Talk:sic semper tyrannis

sic semper tyrannis
Sum of parts. The fact that it's the motto of the State of Virginia isn't a definition, or relevant. Mottoes with no linguistic merit should not be kept. A motto just means someone's adopted it; it does not become more linguistically interesting because of it. Let Wikipedia handle it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as a sum of parts if it remains Latin. The “motto of the State of Virginia” line should go even if the entry is converted to an English proverb. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep idioms like fried egg are a sum of their parts and allowed. There is a long list of English phrases and Latin phrases that are allowed.  This is as famous an idiom or phrase as many included in these categories.  I believe this is Latin and not English.  A search comes with the following numbers: Google web About 459,000 results (0.34 seconds), Google scholar About 1,150 results (0.05 sec) and Google books About 16,500 results (0.31 seconds) plenty of usage to justify an entry. WritersCramp (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also a long list of phrases that have been deleted. The reason fried egg has been kept is for not being the sum of its parts: if you coat a hard-boiled egg in batter and deep-fry it, it's not the same as a fried egg. There are plenty of famous phrases we wouldn't want to include: "To be or not to be, that is the question", "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", "Four score and seven years ago", "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn", etc. They have all kinds of interesting history and cultural associations- but that's for an encyclopedia to deal with, not an dictionary. Also, the phrase is probably both Latin and English, but as Latin it's no more entry-worthy than then the translation "thus always to tyrants". As English, it might be worth keeping, as I've said below. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the general sense but delete the Virginia state motto sense. This is a set phrase likely to turn up outside of a clear context in writing. bd2412 T 21:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This has a long history going back to Ancient Rome, and it was spoken by John Wilkes Booth when he assassinated Abraham Lincoln, but that's irrelevant for our purposes. I think one could make the case that people who use it in English don't always know what the individual words mean, and there's also some usage of "sic semper" as an abbreviation or nickname for the phrase- both pointing to the likelihood of its having become an idiomatic part of English. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why usage is irrelevant. Keep all senses.  It seems kinda ridiculous to keep the derived (English) form, but not the original (Latin) form.  Heck, being a word or phrase from which words are derived should be a CFI.  Pur ple back pack 89   04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that "motto of the state of Virginia" is not a correct definition of the phrase; it is merely an example of a use of the phrase. bd2412 T 13:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, surely you're not advocating keeping wrong information. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep sense 1, Delete sense 2 It's a proverb, and one that's not sum of parts. Literally, it simply means "tyrants will always be treated this way" with no indication of what "this way" is (harshly? lavishly? apathetically?). In actual use, it only ever means "tyrants shall be overthrown/killed". Finally, there is some use of it in running English without gloss, and without reference to either Virginia or Lincoln's assassination (with italics, but that's pretty standard for Latin, even for phrases like in vitro and a priori that are quite widely understood):
 * "Those who live by electronics, die by electronics. Sic semper tyrannis" (Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut, page 60)
 * There is now a perverse pleasure in circles in Asia and Africa that Howard was scotched — sic semper tyrannis, and all that.
 * "Sic semper tyrannis," he said. "They get away with anything."
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Was this attestably used as a proverb in Latin? If so, that would make it includable without regard to its beng SoP.
 * Whether or not it was so used in Latin, the expression seems to be used as a proverb in English, probably attestably for our purposes. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WritersCramp, I'd like you to make a coherent argument. Yes we allow Latin phrases but not all Latin phrases possible. Like in Category:English phrases we have but not . If you think this is idiomatic, say why. You just say we keep idiomatic phrases, you don't claim that this is one. And number of hits is irrelevant, you can get thousands of hits for I have a big dog. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You first Renard; IMHO your +tag is frivolous! WritersCramp (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't really care about your opinion about tags. You ain't got the creds.
 * Can you find the evidence that this was a proverb in, say, classical Latin? DCDuring TALK 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been here two-years longer than you noobie -:)WritersCramp (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But you haven't done anything except whine and bitch. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Definite keep as English as it's attested, and definitely idiomatic (tyrannis isn't a word in English, so how can it be sum of parts?). As for the Latin, no idea. Attested would be a good start, as for idiomatic I have no idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WritersCramp with all due respect, I think you're just not capable of making good arguments. If you were, you'd have done it already. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The good argument has already been made. You keep the English term because it has a meaning of its own, you keep the Latin term because the English term has been derived from it.  While we're at it, we create fiat lux for similar reasons. Pur ple back pack 89   04:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * John Wilkes Booth shouted this phrase as he shot President Lincoln. It has also been used in books and movies, such as Into the Blue (2005 film). It’s an important phrase. —Stephen (Talk) 04:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup! In reality that is just scratching the surface, there are many many citations available to use, including Brutus words when stabbing Caesar. WritersCramp (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Prove it by actually citing some Latin works to support the Latin entry. DCDuring TALK 09:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, the Latin doesn't get a free pass just because the English is derived from it. It has to meet WT:CFI/ If this is so easy to cite, why doesn't someone just cite it? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What kind of silly world do we live in that derivatives pass CFI but roots fail it? CFI should be written in such a way so that roots like this are auto-passes. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing silly about it: an SOP phrase isn't a root, it's just a phrase. A Latin entry wouldn't add any useful information- the etymology should simply link to the individual words, and provide a gloss, if necessary. That said, if anyone can show that the phrase is idiomatic in Latin, then we should have a Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I'm not convinced that's a good idea. For example, would we want an English entry on same procedure as last year? SOP in English with no setness, but a common set phrase in German (eg 1, 2, 3). Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Chuck Entz says, why would we want to include anything that doesn't meet CFI and doesn't add anything useful. We can explain the meaning of the words in the etymology section. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we de-tag the English yet? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Who nominated the English for deletion? DCDuring TALK 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a good point! Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thus always what to tyrants? Thus always nice to tyrants? Thus always silent to tyrants? Thus always doom to tyrants? Thus always birthday cake to tyrants? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , who may have suggested the expression as the State of Virginia's motto in 1776, can have wished no less than loss of dominion on King George, perhaps also madness, and disappointment from and betrayal by his son. Premature death? Heavens no! DCDuring TALK 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it could also mean death, but why is that implication necessary for you? How is the implication of death certain? You have to say this in context to comprehend the meaning, otherwise, how is the meaning obvious? You’re weird. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is Mason's verbal specification of the seal:
 * "Virtus, the genius of the commonwealth, dressed like an Amazon, resting on a spear with one hand, and holding a sword in the other, and treading on Tyranny, represented by a man prostrate [supine in the actual seal], a crown fallen from his head, a broken chain in his left hand, and a scourge in his right. In the exergon, the word Virginia over the head of Virtus; and underneath the words Sic Semper Tyrannis. On the reverse a group, Libertas, with her wand and pileus. On one side of her Ceres, with the cornucopia in one hand, and an ear of wheat in the other. On the other side Eternitas, with the globe and phoenix. In the exergon these words: Deus Nobis Haec Otia Fecit."
 * The imagery is of defeat and loss of power, not death. This was the American Revolution, not the French. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've sent the Latin section to WT:RFV. The English section was not there when this RFD started, and the nominator Renard Migrant does not seem to intend to have the English section deleted; hence, this RFD is to be understood to be about the Latin section, also per the tagging in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to rfv. It's an attestation issue. it must be attested with an idiomatic meaning otherwise it's liable to be rfd'd again. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The English section passed while the Latin section failed RFV (i.e. not attested; can be added back if attested). Therefore all sections have been dealt with. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–December 2014
I ask attesting quotations for Latin (not for the English entry) showing 1) the phrase was ever used in Latin at all, and 2) the phrase was used to mean "tyrannical leaders will inevitably be overthrown" or the like, thus having a meaning beyond the plain combination of the meaning of the separate components. Even quotations showing 1) but not 2) would be worthwhile; if no quotations in Latin text are found, the entire Latin section should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Google translator WritersCramp (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not disputing the English translation, we're disputing the existence in Latin . PS this has failed, look at the date of the listing. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * RFV failed in on 9 November 2014. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC discussion: January 2010–July 2015
The language heading is Latin but the templates are for English. I’m not sure which language this should be listed as. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say English; in Latin it would be SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's Latin and sum of parts; "motto of the State of Virginia" isn't a definition, it's a way of using the phrase. Mottos are in the domain of an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When this book says, "It was also a not too subtle warning to the British government that 'Sic semper tyrannis'", it seems to be using the phrase in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it is still Latin, just Latin which everyone reading is expected to understand. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see if this was ever used attestably in Latin before 1776, especially in a proverbial way, when it was recommended for use in the seal of the State of Virginia. It has been RfVed as a Latin term. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter whether or not it was used before 1776? That would just make it modern Latin. But nobody in their right mind would consider this anything but Latin, let alone English.

vitam impendere vero
This, from 2010, is the same issue and should be cleaned up in the same way as sic semper. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Latin is sum of parts, but giving the citations it could be considered translingual. Plus of course, impendere is an infinitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I created this for the sake of this policy discussion. Please do not edit the entry without commenting in the Beer Parlour. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Especially in the American English context Backinstadiums (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)