Disputatio:Franciscus Borromini - Vicipaedia

# Disputatio:Franciscus Borromini

### E Vicipaedia

## [recensere] PROPADANDA, etc.

Verbum pado, -are, -avi, -atum non est, ergo verbum propado, -are, -avi, -atum non est, quare certe:

  PROPADANDA recte PROPAGANDA (Anglice: propaganda)

et fere:

  EXUVVIAS recte EXUVIAS (Anglice: remains).

Ergo:

  PROPE MORTALES CAROLI MADERNI EXUVIAS (Anglice: near the mortal remains of Carlo Moderno).

Si PROPADANDA et EXUVVIAS in texto originali stant, necesse est ut "[sic]" addamus, non? IacobusAmor 13:56, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

And someone in Rome with access to the original plaque should check to see if PHILLIPINVM isn't rightly PHILIPPINVM. And are the commas in the original? and why are there no spaces after them? IacobusAmor 14:02, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

  I suspect the commas stand for interpuncts, or maybe line breaks (note the formatting in the ENglish article). --15:37, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
    Quite possibly, but commas aren't interpuncts. I raise these questions because years of experience as an editor have shown that even the most famous & successful scholars are incapable of accurately copying texts in their own language, much less in other languages: a responsible editor's default mode in response to quotations is skepticism—extreme skepticism. IacobusAmor 15:45, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Receptum de "http://la.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/a/Disputatio%7EFranciscus_Borromini_08e0.html"

##### Views

- Res
- Disputatio
- Emendatio recentissima

##### Quaerere