2

https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/13825/semantic-shift-meanings-of-res-that-subject-acquired

Is my question unclear, vague or off-topic; why is it so; why wat it deleted and how to improve it?

I thought an interlingual, historical, sociological question would be on topic.

After trying to understand the differences between Res and Obiectus I asked why( what where the historical or social reasons) the Latin Phrase Res Iudicii changed to Subject of Judgment/Trial.

The litigant(s) would be Subiectus iudicii while the dispute( or guilt) would be Res iudicii.

I have a difficulty illustrating these concepts in the English language, where I would use Litigant for the person and Subject for the dispute.

I have a problem with a dispute( a concept/ an abstraction) being the Subject and I find it dehumanizing to fail to refer to the litigant as a Subject. Subject in my view holds more human nuances/more human value than Litigant. By refering to the Litigant as a Subject of something we stress that the Litigant is a person, a human and an aggent of the trial/ a player of that game called trial.

I was asking why the terms evolved this way and had their meanings changed.

| |
4

The deletion was automatic. As this post on the SE main meta site explains, there are several automatic deletion processes. The one responsible for yours deletes questions that are at least one month old, has negative score and has no answers. See the fuller details behind the link if you want.

You can tell that the deletion was automatic because at the top of the post it says that it was deleted by Community. This Community is the "robot user" that does automatic things and takes ownership of actions where no regular user is relevant. If human users had voted to delete the question, their names would show up in the deletion banner. That includes moderators.

The question then is: Why did the question get such a bad score and no answers? That is a harder question and I will leave that for others to address in other answers. I think the question is on topic; I imagine it is more a matter of presentation, style, and perhaps to some extent the site's culture and history. But as I said, I have no clear answer at this point.

| |
2

I did not downvote, but I found the question incomprehensible. This may partially be a problem of expressing yourself well in English. But now you write, perfectly comprehensibly (to me at least):

I asked why( what where the historical or social reasons) the Latin Phrase Res Iudicii changed to Subject of Judgment/Trial

Unfortunately you did not ask that. Even now, knowing that you wanted to pose that question, I still cannot discern it in the text of your question.

| |
  • 1. How did Subject acquire a specific meaning of Res? 2. Why (what where the historical or social reasons) the Latin Phrase Res Iudicii changed to Subject of Judgment/Trial I always thought that How and Why in linguistics where indiscernible. The process (How) and the reason (Why) of language (Latin) evolution (semantic shift) are not distinct from each other. They were one and the same. I admit I have a problem wording myself, using punctuation and elaborating in all languages I speak (Greek & Portuguese are both Primaries and English). – George Ntoulos Jun 20 at 7:58
  • 2
    @GeorgeNtoulos People might not see that your post was edited and therefore have not considered voting to reopen. I recommend asking a new question instead. Try to formulate your main question in a single paragraph at the very beginning and give the background information after it under suitable header(s). Such structure usually improves readability. – Joonas Ilmavirta Jun 29 at 15:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .