Talk:vulturnus

Is this real?

@Isomorphyc, I'm so meta even this acronym, this entry doesn't seem legit. —JohnC5 04:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What is Pliny talking about here? The river? DTLHS (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Vulturnus was also the god of the southeasterly wind, apparently equivalent to Eurus. Whether that means the Romans would have used the name to refer to the direction, I do not know. —JohnC5 05:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this Vulturnus should be slightly amended, and this entry either be made into the lowercase form or deleted. —JohnC5 05:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: In addition to Pliny, Apuleius (in his translation, De Mundo, from Pseudo-Aristotle), and Solinus (Chapter LV) use it to refer to the wind. These are the only classical citations I can find. However, Richerus refers to the cardinal direction this way:

Lotharius cum exercitu affuit, Ottonem se capturum ratus. Et certe coepisset, si in itinere sese exercitus angariis non impedisset. Nam si ante ejus discessum pridie advenisset, eum aut capere aut neci dare potuisset. Palatium igitur ab hostibus occupatur. Regiae mensae evertuntur. Ciborum apparatus per calones diripitur. Regia quoque insignia a penetralibus erepta, asportantur. Aeream aquilam quae in vertice palatii a Karolo magno acsi volans fixa erat, in vulturnum converterunt. Nam Germani eam in favonium converterant, subtiliter significantes Gallos suo equitatu quandoque posse devinci. Lotharius frustra impetu facto, sine obside vel pace sequestra exercitum reduxit, postea se rediturum confidens.

Would it be reasonable to mark this definition as mediaeval, but also to create a new entry for the wind? I don't understand the footnote; the footnote indicates the word in Latin referred to the wind, as did the original definition when this entry was created. Yet this definition does exist if one looks for it, unlike the effaced one, which is everywhere.

In a related matter, what Pliny writes is interestingly figurative: sunt ergo bini in quattuor caeli partibus, ab oriente aequinoctiali subsolanus, ab oriente brumali vulturnus. illum apelioten, hunc Graeci eurum appellant. So Subsolanus is Ἀπηλιώτης, while Vulturnus is Εὔρος. But his word for south is aequinoctalis (that is, from the equator), while his word for north is brumalis (wintry). These definitions [edit: well, at least for brumalis] are actually not in L&S. Would we be justified to include them? Isomorphyc (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not sure exactly how figuratively or literally I would prefer to translate this. I am rather on the fence about this. Here is my attempt that does it literally:

Lotharius, with his army, was fixed on capturing Otto. And he certainly would have done it if the porters hadn't shackled his army on the march. Indeed, had he come they day before, he could have captured or killed him. The palace, then, was occupied by the army. The tables of the great-room were turned upside down. The splendour of victuals was laid waste by the valets. The coats-of-arms, rent from the keep, were carried away. They rotated the bronze eagle into the East Wind, which had been fixed at the top of the palace by Charlemagne as though aloft. For the Germans had turned it into the West Wind keenly to remind the French they could be beaten anytime by their cavalry. The attack made in vain, Lotharius, with neither hostages nor peace, led his army back, promising himself he would return later.

Here are a few more versions which I have found (sadly, only after making my own):

https://books.google.com/books?id=lls4AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA85&dq=richer+aigle+palais&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWj4vlv4rPAhWEJB4KHYZUDG0Q6AEIOjAE#v=onepage&q=richer%20aigle%20palais&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=XB9yCHUb6TMC&pg=PA116&dq=Lotharius+cum+exercitu+affuit&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_v6WIy4rPAhWM4SYKHdgDD9oQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=otto%20palace%20eagle&f=false

please look for the phrase `bronze eagle' from this passage here: w:Palace_of_Aachen

Overall, I don't think the language is terribly figurative, but he is talking about an eagle. Translating as `east' and `west' is probably better in tone than `east wind' and `west wind', but that might only mean the tone of the figurative language is different in the mediaeval Latin than in English. Also, I don't really know how to translate sequestra in this passage. I tend to favour the bare `east' and `west,' but I would understand if nobody else did. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: I'd only consider this meaning as figurative if we keep it. —JohnC5 03:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I would lean towards keeping both orthographies and both definitions, consistent with other winds, and also both compass points, consistent with the ambiguity. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: You have my blessing. :P —JohnC5 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I made a sketch of an entry. Something we could decide on is whether to make the capital or the lowercase winds the canonical form. What do you think? Isomorphyc (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: I'm in favor of the capital as the proper noun meaning is primary and original, and the directional meaning is figuratively based thereon. —JohnC5 03:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Perhaps you had been wondering how long it would take me to realise this was the entry for an adjective. My text is now in the capitalised noun's entry. You have my blessing for anything pejorative you wish to do with the adjective. Isomorphyc (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: Should I leave it as an alternative case form for the proper noun and then kill the feminine and neuter forms with fire or should I just wack the entire entry? —JohnC5 18:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I'm really sorry, I don't think I've sent a single message in this discussion which wasn't based on a reading comprehension error. I just changed the entry to a noun using the alternative form template. Do you like this, or should I try a treatment similar to zephyrus on the grounds that it is not an alternative form because the lowercase version is never personified? Also, shall I have OrphicBot change all the adjectives in the decelention table over to nouns? Isomorphyc (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: No worries, I've deleted the offending entries and updated the remaining. Interestingly, the first several hundred edits I made to Wiktionary was creating missing Latin non-lemma forms (particularly for suffixes). Also, the citations at vulturnum should be at Vulturnum, which needs to be created. —JohnC5 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Thank you for fixing the non-lemma entries. You really started eating this cake with the icing, apparently. I will create the uppercase form soon. Isomorphyc (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @JohnC5, Isomorphyc: Sorry to be Johnny-come-lately here, but is there any point in keeping an alternative–letter-case–form entry at vulturnus? If we were delete it, all lower-case–initial searches for vulturnus etc. would be autoredirected to Vulturnus etc. anyway. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: It's nice to see you back on a more regular basis, it seems. I would personally keep it because all of the winds are conventionally used properly or improperly, as is I think this one. In fact, I would say that the personification is mainly a poetic usage. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: “It’s nice to see you back on a more regular basis, it seems.” — Yes, hopefully, but for how long, I cannot say. Thanks, anyway. Re keeping the entry, OK, but n.b. that, FWIW, the OLD has the entries “Volturnālis”, “Volturnum”, “Volturnus¹ (Vul-)”, “Volturnus²”, “Volturnus³ (Vul-)”, “Volturnus⁴”, and “Vulturnus”, but it lists nothing lowercase-initial starting with *uolturn- or *uulturn-. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I understand. If we had a purely classical focus, our corpus would be limited enough to prefer attestation over consistency as a principle. In this case, the likely improper mediaeval attestation seems to demand both entries, though the improper usage is outside of the OLDs scope. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: Fine with me. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)