Copernicus UTC

Someone who knows Latin and is familiar with Copernicus See Scrutinizing says coelestium Will anyone know that if Copernicus’ book was called “On the Revolutions orbium coelestium or was actually” On the Revolutions orbium caelestium Please leave your opinion here. Rupert ( “A mate ) 23:49 22 March 2009 (UTC) I think it is so difficult to investigate, only to see the external links on the English or Latin Wikisource 3 3 3 — — 07 : 03 23 Mar 2009 (UTC) PS: and not because he is too perfect, but until the British says: There may be a misspelling in coelestium, you see the sign is just like one or glued to the e, and all have been carried away and here we are, where Google gives more results than caelestium coelestium: S. Now the question is what do we do Correct “half the world Or unless we adapt to primary source 3 3 3 — — 07:11 23 Mar 2009 (UTC) I was researching my book etimilog as, but all I found was caelum – heaven.I accept the version of a wikisource is to fall into the same mistake of using another wikipedia as a reference in our articles, so that what we were presented with only 333 the Britannica. I have consulted these books Distinguished Figures in Mechanism and Machine Science (Zielinska), The quirky side of scientists (Topper), Celestial Mechanics (Celleti) and magazine articles The Welcoming of Copernicus’s De Revolution (Physics in Persiective) and all of them used Coelestium – m: Drini 17:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC) The truth I know nothing about this matter, but here’s my grain of sand on this page I found this picture, which apparently is quite reliable. There you see the title, with a dubious “oe” (I say dubious because it might seem confusing at first glance). However, below are several “ae” and see the difference in the type of “a” used. I say, therefore, is to o. Greetings.- Racso 17:39 23 Mar 2009 (UTC) By the way, if someone could help me a little under license from the picture, I would appreciate. On the website where I took it they put a “All rights reserved” but I think it is not applicable because the book is in DP long, right In the book of Copernicus, the word appears as coelestium. Classical Latin had the diphthong ae and oe in its evolution, the two monophthongs in e . Consequently, in medieval Latin spellings were not uncommon due to false difficulty of specifying the correct Latin form. In this case, the word should be caelestium, but appears as coelestium for that reason.- Camima (Talk) 17:42 23 March 2009 (UTC) If we look closely at the facsimile we had before on Commons it is clear that the symbol is used and if you download the shows and watch very closely Racso (there another copy of the facsimile commons) feel the same, so in my opinion the theory of misinterpretation of the symbol is the real problem. 3 3 3 — — 18:13 23 Mar 2009 (UTC) PS: the other version of what went Racso is: File: Nicolai Copernicia coelestium.djvu orbium torinensis of Revolutions. PD2: He mentioned also good links that appear in the article in English, as this one and this is the same facsimile Eeeeh Racso version …. boys, a good thing I asked the principle that you please leave your opinion on the article talk page. : (.The fact is that on my part I have taken as valid only answer I got there (from someone who knows Latin): The classical Latin form is “caelum” but you can also find “coelum” particularly in Late Latin and ecclesiastical. Davius Therefore I think it’s healthier to leave everything as is, especially considering that all other wikis figure with “co”, including in particular the Polish and German (and in this article was declared “good” ). Thank you.Rupert ( “A mate ) 20:38 24 March 2009 (UTC)