Page 8 of 9

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:54 pm
by Publius Sextius Laevus
P. Sextius Laevus C. Florio Lupo sal.

Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:Seneca's research should not simply be ignored. It is actually the definite scholarly answer to our debate. If this motion does not pass with majority, then all the options that Seneca found out should be considered.
Therefore ANTIQUO does not mean a vote for "collega", it simply means a rejection to the motion to adopt "collegiarius".

... Actually, it does mean a vote for "collega", see above proposed vote post. That said, I would not be apposed to cosidering Seneca's list.

Rarity of surviving examples is of course not only a necessary, but even a sufficient indicator of rarity of its use. What else would be an indicator? This is a basic principle of inductive reasoning, i.e. the scientific method.

... Really Lupus, this is a cheep shot, unworthy of you. You also must consider why so many things from the Classical Period didn't survive (e.g. CDR details). And also, by whose purpose did those things that did survive come down to us (authoritative suppression of information). There is at this time even more being learned about antiquity that the texts that were accepted in our school-days have been superseded by these new discoveries. Would you have us write-off words because they came from the region of Africa and not the stylus of Cicero? We are not trying to forge a document that would pass as if it were unearthed from antiquity (we would have done better if Adamas had provided the translation in Greek). Anyone actively writing in Latin today is faced with needing Latin words that are not in the OLD. Rarity does not mean that there isn't more, it may just be the 'tip of the iceburg'.


'To live, indeed, is not in our power; but to live rightly is.' Quintus Sextius

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:38 pm
by Gaius Curtius Philo
My antiquo was not a vote for Collega, Laeve... I actually made it clear that I votes for Seneca's Socius

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:00 pm
by Lucius Livius Seneca
L. Livius omnibus sal.

Perhaps for the sake of expediency we could dispense with formalities for the moment, and recognize the emergent consensus? I've already stated that I like the term socius, Horatia Adamas has also stated that she is "perfectly happy with 'socius / socia,'" C. Aurelianus has likewise expressed his favour, and both P. Laevus and C. Florius are open to the possibility.

If the latter two gentlemen could share their opinions on "socius," we may have this matter settled! Let's not allow the work we've done to be stymied by technicalities!


P. S. If we insist on slavish formalism, I would be happy to move that we suspend the rules of procedure if that would make everyone more comfortable.

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:02 am
by Publius Sextius Laevus
Salvete Socii

I second the motion to suspend the rule (stop the vote on collegarius et collega).

I would accept the use of 'socius'.

P. Sextius Laevus

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 am
by Gaius Curtius Philo
Agreed. A simple solution to resolve this

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:00 am
by Lucia Horatia Adamas

L. Horatia Adamas L. Livio Senecae C. Curtio Philoni P. Sextio Laevo C. Florio Lupo omnibusque legentibus S.P.D.

Unfortunately, this communication method lacks the nice polling system available on Yahoo lists, so we cannot list a poll stating that one may vote for any of several possible responses, and then go with the plurality thereof. There is no way to provide multiple choices at once, such as a. 'collegiarius,' b. 'collega' c. 'socius,' d. 'sodalis.' Of these, a. is the most precise, and c. is satisfactory and more common.

As Laevus noted, there is nothing wrong with African origin of words, or of authors (there is this fellow Terence the African, who wrote quite well although Latin was not his native tongue). There also is nothing wrong with neologism, which, whether or not Tertullian indulged therein, is no crime, nor was he the first to do so. This fellow Cicero brought many new words into Latin, and greatly enriched the native Latin vocabulary. We also have added many Latin words--unless of course one prefers idiotic circumlocutions for 'cell phone,' 'computer' 'automobile,' 'camera,' etc., etc., which the Romans did not have. They did not shy away from importing words any more than do English speakers, who also willingly contribute words to other languages. I was somewhat surprised to find that Spanish has adopted the word 'test,' and has not even added any of the typical Spanish word endings to this borrowing from English. Things are like that in languages these days…and probably in those days as well.

Laevus also pointed out that the rarity of a word does not indicate that it was rarely used, or much of anything else. Indeed there may well have been deliberate suppression of vocabulary and authors as the regimes and attitudes changed; Sappho's works, and others, were suppressed. In our time, one does not have to look far to see that certain parties are so incensed by the Confederate monuments in the U.S. south that they want all of them removed. History should be erased because parts of it are unpleasant to some groups, or so they think. Over in the Muddle East, ancient temples and ancient statues are blown up because certain parties think they are sacrilegious or whatever. Add losses by fire, flood, and many other means, so that we have lost immense amounts of ancient literature. Entire books of Livy and Tacitus did not survive, nor were they alone in suffering near or even total extinction. There are authors known to us only by name, sometimes with the names of their works, but little or nothing else. Of Sophokles' hundred or so plays, we have seven. Seven remain of Aischylos, too. Euripides was more popular later on, so we have more of his, but almost certainly not his entire output. We have only part of Aristotle's Poetics although he was revered, and on it goes. Absence of evidence does not correlate with evidence of absence. For all we know, 'collegiarius' was a common near-synonym of 'socius,' with a more restricted meaning--but we don't have the texts to prove it. We do, however, have at least one inscription with this word, so evidently it did exist, and had a suitable meaning.


Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:43 am
by Gaius Florius Lupus
I can agree with socius, which is one of the words that Seneca found. The procedures have been skipped once, they can be skipped a second time.

Regarding the vote it would indeed be nice to have a better system for polls like in Yahoo. I know that this message board allows for something like that, but we have no access to it. I complained already about it in a public post.

ANTIQVO can formally never be interpreted as a vote for something. It is only a vote against something, for maintaining the current status quo. This is what uti rogas and antiquo mean, supporting the motion of the rogator or opposing it. I am aware that the post calling for vote stated it differently, but it was formally incorrect, because the collegium has no Latin bylaws yet and either version would be a change to the status quo.


We have no other indicator for the frequency of a word than the number of examples of this word in the available sources. History is an empirical science. The frequency in a representative sample can be assumed to be proportional to the frequency in the total. And the sample size of classical Latin texts is is comparably big. We have no non-empirical source of knowledge about the frequency of the use of a word in the past. Therefore there is no other possible indicator. Or should we take someone's "gut feeling" as evidence?
The word "collegius" is politically neutral. It is absurd to suppose a suppression of the word or damnatio memoriae based on political or religious grounds.

This is the Collegium Philosophicum and apart from all linguistic enthusiasm. we have to keep in mind proper methodology, which is one of the main subjects of philosophy (epistemology). This includes scientific methodology, which is based on inductive logic. It is therefore important to be able to distinguish what weakens and what strengthens a hypothesis. What strengthens it, is called an indicator. Each example of a word in a classical source is an indicator of its frequency, the only empirical indicators we have. How can one then reject a hypothesis, that has far more indicators and accept one that has fewer?

Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:30 pm
by Gaius Florius Lupus

Just for the record:
The motion to establish the word "collegiarius" for members of the Collegium has failed to get the necessary support within the time set for the vote (until last Tuesday).
The compromise to adopt the word "socius" was made, seconded and supported by four members of the Collegium.
Is there a formal opposition against the use of "socius", so that we need a new vote? Or can we all live with this compromise? If nobody speaks out against it, I would suggest to use "socius - socii" in the bylaws.
The choice raises the question of the single -i and double -ii genitive again. Do we need a vote about it?


Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:24 pm
by Lucius Livius Seneca
L. Livius omnibus philosophis sal.

Videtur "socius" sociis placuisse!

Alongside P. Sextius and Horatia Adamas, I therefore present the following to the College:

Constitutio Collegi Philosophici

The only place where the older, single-i genitive comes up is §XIII ("Aliquid propositum collegi ..."), for which I have no strong feelings one way or another.


Re: Bylaws of the Collegium

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:04 pm
by Gaius Curtius Philo
Im glad this seems to be settled. Let us wrap it up then, shall we? This has taken enough time lol

All in favour of Seneca's form of the bylaws say UTI ROGAS. All against say ANTIQUO.