Talk:Daemones Ceramici

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Carnauth in topic Reasons for edit.

Reasons for edit. edit

Ok, I don't want to start any kind of an edit war here but I feel that I may be making a significant change to this article. The basis for my edit was that nearly half of the fourteenth fragment is missing. I wanted to add it in to the article. When I went to add it I began to encounter problems.

First off I'm not saying that it is unreferenced, as it is one of Homer's epigrams, but there is no reference to the material that this particular version comes from. At the bottom of the article it states"trans. Evelyn-White" so as to avoid confusion and adding the other half of the translation from another source where I do not know who translated it, I instead was going to add the other half from the same translator. This is where I began to encounter my difficulties. I was having problems finding the version that the original editor used in sourcing this material for this article. I do believe that I may have found their source, however it doesn't have the second half(nearly half). I say nearly half as I do not have the original epigram to compare it to,but the book by H.G. Evelyn-White states that the epigram is 23 lines. Not knowing where the second part picks up in the original text it could be half but by both versions that I am considering one is missing 7 of 17 lines of translated text, the other 9 of 19 lines. Both have the same text, one with the Greek names and one without the one without being 19 lines long and the one with both of the names being 17. The difference is due to formatting/font. It is not missing any of the translation.

I however did find the epigram in full from H.G. Evelyn-White. The entire book "Hesiod, Homeric Hymns, and Homerica by H. G. Evelyn-White" is available here and a another link that points you straight to the epigrams themselves here. Now looking at the translation from the book it differs from the version posted here. Mainly it just refers to Shatter Smash Charr Crash and Crudebake. With no mention of the Greek or latinized Greek of "Syntribos Smaragos Asbetos Sabaktes & Omodamos" So what confounds me about this is that H.G. Evelyn-White is not using the Greek names just their translations I would imagine a quote to be something more along the lines of.

Proposed.

"Shatter(Suntribos)and Smash(Smaragon)and Charr(Asbetos)and Crash(Sabaktes)and Crudebake(Omodamos)"

As opposed to present.

"Suntribos (Shatter) and Smaragon (Smash) and Asbetos (Charr) and Sabaktes (Crash) and Omodamos (Crudebake)"

Ok I would not propose it that way as I would use the more common translations of their names.What I am referencing is that would it not make more sense that the added names which aren't in the authors works should be listed second and parenthesized, instead of that which is not in his translation being listed first and what is in his translation being listed after the fact in parentheses. It just doesn't seem the right way to quote. I have seen many quotes that have words added in but they are usually in parentheses.


After scouring the web for about two hours I was having trouble finding references written by H.G. Evelyn-White using the odd greek translated names, as several are listed with the aka instead of the common translated names. Most occurrences that I was able to find were not references from Evelyn-White they were instead from sites that were using the text of this Wikipedia article, which I will reference as clones. Clones aside I was able to find this reference. I may be wrong but I am under the assumption that is where the majority of the text for this article came from. I am unsure where that page sourced the strange fragment that it has, as the format is different to what Wikipedia has, with the author information at the top of the article. It leads me to believe that it is not cloned from here, so quite possibly being the original editors source.

So I have a problem with adding the second half and using the original authors text and adding it to a edited version of the original authors text and having a expanded quote and a verbatim quote together in the same quote box. And it would seem improper for me to start a second quote and pointing to the same author, but even using H.G. Evelyn-White's text I feel I could not justifiably add it to the expanded version as its not a proper quote of the authors material(at least not that I can confirm).

However the source that I was going to add the second half from does follow the style of the expanded quote, which I prefer as the names should be next to the translations themselves in my opinion. It also has the common translated names as well instead of the odd uncommon translations, which have gotten quite a wide distribution out there now due to the Wikipedia clones copying them out of this article.

So this is in my opinion the largest edit that I have done here, mainly I have just done minor edits alone, and I feel weird changing edits done by those with tens of thousands of edits. What I propose to do, well what I am going to do, this is mainly just my explanation of why so that the original editors can see why it was changed is I am going to paste over the quoted text with a direct unedited quote of the entire epigram and remove the reference to H.G. Evelyn-White as the translator as I am not sure who the translator of the one that I am going to use is. I will offer a reference to the page that I got the info from, which I don't think I have listed yet but it is here in the mythagora.com database. Then below the quote I will add the line"You can view all of homers epigrams here" and point them to chapter four of H.G.Evelyn-White's book. Thus attempting to make a compromise with the editors data that I am going to change and also giving reference to a vast collection of Homeric works. Taking the articles number of references from zero to two.


I hope that this explains the removal of the first half and its being replaced with the same content, well nearly the same as the translated names are the one used most often with them being the only change in content of the removed portion of the quote.


Carnauth (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply