|WikiProject Time||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Latin||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message
|This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The key to the correct translation is found in Servius' commentary where he glosses "singula dum ... circumvectamur" as "dum speciatim cuncta describimus", that is, while we describe everything item by item (ie in this context 'in too much detail'. Servius is cited in connection with the quote in Lewis and Short <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=circumvectamur&la=la&can=circumvectamur0&prior=capti&d=Perseus:text:1999.02.0059:book=3:card=285&i=1#lexicon>. The translation I used is by A S Kline, 2002, <http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilGeorgicsIII.htm#_Toc534252744>, lines 284-85. Here Vergil uses the royal we and is insisting he should get on with the book instead of getting bogged down in his enthusiasm for the subject and dwelling on particulars to the detriment of the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I changed it back. I cannot argue which gloss is appropriate, but the current one suits the original text, which I checked against the Latin version in Project Gutenberg. It is no good producing the translation of another, inappropriate text, whether Latin scholars prefer it or not. In particular it is not worth giving a Latin original that does not suit the sense of the article. In any case, there also is no sense in insisting on using the archaic English translation "flies" when "fugit" means "flees". When you can produce a cogent original plus a cogent translation, both suiting the sense of the article rather than the gloss, let's talk again. (And please note, in case you think I am being possessive: I was not the one to supply the original or the translation in this article.) JonRichfield (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Who is Sir Angus Peacock?
Who is Sir Angus Peacock? I think unless he is a recognized and established authority, he should be removed from this article. Has anyone checked the truth or otherwise of the statement about the White Rabbit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Angus Peacock? in AAIW?
One can see in versions of Alice (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11) that the phrase does not appear. I also think that "Angus Peacock" is made up. I am marking this page as a potential hoax. RayKiddy (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I have removed the doubtful sentence:
The well-known sinologist and linguist Sir Angus Peacock has pointed out that whilst "tempus fugit" undoubtedly has its origins in the quotation from Virgil, the first time that the two words ever appear in literature in that form, is when the White Rabbit (Cuniculus Albus) in Alice in Wonderland uses the phrase.
- because (a) as Ray Kiddy notes, the White Rabbit does not say "tempus fugit" or anything like it, and (b) searches find no trace of "Sir Angus Peacock". The sentence was inserted last August by an IP, 188.8.131.52, who has no other edits. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about the citation, but this appears to be the Angus Peacock in question. Though knighthood is not mentioned, his profile indicates that he is a sinologist and a linguist. WaxTadpole (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- FAIK it might indeed be he!!! But if so, so what? It does not affect the rest of the questions and objections. The connections to Carroll's Alice's Adventures are tenuous to the point of non-existence, including both Cuniculus Albus and tempus in any kind of flight. So far the score stands at: Carroll 0: Peacock 0: Tempus 2. JonRichfield (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Fusion of Time flies like an arrow with Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
Nothing seemed to be happening with the fusion of those articles, so I have bitten the bullet and completed the merge myself and converted Time flies like an arrow to a redirect to Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. I have not deleted any content. However, I am unhappy with two things as matters stand:
The current title is too cumbersome; one reason that I did the conversion this way round is that Time flies like an arrow had no sections that would cause broken links.
Secondly, there were pointlessly many titles of the "time flies" type. There still are. For reasons pf coherence, material of the now current article "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana" should be included into Tempus fugit and the article converted into a redirect. I would have done it myself already, but I don't know how to find the articles that link to its sections. Help anyone?
- Fly means several things. Fugit is certainly closest to the sense of "fly" as "flee, escape, run off" but the English includes both senses of "take flight", hence the need to revert sumpsimus attempts to tell people that "time flies" is a "mistranslation". It not only isn't; it's an improved image from the original poetry. — LlywelynII 07:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)