same value, in which the value of only one variable is allowed to differ—"all other things being equal"—thereby making comparison easier
That just seems plain wrong to me.
The term MM is used when one starts with a 'something' (e.g. a document) and want to change one aspect of it. This may mean other changes are required throughout the document to reflect the initial change. Terminology relating to 'variables' and 'parameterizing' does not fit well with this expression, I think.
The term CP is used when one starts with multiple variables and wishes to change one and keep others exactly the same (i.e. no 'changes' as in the example for MM above).
What do others think? Amilnerwhite ( talk) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
George Orwell uses this term extensively, against all reason, since he wanted to write plain English, yet often says mutatis mutandis. Perhaps for effect, but it is also in his private letters. I guess it was just a phrase built into him that he never quite got rid of, because to say "changed as necessary" would be more his style than the Latin. Is it worth mentioning? Si Trew ( talk) 12:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
Lord Roger quote, from "Just as... " to " ...female mates" has a reliable source. Appending "Mutatis mutandis" to the quote,
though it has wide coverage, would currently appear to be
without reliable sources. As always, I am more than happy to be proved wrong! :-) --
Shirt58 (
talk)
11:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I sort of just stumbled on this article again, and I must say that since the last time I edited (for a wholly minor reason) it's gotten much more confusing. Explanations and comparisons have been removed and I must say that now, after reading the article, I'm not sure I really understand what this term means or when (if?) to use it, at all. I don't remember feeling that way the last time I read it. Also, the remaining example from the discrimination (?) case is not exactly super helpful because the judge seems to be making a rather oblique point. I honestly can't myself suggest better examples or sentences to add, but maybe someone else out there can? Or maybe some edits can just be reverted? Agnosticaphid ( talk) 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The current (much too long) examples do use the phrase and even dwell on it some, but they're not famous and they don't provide useful examples of how it is employed or formatted. The quote from a legal opinion isn't about the term's legal use but about its more general sense. We should aim to have a quote from each of the fields listed in the lead, in each of the senses in which it can appear. Ideally, we'd also have examples of each of the grammatical structures that are normally employed: set off by commas, set off by parentheses, left in the running text. — LlywelynII 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't mean 'the necessary changes having been made'; 'mutandis' is a gerundive, and means 'that which should be changed'. So the phrase means 'having changed what should be changed'.
The article is about a Latin term - at least once in the article, an accurate translation into English should be provided. The correct explanation is provided in the section entitled 'Latin', but no full translation of the whole term into English is provided there. I propose to bring the lede into conformance with that section. MrDemeanour ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the source for Marvel x men?
Who did it? Kartasto ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think there is a small error in this good article: the absolut ablative consists in a participle in the ablative case and a substantive (noun, pronoun...) in ablative case too. In the locution "mutatis mutandis","mutatis" is the participle (plural, perfect, ablative), while "mutandis" must be read as "mutandis rebus" (gerundive, with the idea of necessity) and it is used as a substantive. Massimo — preceding comment added 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now (i.e., 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)), the last item in the Examples section reads:
I am rather surprised. Personnaly I would never use mutatis mutandis in this manner. Instead, I might have said:
I'm convinced that that alternative is better Latin. However, I suppose that the real question is not whether this suggested usage of mutatis mutandis is good or bad Latin, but whether it is an actually occurring usage (in the world outside the Wikimedia projects).
Thus, I'd like to ask whether really some people IRL are using mutatis mutandis rather than ceteris paribus, when they mean "all other things being equal".
PS. I looked up this item, since I just employed the expression in an article in mathematics, Cyclic module, and wanted to check whether the explanation was 'sensible'. IMHO, mutatis mutandis is a very useful 'shorthand phrase', when e.g. I want to gloss over details for right modules after having dealt in detail with left modules; personnally I use it in teaching mathematics, when I think its usefulness outweights having to explain it. Such usage seems not quite to be covered by the context description. JoergenB ( talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Picking up on the discussion above, I thought this article was quite baffling, and confused the concepts of "changing things" (MM's focus) and "keeping things the same" (CP's focus). As such I too think the expressions are opposite, rather than the same.
Particularly, this sentence really threw me:
The term is used when comparing two situations with a multiplicity of common variables set at the same value, in which the value of only one variable is allowed to differ—"all other things being equal"—thereby making comparison easier
That just seems plain wrong to me.
The term MM is used when one starts with a 'something' (e.g. a document) and want to change one aspect of it. This may mean other changes are required throughout the document to reflect the initial change. Terminology relating to 'variables' and 'parameterizing' does not fit well with this expression, I think.
The term CP is used when one starts with multiple variables and wishes to change one and keep others exactly the same (i.e. no 'changes' as in the example for MM above).
What do others think? Amilnerwhite ( talk) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
George Orwell uses this term extensively, against all reason, since he wanted to write plain English, yet often says mutatis mutandis. Perhaps for effect, but it is also in his private letters. I guess it was just a phrase built into him that he never quite got rid of, because to say "changed as necessary" would be more his style than the Latin. Is it worth mentioning? Si Trew ( talk) 12:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
Lord Roger quote, from "Just as... " to " ...female mates" has a reliable source. Appending "Mutatis mutandis" to the quote,
though it has wide coverage, would currently appear to be
without reliable sources. As always, I am more than happy to be proved wrong! :-) --
Shirt58 (
talk)
11:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I sort of just stumbled on this article again, and I must say that since the last time I edited (for a wholly minor reason) it's gotten much more confusing. Explanations and comparisons have been removed and I must say that now, after reading the article, I'm not sure I really understand what this term means or when (if?) to use it, at all. I don't remember feeling that way the last time I read it. Also, the remaining example from the discrimination (?) case is not exactly super helpful because the judge seems to be making a rather oblique point. I honestly can't myself suggest better examples or sentences to add, but maybe someone else out there can? Or maybe some edits can just be reverted? Agnosticaphid ( talk) 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The current (much too long) examples do use the phrase and even dwell on it some, but they're not famous and they don't provide useful examples of how it is employed or formatted. The quote from a legal opinion isn't about the term's legal use but about its more general sense. We should aim to have a quote from each of the fields listed in the lead, in each of the senses in which it can appear. Ideally, we'd also have examples of each of the grammatical structures that are normally employed: set off by commas, set off by parentheses, left in the running text. — LlywelynII 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't mean 'the necessary changes having been made'; 'mutandis' is a gerundive, and means 'that which should be changed'. So the phrase means 'having changed what should be changed'.
The article is about a Latin term - at least once in the article, an accurate translation into English should be provided. The correct explanation is provided in the section entitled 'Latin', but no full translation of the whole term into English is provided there. I propose to bring the lede into conformance with that section. MrDemeanour ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the source for Marvel x men?
Who did it? Kartasto ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)