Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 11

Nexus addere
E Vicipaedia

Calefactio globalis[fontem recensere]

Please comment on the proper title at Disputatio:Calefactio cuncta aeris. And Happy New Year, everybody! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compass points[fontem recensere]

I thought that Septemptrio ant Meridies only worked in the Northern hemisphere and that Borealis and Australis were deemed better global terms. How is it that America Australis has been redirected to America Meridionalis? (Meridionalis would surely be North from a Southern hemisphere perspective) Matthaeus Tomlinson 15:39, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't pre-empt your argument: it's simply a normal first reaction. Creating a redirect acknowledges that your suggested term is acceptable. The discussion will eventually show which term is the best! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms are suspect in a way since borealis and australis strictly speaking refers to winds from a reference point of Rome/Greece, while septentionalis and meridionalis refer to stars from the Roman/Greek reference point too.--Rafaelgarcia 16:30, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er...no. Meridionalis refers to the midday sun, which is in the south for us Europeans, but is in the North for Argentinians, Australians etc.82.36.94.228 22:20, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
America Meriodionalis anno 1606
When used as a "map direction" it means the direction given by the direction of the midday sun from the perspective of Rome, which indeed is in Europe. This direction is the south everywhere on earth at any time of the day unless indicated by context. Otherwise the various attestations of south america as america meridionalis wouldn't make any sense. Likewise australis means south even when there is no south wind.--Rafaelgarcia 22:47, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm not arguing "for" meridionalis, just pointing out that both are correct. Personally I would prefer Australis here. But Meridionalis is more common: drr Hofmann Lexicon Lat. and the map from the commons--Rafaelgarcia 23:12, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I believe America Australis is also correct; and both versions are attested, as a couple of google searches for maps reveals.--Rafaelgarcia 16:30, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Et continentem Australiae habemus, non "Meridionaliae"! IacobusAmor 20:05, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partly out of curiosity, but it may be relevant: Belgian French, unlike Academy French, habitually uses the word 'Midi' for south, which obviously derives from a late Latin form of Meridionalis. Would a Belgian-French-speaker in the southern hemisphere use 'Midi' for south? AlexTiefling 14:00, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global bots: allow them automatically?[fontem recensere]

Bots are useful in that they are designed to perform uncontroversial tasks that would be too tedious for humans to perform (at least in the required quantity and within an acceptable time frame), e. g. updating interwiki links.

A large number of bot edits without any distinction from human edits would lead to the situation where Specialis:Recentchanges or Specialis:Watchlist would become cluttered with (uncontroversial) bot edits, making it difficult to see the (comparatively few) edits by humans. Therefore, the MediaWiki software has long provided the possibility to grant a "bot flag" to a bot user account on a particular wiki (let me therefore call this type of bot flag, as it is restricted to a particular wiki, a "local bot flag"). The bot flag has the effect that the edits of this bot are not normally shown on Specialis:Recentchanges or Specialis:Watchlist (although there is an option to show them as well). This does not effect Specialis:Contributions and history pages, where bot edits are always shown (just like non-bot edits). Hiding bot edits from recentchanges and the watchlist has a clear advantage when the bot edits are uncontroversial but makes "bad" edits (unintentionally "bad" edits or even malicious edits, such as vandalism perpetrated by bot account holders) hard to detect quickly. Therefore, caution has to be exercised when granting the bot flag.

The bot flag is granted or revoked by a local bureaucrat (or, for projects where there is no active bureaucrat, by meta:Stewards). This system has worked well on la.wikipedia. Some bot owners asked for the bot flag in the taberna, some asked our bureaucrat directly, and sometimes a bot was making so many edits that a member of the community asked our bureaucrat to grant the bot flag. Adam, our bureaucrat, reacts very promptly to requests on his en.wikipedia talk page, and there has never been a problem on our side.

But there is a relatively high "entry threshold" for bot operators: Bot operators needed to deal with each wiki's different policies for granting the bot flag, even for the most uncontroversial of tasks: updating interwiki links. Therefore, some time ago, a model bot policy has been devised that wiki communities may opt in to. In its original form, the bot policy aimed at easier granting of the bot flag for uncontroversial bots (i. e. bots that only maintain interwiki links and fix double redirects), namely by entitling meta:Stewards to grant the bot flag directly, without the involvement of local bureaucrats or the local community ("automatic approval"). This procedure was further simplified technically a few weeks ago by introducing the possibility of a "global bot flag" for an even-more-restricted group of trusted bots – this "global bot flag" takes effect on all projects that have decided to allow global bots. A current list of these projects can be found at meta:Bot policy/Implementation#Where it is policy.

Global bots are trusted bots that will be given bot access on every wiki that allows global bots (currently, la.wikipedia is not among those). The current requirements for global bots are:

  • a global bot must only maintain interlanguage links or fix double-redirects;
  • a global bot must have already been active on several wikis, with long-term contributions to back up its trustworthiness.

Proposal[fontem recensere]

In order to simplify dealing with uncontroversial cases, I propose that la.wikipedia opts in to global bots, but otherwise does not use the bot policy. (The English wikipedia has done the same thing, see meta:Bot policy/Implementation near the bottom of the page.) This would have the following consequences:

  • Global bots would automatically be allowed to maintain interlanguage links and fix double-redirects on la.wikipedia and would automatically have a "global bot flag". Global bots are trusted bots, the current requirements for global bots are:
    • a global bot must only maintain interlanguage links or fix double-redirects;
    • a global bot must have already been active on several wikis, with long-term contributions to back up its trustworthiness.
    This would limit the number of bot requests in uncontroversial cases and I think it would also improve bot activity on Vicipaedia, as the "entry threshold" for trusted bots would be lower.
  • All other bot flag requests concerning la.wikipedia would still have to be decided by the community/by our bureaucrat (in particular, "automatic approval" as described in the bot policy would not be permitted). That way, all but the most uncontroversial cases would still have to be decided on by ourselves, exactly as is the case now.
  • Technical consequence: Quite a number of global bots currently have the local bot flag on la.wikipedia. After the global bot flag has become active on la.wikipedia, we can remove the local bot flag from these bots so that a possible removal of global bot status for whatever reason (loss of trustworthiness, inactivity, etc.) would also take effect here.
  • And just to be sure: In the event something goes wrong, global bots can still be blocked by local Vicipaedia:Magistratus just like local bots.

Views on this? --UV 23:08, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support your suggestion. We would still be able to block bots if we don't like their work, but in general I think it is better for us if globally approved bots can add their interwiki links to Vicipaedia as easily and quickly as possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:23, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a good idea to me. IacobusAmor 14:10, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. The majority, possibly all, of the bot requests are for bots that already have global status everywhere else. Adam Episcopus 18:47, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight links to disambiguation pages[fontem recensere]

Most of the time, a link that points to a disambiguation page is a bad thing. Take for example the page Iustinus I. It contains the sentence: "Praedecessor Iustini Anastasius I fuerat." Now Anastasius I is a disambiguation page that disambiguates between Anastasius I (imperator) and Anastasius I (papa). In our case, the context makes it clear that the predecessor of Iustinus I was Anastasius I (imperator) and definitely not Anastasius I (papa). In the long run, the page Iustinus I should be edited so that the link points not to the disambiguation page, but directly to the only correct link target in this context, Anastasius I (imperator). Even if this might not warrant an extra edit just for this purpose, it would be a good thing to do this while performing some other edit on that page.

Now how does one notice that a link leads to a disambiguation page? For this purpose, I have adapted a gadget from de.wikipedia. If you choose to enable this gadget, after a page has been displayed, this gadget will load information on linked-to pages (which requires a certain amount of bandwidth) and will highlight those that are redirects (you may notice a small delay in time). Please consider enabling (or trying out) this gadget in your Specialis:Preferences. I doubt you will encounter any javascript errors (I believe that the guys at de.wikipedia have done a good job), but if you do, please tell me so that I can try to fix it or report it to the original author of the script. Greetings, --UV 23:42, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very useful, and I have enabled it in my preferences, but I find the bright pink background quite distracting. If it's possible, and if others agree, could it be made a lighter colour -- light grey for example? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the colour can be changed. If others agree, I will gladly change the default value for everyone, but you can also adapt the colour by adding 
.bkl-link-inner { background-color:silver; }
.bkl-link-sup { background-color:silver; }
to your Specialis:Mypage/monobook.css (assuming that you are using the default monobook skin, otherwise replace "monobook" by the name of the skin that you are using). --UV 18:08, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, UV. I have made that change on my monobook.css page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 4 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television presenter (or showman?)[fontem recensere]

... ideal Latin word for this? Please comment at Disputatio:Gordonus Ramsay. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:28, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tromocrates aut terrorista?[fontem recensere]

Terminus '-ista' substantivo adiunctus ad nomen agentis creandum saepe invenitur in Latinitate Medaevali. Cur non vocabulo "terrorista" utimur quod, simile vocabulis in tot aliis linguis, latius intelligetur?Tergum violinae 14:49, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latine terminus rectus est tromocrates, non 'terrorista' (qui forsitan solum "frightener" significaret). --Rafaelgarcia 16:13, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sic pronuntiat Ager Vaticanus; Radio Bremen autem verbum terrorista Latine usus est (de duis verbis vide nexus apud Tromocratia) ... Debemus admittere terrorista verbum utile esse posset, quia internationale sit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:52, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Immo, Raphaele, "territor" aut "perterritor" significaret Anglice "frightener". "Terrorista" sententiam fert "peritus terroris" aut "magister terroris" quae recta michi videtur. Nam sententia suffixi 'ista' est subtilior quam "istes" in lingua Graeca quod suffixum tantum ducitur ab illis verbis "izein" terminantibus. Tergum violinae 18:44, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Pelliculae[fontem recensere]

Salvete, amici! Volo proponere creare categorias per annos productionis pellicularum. Suntne satis commentationes de pelliculis?

I have a suggestion: What would you think of establishing movie-per-year-categories in Categoria:Pelliculae? Or are there still too few articles for such categories? --Darev 10:24, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that movie-per-year categories would be appropriate now. We do have many more movies than I thought we did, but I think some very broad genre categories would be more appropriate. We already have one for science fiction, and maybe one for comedy and one for drama and one for animated would be nice. But very broad categories like that to start. Okay? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 22:18, 18 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betawiki update[fontem recensere]

A gadget problem?[fontem recensere]

When Andrew Dalby goes to http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicipaedia:Hierarchia_paginarum (vide eius paginam disputationis), the criteria for stipulae & paginae are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; but when I go there, those criteria (as displayed on my screen) are numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. What's awry? IacobusAmor 15:05, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the strange numbering as well but it appears to have disappeared now. I doubt this has had anything to do with gadgets. --UV 23:54, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By golly, you're right! Whatever the problem was, it's been fixed! IacobusAmor 01:45, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing general & philosophical terms[fontem recensere]

In preparing a draft of Guna, I was surprised to find that Vicipaedia lacks articles on the following topics (for some of which I've had to use or suggest medieval or New Latin terms): animi motus, conatus, cupiditas, demeritum, disiunctio, distinctio, dolor, ens, entitas, existentia, fluiditas, gustatus, humanitas, industria, integritas, libratio, longinquitas, meritum, odium, odoratus, perspicuitas, proximitas, quantitas, sapor, tactus, visciditas, voluptas. Most of these concepts exist as independent articles in en:, as they have consequential general senses or important philosophical implications, which deserve to be accommodated in an encyclopedia. Anybody who'd like to provide articles for them is free to do so! They're all red today: help them turn blue! IacobusAmor 15:55, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got sapor now, but I am not sure if sapor is flavour or taste, as it seems it can be both, thus I made a discretiva--Xaverius 11:45, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to dictionaries, gustatus & sapor seem to have closely overlapping denotations relating to flavor & taste. Cassell's says Cicero used gustatus specifically for 'taste' as one of the senses, so that's how I used it in the referenced article, keeping sapor for 'flavor'. Surely we shouldn't ignore a striking parallelism: all five senses are fourth-declension nouns derived from verbs: auditus, gustatus, odoratus, tactus, visus. IacobusAmor 12:51, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Proposal[fontem recensere]

salvete omnes. I'm a Latin student who's interested in Vicipaedia. Recently, I've developed an interest in translating American television into Latin. However, none of my friends really like to read them. Therefore, I have decided to attempt to put these skills to use by assisting Vicipaedia -- if successful, this could greatly increase our article size and our clout among the different-language-wikis. Is anybody else interested in starting categoria televonis? Or at least helping me find out what the Latin word for Television is?

Welcome Angelica. You might want to look at our page televisio for some of the latin terminology. You might also avail yourself of Morgan's website and other links on my user page (at the bottom under lexica interretialia). --Rafaelgarcia 01:47, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find a few relevant articles at Categoria:Televisio, but most of them, let's say, could do with improvement. Welcome indeed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:10, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How common is it to write and pronounce 'tsh' as 'tz' in New Latin?[fontem recensere]

I found a New Latin name for the Vorarlbergian village Tschagguns. It ist Tzucconium (Ulrich Campell 1574-1577). Do I have to pronounce it with 'tsh' or just 'tz' as it's spelled? Are Tzilia and Tzechia pronounced the same, what ever, way?

I'm usually Thomas but I had to reassign for the German Wikipedia. The suffix -aci in Capsicaciolum is langobardic latin.Capsicaciolum 18:12, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC), friday, jannuary 16, 2009, 19:12 (CET)[reply]

Well, for Latin and fully Latinized names I don't know why not just obey normal pronunciation rules of Latin, i.e. pronounce how spelled. One would get mad being obliged to find the original pronunciation of every word that has once been borrowed by Latin. Ergo tz should be pronounced /tz/, /tdz/, /tzz/ ... depending on the pronunciation you are using.
Pronunciation of tz also tends to be discussed on Disputatio:Res publica Bohemica. --Gabriel Svoboda 19:06, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 213.163.227.121 12:01, 22 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steward election notification[fontem recensere]

Nuntius de comitiis dispensatoribus creandis in situ Metavici transtuli. Aliquis translationem perspicere vult? I've translated the notification about the steward elections on Meta. Could anyone take a look to check the translation? Translation hic invenies. Gratias ago! Wikibelgiaan 14:54, 24 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perspexi. Pauca mutavi. --Neander 17:26, 24 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ago. Mutationes iure factae sunt... 80.200.223.205 22:30, 25 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auxilium peto in pagina Calendarii[fontem recensere]

Please see the table in the section Calendarium#Calendaria fiscalia of the page calendarium. If the first two dates in that table are "today", then the ISO date should show "today" too. Previously the dates shown were for Jan 1 2008, but a user tried to improve it but inserting templates to calculate the current dates. However, now there is a discrepancy between the first two dates and the last. I don't know if there exists a template that allows the automatic calculation of the ISO date...If so this is what would be required. If you can help, or know someone who can, please do!--Rafaelgarcia 00:28, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City square[fontem recensere]

Would forum be an appropriate term for a (modern) city square? If not, what would you use? --Ornil 01:18, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, I think. Traupman recommends "area" for a "rectangular space surrounded by buildings or streets"; however, I think Forum captures, the idea of a central city square better. The term Forum comes from the word for door, meaning "the out of doors, a public place." The idea behind the forum being a market place and place of justice in ancient Rome, comes from the ancient Roman legal custom that contracts transfering property, legal judgments, and the like had to be done in public in front of witnesses to be binding, as a way of preventing fraud or coercion. --Rafaelgarcia 01:38, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ago. --Ornil 18:10, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Platea" (unde "place", "plaza", "piazza" etc.) Tergum violinae 12:56, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Et ego verbum "platea" amo; sed olim in disputatione aliqua (ubi??) "forum" a multis praelatum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Credo "platea" potius significare "broadway" vel "street".--Rafaelgarcia 15:17, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secundum Cassell's: forum "= a market-square." IacobusAmor 15:57, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

Please give your suggestions, votes, opinions as to candidates for February's pagina mensis : Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis.--Rafaelgarcia 11:41, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amabo te, da tuas suggestiones, suffragia, et sententias de candidatis pro pagina mensis Februarii: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis.--Rafaelgarcia 11:46, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the page - it was a mess of old nominations (back from 2006), discussions, cross-outs and so. --Xaverius 10:45, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken(n)ethus[fontem recensere]

We have a dispute between Kenethus and Kennethus. Can one of the translation-of-forenames enthusiasts say which is preferable? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea - How is it written in English?--Xaverius 10:22, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duae "n" adhiberi solent Anglice. At nonne "Canitius" dicendus est?Tergum violinae 12:54, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Videte etiam hanc symbolam. --Neander 13:44, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for dates and authors of botanical/zoological descriptions[fontem recensere]

[Copied from my user page and Hendricus's:] Salve Andrew, i was thinking to put all species and groups into categories by it's author an the year of first description, see example at: Animalia and Porifera, i like to know your opinion about that, Hendricus 23:36, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very good idea, and, since you are making so many pages, quite practical. I am going to mention this on the Taberna in case others comment on the best form of words to use. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, looking at the redlink categories that Hendricus has added to Porifera and Animalia,
  1. For the date of official description, I would suggest Categoria:Descripta 1759 (etc.) This would match our current Categoria:Nati 1759 etc., and I guess we might eventually have an supercategory Categoria:Acta 1759 or something like that.
  2. For a series of categories giving the name of the "author" (as the describer of a new species is technically called) I'm not sure what is best. Maybe Categoria:Linnaeus (auctor biologicus)? Or just Categoria:Linnaeus? Or ... what?
Please comment on all of this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a good idea to me. Categories such as categoria:Linnaeus, or categoria:Descripta a Linnaeo could work--Xaverius 10:21, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with using descripta (at least in botany) may be that it seems to ignore two of the three essential parts of the work that a scientist does when publishing the existence & identity of a species: name, diagnosis, description. IacobusAmor 13:28, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but what do you suggest to cover it all? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would categoria:Classificatio secundum Linnaeum work?--Xaverius 15:02, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Again, I think, that isn't quite it. The event concerned is the pinning down of a single taxon; classification is only part of it, and the part that may be changed by others later. And to take Hendricus's original idea and make it Categoria:Binomina anni 1759 is also no good, because some of these taxa are not binomina but single names of orders, genera, etc. So maybe Categoria:Taxa anni 1759 and Categoria:Taxa auctore Linnaeo (ablative absolute, "Linnaeus being the author")? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is something wrong with Categoria:Taxa 1759 and Categoria:Taxa Linnaei? The structures of these possibilities parallel those of Categoria:Nati 1759 and Categoria:Scriptores Franciae. IacobusAmor 16:01, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I love succinctness. In the second case, however, since not all biologists' names are declinable, we would get examples such as Categoria:Taxa Rafinesque. Is that acceptable, or would Categoria:Taxa auctore Rafinesque be more pellucid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:09, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If "1759" can be in an oblique case in Categoria:Nati 1759, couldn't "Rafinesque" be in an oblique case in Categoria:Taxa Rafinesque? IacobusAmor 17:38, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If no one objects, we'll begin on that basis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary question[fontem recensere]

Categories Categoria:Taxa 1758 are beginning to be created. Fine. Ought they (and the Nati and Mortui categories for each year, and any other types we might add) to be put in a supercategory Categoria:Acta 1758, "things that happened in 1758"? It seems logical, but at present, unless I'm mistaken, we have no such series of supercategories. Each of them, if they are to be created, ought to be interlinked with the existing year pages e.g. 1758. Does that make sense? (Optimistic postscript:) can such a series of supercategories be created automatically? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be an easy thing to do. Firstly, it would be easy to change the templates {{Categoria Nati}} and {{Categoria Mortui}} so that the births-by-year and the deaths-by-year categories are automatically placed in the appropriate year category. Secondly, UVbot could easily mass-generate categories such as
{{Categoria anni|1758}}

[[de:Kategorie:1758]]
[[en:Category:1758]]
[[fr:Catégorie:1758]]
(I would just add the three interwiki links to de, en and fr and leave the rest to the interwiki bots). We could model the new template {{Categoria anni}} after our existing templates {{Categoria Nati}} and {{Categoria Mortui}}. Thirdly, we could manually add to the newly-created year categories other something-by-year categories, such as
I would just suggest that we do not call our year category Categoria:Acta 1758 but rather just Categoria:1758, for consistency with the other wikipedias (see e. g. the interwiki links at en:Category:1758). --UV 18:36, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this very helpful response! Yes, the simpler name Categoria:1758 makes good sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:09, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion continues below at #Categoria:Constitutum anno 1869‎, for example)

Praemium dandum[fontem recensere]

Schulz-Hameln nominatus est ad praemium Numismae Romanae, videte Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Schulz-Hameln.--Xaverius 11:32, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions extenion on la:[fontem recensere]

I wonder if you are aware of the meta:Flagged revisions extension. Here's a good summary of its features. It is used on several wikis (notably German and Russian) and may be used on the English one soon. I can speak of the way it's used on ru:, since I am very familiar with it, maybe someone active on de: can also chime in. In ru: it's used to mark pages that have no vandalism, no rules violations and minimal stylistic standards. I think it can be used on this wiki to indicate Latinitas verification. The idea is that if someone like me (poor Latin) makes a change, I'd like it to be looked at by someone who has better Latin. If it's at least grammatically valid, they may mark the change as valid. Another reviewer who may be watching the page would then see that the latest revision is marked as valid Latin, and may not need to look. Also, only the changes since the last "valid" revision need to be looked at, and only by those users who don't have a flag marking them as fluent Latin speakers (or a bot). All changes that require validation are marked in the recent changes and watchlists, and there are special pages listing pages requiring verification.

Note that I am not proposing that this is done as moderation, any change I make would be seen by everyone as soon as it's made. However, a reader would have an option to look at the last approved version. I think this would encourage editing by students and at the same time keep quality high. Hopefully some fluent speakers would be interested enough to go through recent changes and validate a large proportion of them. I don't know the stats here, but it seems to me most changes are made by users who are fluent, and so would require no extra work. And the changes by anons and students do need to be looked at, to maintain quality. --Ornil 22:28, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good idea. But I quote your interesting words "keep quality high". Our quality is, let's say, variable (the same is true of every wiki of course). How are existing pages treated at the moment when the scheme begins? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old pages are neccesarily treated as unapproved. However, the pages that are edited only by those who are approved by the community as fluent speakers can be marked as approved. Either directly or if not supported then by a bot. The pages that are edited by lots of different users would require a look by the fluent speakers and be approved. After this only diffs would need to be looked at. --Ornil 18:12, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this!! I always would like someone else to see if my latin is good enough, and avoid qualifying my own articles as {{latinitas|-1}} to make them full articles. Cato censor 13:48, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the formula {{L}} instead. --Rafaelgarcia 15:05, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Constitutum anno 1869‎, for example[fontem recensere]

Just wondering why it's in the singular (constitutum): most (all?) other categories are in the plural. Also, might some interwiki links for the foundations of each year be available? IacobusAmor 19:52, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en:Category:1869 establishments. --UV 19:55, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iacobus that this style doesn't conform to our rule, and I think now's the ideal time to change it. I can't think of a better general term than "Constitutum", however, so I suggest Constituta 1869. Do others agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:14, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For writings of all kinds we could use Categoria:Scripta 1869; for films, Categoria:Pelliculae 1869; for songs and music, I would suggest replacing the various forms in UV's list above (disci, singuli, cantus, canticum) with something like Categoria:Musica 1869 -- maybe there's a better word? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's another one -- laws and legislation. Will Categoria:Statuta 1869 be OK for that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UVbot created the year categories for all years AD, but not for years BC, since these would probably mostly be empty. What would be a good supercategory for our six music-by-year categories? --UV 02:07, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... just like that! That's wonderful, UV. I'll deal with those Musica categories now, and I'll have fun creating some Scripta categories soon. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the supercategory Categoria:Musica secundum annum editionis digesta. I hope others think this will do. It's meant to be slightly ambiguous (publication? editing? broadcasting? putting on paper? performance?) so that a piece of work with a complex history can be put in more than one year category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:10, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close Latin Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

In 2005, the Klingon Wikipedia was closed to editing and a de-branded fork opened on Wikia. I'm going to propose on Meta that the same be done of the Latin Wikipedia and Wikibooks, and that it be decided never to open a Latin Wikinews, for the same reasons. As far as I can tell, like Klingon, Latin lacks:

  • Native speakers.
  • An authoritative active group of lexicographers.
  • Any way to gain consensus from the whole Latin-speaking community (rather than just from Wikipedians) on words for new concepts. Without one, how are we to choose between computatrum and ordinatrum, or vīra and vīrua (for viruses, per en:plural of virus), or metallum vis and potens metallum?
  • Reliable 20th- or 21st-century sources in Latin to direct readers toward, on topics other than Catholicism.

This proposal won't affect Wikisource, Wikiquote or Wiktionary, since they don't need modern content the way an encyclopedia does.

Could this notice please be translated into Latin for the benefit of non-English-speaking contributors, and posted on the relevant page? (If for some reason it can't be translated, I rest my case.) Seahen 07:57, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anno 2005, Vicipaedia Klingona clausa est contributionibus et disceptio apud wikiam coepit. Proponam eadem rem vicipaediae Latinae et vicilibris latinis, itaque nunquam vicinuntios latinos coepient. Tamquam ego scio, Latina lingua caret:
  • Quem naturaliter latine loqui
  • Auctoritatem lexocographicam activam
  • Modum consensum agendi communitati Latinae (necnon solum Vicipaedianis) de verbis novis. Sine hoc modus, quomodo inter computatrum et ordinatrum, sive vīra etvīrua (pro viruses, en:plural of virus), sive metallum vis et potens metallum eligamus?
  • Fontes Latinae non Catholicae saeculorum XXi et XXIi, ad quas lectoribus referamus.
Haec propositio non Vicifontibus, vicicitationibus necnon Victionario pertinget.
[ Seahen scripsit, ego latine converti--Xaverius 09:59, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)][reply]
I added my comments here: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Legatio nostra#Proposal to close Latin Wikipedia. Sometimes I think people have nothing better to do with their time.--Rafaelgarcia 13:05, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal on Meta has not yet materialized. Meanwhile, if anyone has a few minutes to spare from writing Latin, I suggest that it would be a good idea to improve the articles about Vicipaedia on other wikis. Someone (guess who?) has just created one on the Basque wiki. To get to them all, use the interwiki links at Vicipaedia Latina. Judging by Seahen's misconceptions (which others share, let's face it) we need to hint that Latin rivals Esperanto as an international language, and say that it is, right now, an international language of zoology and botany, not just of the Catholic church. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to reflect our practices. Please check it to make sure that I didn't misstate anything.--Rafaelgarcia 14:28, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've just started an article in French: others please extend and improve it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:52, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on Iberian-languages wikies then.--Xaverius 17:44, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paginam Svecicae Wikipediae creavi, Finnicam autem paginam renovavi paulumque auxi. --Neander 00:21, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xqbot is on a mission to remove all interwiki-links (not just on la but everywhere) to fi:Wikipedia:Latinankielinen Wikipedia. Can we stop it? Or what is wrong with the Finnish page? --Fabullus 15:34, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commentum scripsi apud [1] ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that Xqbot is responding to some irregularity in the page name? The Finnish page is the only one with "Wikipedia:" prefixed before the name. --Fabullus 07:40, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could block Xqbot in our wiki until this has been solved, we will not need to revert his canges over and over again.--Xaverius 09:44, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC) Andrew noster iam id fecit ;) --Xaverius 09:46, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xqt explained on my userpage. Fabullus is correct, and, from what Xqt says, other bots might well do the same. Maybe the page should be moved on fi:wiki, if possible. The best person to try that might be Neander. On fi:wiki, all similar articles are in that namespace. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pagina Nederlandica de Vicipaedia Latina agens, licet exigua, nunc exstat. --Fabullus 12:47, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
anche io cerco di ampliare la pagina in italiano--Massimo Macconi 20:48, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paginam in lingua Anglica simplici addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:12, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quanto hominibus lingua Klingon unquam locuta vel saltem scripta est ? Suntne in lingua Klingon poetae et philosophi qui, e.g., Vergilio aut Spinoza componi possint ? ThbdGrrd 17:03, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ferunt Klingones scripsisse "Hamlet" et Gulielmum Shakespeare mere Anglice transcripsisse. Tergum violinae 22:30, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't heard from our Seahen for almost a week now and he has not made anything on meta to put his case forward, I very much doubt he was serious about this matter or maybe our self-eviden arguments have convinced him. --Xaverius 09:42, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Seahen believes is not what I think. We love Vicipaedia, it is definately not a 'Catholic topic' thing. And many latin amateurs can improve their latin skill through here.
And you can see the latin amateurs in China,PR they love the resource here. Eg. http://tieba.baidu.com/f?ct=&tn=&rn=&pn=&lm=&cm=0&kw=%C0%AD%B6%A1%D3%EF&rs2=0&sc=&un=&rs1=&rs5=&sn=&rs6=&myselectvalue=0&word=%C0%AD%B6%A1%D3%EF&tb=on
Wikia is a forbidden resouce in Mainland China due to GFW. If Vicipaedia is move to Wikia, most of the users in China will never be able to come to here again. In addtion, if someone what to close something or get something moved to 'Wikia', consider 维基大典 (http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/) first please. 文言(classical Chinese) is definately a dead language and only the ancient culture professors and such students who study traditional culture would pay attention to it. I think it's far more unpopuplar than latin.
May Vicipaedia be better from time to time...Gesalbte 09:54, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violent deaths[fontem recensere]

At ThbdGrrd's suggestion we now have more detailed categories: Necati and Necatae for those killed by assassins and what not; Morte damnati and Morte damnatae for those condemned to death by some authority. (I chose "Morte damnati" (Seneca) rather than one of the other Latin terms because it's brief and accurate). All, along with the various more specific Victimae ... categories, are subcategories of Categoria:Interfecti. If anyone would like to look through the existing members of Categoria:Necati, and put them in one of the other categories where more appropriate, that would be a good thing!

Incidentally, in Vicipaedia, unlike real life, you can have more than one death (i.e. you can be a "Morte damnatus" and also a "Victima Stalinismi", or whatever). So don't hold back.

We don't yet have a specific category for people killed in battle. The first person who encounters one of these, maybe in the current category "Necati", gets to choose what to call it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:33, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaestiones ex disputatione transcriptae.—What about those condemned to death but reprieved? And those condemned to death but still alive (e.g., Salman Rushdie and thousands of people on "death row")? IacobusAmor 15:52, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oportet commentationes scribere et postea nomina categoriarum invenire! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:43, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Election Translations[fontem recensere]

Hey everyone! At the top of your screens is an ad about the Wiki steward elections. In the bottom right of the that ad it asks you to help translate the steward information pages into latin. I have completed one of the pages (the introduction page) but there is much more to do, like the full instructions page and arguments by steward candidates. Perhaps no one, including us, will ever read these pages, but maybe having these pages translated will be a strong slap to any of the Latin Wikipedia nay sayers? --CeleritasSoni 02:02, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in eum laborabo! (Hope I got that right. Haven't learned future tense yet.) But where do the Latin!Steward pages belong? I can't start translating until I know where to post said translations. Angelica K 13:34, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laborabo is good. It seems that on the right side of the page meta:Stewards/elections 2009/Guidelines you click "Translations +/-" and proceed from there. It looks complicated ... good luck! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we have ourselves a stub [2] there. It's definitely a work in progress, but I think it's going to turn out well. Angelica K 15:46, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locational concepts[fontem recensere]

To make some categories, I'm looking for the best (single) Latin word to include the English concepts of "city, town, village, hamlet," perhaps something like the English 'settlement'. Also, for 'landform' (to cover a variety of geological features), would conformatio terrena or conformatio terrestris do? and which is better? or is a single word available? IacobusAmor 15:26, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the right word to cover all those ideas of settlement is "colonia". I believe conformatio terrestris would work very well for "landoform"--Rafaelgarcia 15:34, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN status information in taxobox[fontem recensere]

I like to ask for everyone's attention at: Disputatio Formulae:Taxobox and want to ask to keep the discussion about the matter at that page, Hendricus 16:49, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other expressions[fontem recensere]

Salvete!!!

Adiuvate me, quaeso, ad transducendas has expressiones:

  • as time passed
  • start to do something
  • to use someone/something as some other thing

Gratias multas vobis prius ago!!!!--Le K@l!nuntia? 05:48, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I'm a tironis, I would like to suggest for:(--Jondel 18:50, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC))[reply]
start to do something
coepit facere aliquid/ incepit facere aliquid --Jondel 18:50, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haec tibi spero idonea fore:

  • (interiecto / intermisso) tempore, aut si vis poetarum elegantiam aemulare, volventibus annis
  • Jondel scripsit qui se modestius ut tironem introduxit (at nota bene nominativum tironis esse tiro)
  • utor aliquâ re vice alicuius rei--Ceylon 19:52, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • transiente tempore

Tergum violinae 21:35, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fontes ~ Bibliographia[fontem recensere]

Videmus Andream in commentatione de Nelson Mandela convertisse titulum fontes in bibliographiam. Oportet nobis omnes tales fontes mutare? Rogare UV? IacobusAmor 16:07, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Si erravi, muta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:52, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De LucienBOT[fontem recensere]

I think it is doing well with interwiki links, maybe we should flag it, otherwise it is impossible to see what other changes are being made--Xaverius 16:46, 10 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Adam, our grapheocrates. --UV 09:12, 11 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalica[fontem recensere]

I have made this new formula: {{IP vandalica}}, so it can be put in the vandal's page and we can know how many vandalisms have been made, and allows non-magistrates to point vandals even though they cannot block them. Do you think it is a good idea? If not, I can always delete it--Xaverius 11:58, 11 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, for persistent vandalism from static IPs this is fine. However, most home internet users (I think) have dynamic IPs, which means that the IP that had been assigned to and used by a vandal a few hours ago may be assigned to and used by a different person and a useful contributor now. We would "welcome" such a person with a glaring red template. Although Vicipaedia has fewer visitors than e. g. the English wikipedia, which makes it less likely that this will happen often, it is still a possibility. Why don't we just use {{experimentum}}? --UV 21:22, 11 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translatewiki.net update[fontem recensere]

  • Translatewiki.net formerly known as Betawiki is where the Internationalisation and Localisation of MediaWiki is concentrated. Over 300 languages are supported, issues with MediaWiki programs are dealt with. We need all the help we can get to ensure that we can maintain this service in the face of an increasing workload.

Enigma novum[fontem recensere]

Salvete!!! Enigma parvum habeo: quomodo transducendum verbum anglicum "as" esset ut hoc utor vice praepositionis, exempli gratia: He had to work as the boss?

Gratias multas vobis prius ago!!!--Le K@l!nuntia? 02:02, 16 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, "ut" or "sic ut" or "sicut" does the job.However here you want to use fungi + abl of function, so that "Ei principe fungendum erat=Is ut princeps fungi necesse erat."--Rafaelgarcia 03:38, 16 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In exemplo tuo, "quasi" etiam adhiberi posset: Oportet eum quasi principem laborare.Tergum violinae 18:44, 16 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often, you don't translate 'as' at all. Example 1: te duce, Caesar 'with you as our leader, Caesar' (Horace, Odes, 1.2). Example 2: 'to serve as' is esse with a bare dative or pro + abl.: portae fuit ~ pro porta fuit = 'it served as a gate'. ¶ I think sicut & ut are medievalisms, and suspect that for Is ut princeps Cicero would have said Is princeps (or just plain princeps). ¶ Both my Latin dictionaries list quasi only as an adverb, and all their examples have it modifying verbs, phrases, and clauses, not nouns. The as that you're asking about is, as you say, a preposition. ¶ For 'He had to work as the boss', my best guess (for the moment) would be Caput laborare debuit. But if you don't mean 'work' literally (and so you mean 'He had to serve as the boss'), then perhaps: Capiti esse debuit or Pro capite esse debuit. IacobusAmor 19:32, 16 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vere gratias plurimas vobis omnibus ago!! Mihi nimis placet quod me valde adiuvavistis in ombius a me incognitis!!--Le K@l!nuntia? 01:58, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples are excellent Latin Iacobe, however ut and sicut in the sense I give above are classical too. " qui canem et felem ut deos colunt, Cic. Leg. 1, 11, 32: Hannibalem, non ut prudentem tantum virum, sed ut vatem omnium quae tum evenirent admirari, Liv. 36, 15, 2: [3]...quibus in causis omnibus, sicut in ipsā M.' Curii ... fuit summa de jure dissensio, Cic. de Or. 1, 56, 238; Nep. Dat. 9: omnibus periculis, sicut cum Spartam oppugnavit, id. Pel. 4: sicuti cum, Lucil. ap. Non. p. 154, 27:"[4]--Rafaelgarcia 02:47, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puto te inventurum esse, Iacobe, quia "quasi" in exemplo meo vero est adverbium phrasem modificans. Verbum "oportet" intelligi debet, sic: "oportuit eum, quasi [oporteret] principem, laborare". Insuper, in lexicone meo notatur "quasi" numeris praeponi posse cum sententia "circiter". Tergum violinae 21:35, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'National (State, County, City) Park'[fontem recensere]

Did we ever settle on a Latin word for 'park' in this context? To the prior discussion (which I can't find just now), I can add the following, from the OED: reservation = "a tract of land set apart by Government for some special purpose, or for the exclusive use of certain persons, esp. of a native tribe." So while Latin reservatio would seem obvious for an American Indian reservation, it might also be apt for parks "set apart by Government for some special purpose," such as national (state, county, city) parks. On a small scale (as with a city park), the concept of 'park' might seem closer in sense to hortus, but under the OED's definition, it would still seem to be a special case of a reservation (= reservatio). IacobusAmor 15:02, 17 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_8#National_park--130.215.96.195 20:14, 17 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonne licet "parricus" adhiberi? Tergum violinae 21:41, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoriae[fontem recensere]

Sorry to make such trouble over categories for you, Andrew, but it's partly your fault for deciding to make Vicipaedia's categories incompatible with the English wiki's. :) IacobusAmor 21:09, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think they are quite largely compatible, so far as they go. But we are a hundred times smaller, and that makes a huge difference (see below). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:23, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria: Homines qui sibi mortem consciverunt[fontem recensere]

Two questions here. (1) Is homines qui good Latin? As I recall, this qui all by itself means 'people who'. (2) What's wrong with suicida for 'a suicide, a person who commits suicide'? Classical Latin already had homicida for 'murderer', matricida for 'matricide, a mother-murderer', and parricida for 'parricide, a father-murderer'; suicida would approximate the pattern. Also, if we can infer from the etymology in the OED, the New Latin word suicida came into existence in or before the seventeenth century, and we already use plenty of words coined much more recently than that. IacobusAmor 21:09, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be a question for me (or for the taberna, really) so I'll copy it to Disputatio Categoriae:Homines qui sibi mortem consciverunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:16, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria: Inventores vs. Categoria: Inventores Anglici, &c.[fontem recensere]

You've got several categories like this, where the English wiki breaks down the larger category by country (or maybe additionally other political or cultural criteria) but Vicipaedia doesn't. Is it your contention that Vicipaedia will never grow big enough to want such a breakdown? If not, why not plan ahead for it? IacobusAmor 21:09, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is you? :) [Oh, I see now, I'm named above. Sorry]
But, since I do create a lot of categories, I'll give an answer. My answer is that we do plan ahead by having the category Inventores (in a structure whose supercategory is Categoria:Homines secundum munera digesti) and, parallel to it, the structure beginning from the supercategory Categoria:Homines secundum civitates digesti. Both structures are infinitely extensible. Whenever any category under Categoria:Homines secundum munera digesti becomes rather well-stuffed, it can be split up according to countries. This can be done by creating e.g. Categoria:Inventores secundum civitates digesti and then creating all the country categories as they are needed. So long as the structure remains predictable, this is easy and even fun (to some!)
The big, big reason for not creating infinite categories immediately, and for maintaining a predictable structure, is that people use categories now, and we very much want them to do this because it is one main way that they navigate among our pages. In an anarchic structure, containing numberless one-member categories set up for a much-desired future, they will find navigation impossible or boring and in either case won't persist. We have then lost one major method of getting people to our pages. This isn't just me saying it: many wikis have a recommendation or a strict rule that categories should not be set up at all unless they are going to contain 5 (or sometimes more) members immediately; and the reason I gave is the best reason why they have this rule. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, but red categories at the bottom of texts haven't been "set up": there's nothing productive to click to, and inexperienced users know that (or soon learn). Why shouldn't they be kept in red until their category has been created? For example, IIRC, a category for "Episcopaliani Americani" was deleted from or hidden in Fredericus Astaire; but why not leave it there, until such time as somebody figures out that it's potentially a huge category, including (as it will) George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Colin Powell, Charlie Chaplin, Cary Grant, Judy Garland, Humphrey Bogart, an absolute majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and many others (see http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_anglican.html). After the category has been created, the link will turn blue; but if you undo the original work of inserting the category into the text, then somebody later will have to go and undo the undoing—provided it doesn't get forgotten. IacobusAmor 20:26, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer on your talk page -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other wikis also have a definite category structure, e.g. for biographical categories, and, again, they do this because it makes the result easy to navigate and easy to extend.
We all long for the Vicipaedia future, and we all plan for it, but if people don't find our pages now, there won't be a Vicipaedia future. That's my answer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De "people use categories now, and we very much want them to do this because it is one main way that they navigate among our pages."—Since I never navigate this way, you can understand how all this categorizing mystifies, and why the best course of action when translating articles from en: seems to be to translate the categories along with the rest of the text. Is there any way of getting data on how frequently typical visitors (other than experienced vicipaedianistae) use the categories to navigate? and on the navigational tracks that they actually follow? IacobusAmor 20:13, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you never use the categories that exist, you may never become less mystified. I suggest you try them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do browse, but the list of articles I might write is long enough to last a lifetime, and the last thing it needs is more ideas. The activity that a small wiki needs most is probably the writing of articles. To attract visitors, a reference work needs to offer what visitors want. (If we don't build it, they won't come.) For example, according to Google Trends, these are the top topics being searched for today:
1. new american tea party
2. lisa lavoie
3. fat tuesday 2009
4. produce the note
5. paczki
6. sea shadow
7. paczki calories
8. laissez les bons temps rouler
9. mardi gras history
10. let the good times roll
11. punchki
12. national pancake day
13. hughes mining barge
14. ihop
15. king cake
16. 9 year old bride
17. fausnaught day
18. jayla cooper
19. roadrunner webmail
20. paczki day
21. sharon stone oscars
22. chinatown fire
23. fasnacht day
24. international house of pancakes
25. orbiting carbon observatory
Those are the topics that our potential customers want to know about, right now. One wonders how well Vicipaedia is serving them. IacobusAmor 16:16, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something that's immediately clear in that list is the seasonality of interest. If I undertstand these terms right, fourteen of the top twenty-five—a majority!—reflect the fact that today is the day before Lent. Accordingly, to boost any drive to attract customers, Vicipaedianists might want to keep an eye on the calendar. (Which is why it was a shame, a crying shame, to have missed having Darwin be the subject of this month's featured article, and to have missed having Obama be the subject of January's.) IacobusAmor 16:28, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Role-Playing Game"[fontem recensere]

How do you translate role-playing game, or RPG? FructusMalus 00:01, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I might start by unpacking the English into 'game of the playing of roles'. For that construction, a famous phrase, annus urbis conditae (year of the founding of the city), then suggests a syntactically parallel solution: ludus partium actarum. ('Role' = partes and 'to act on a stage' = agere.) Maybe somebody will offer an attested rendition? IacobusAmor 01:01, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides partes, role is also persona. My suggestion: ludus personarum or ludus personatus. --Neander 03:09, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Macte, amice! If simpler were better, those are indeed better! Also, they're a reminder that idiom can trump syntax. Even if some common syntactically parallel phrases, like 'mind-altering drug' and 'death-defying stunt', could stand to receive a quasi-literal translation (which might have amused Cicero, but still would have been intelligible to him), others, like 'ground-breaking discovery' and 'earth-shattering event' and 'blood-curdling scream' and 'breath-taking ride' and 'heart-warming story' (the last two take no hyphen in American English, but I'm here including a hyphen to emphasize the parallelism) might not. ¶ I'd worry, however, about the possibility that ludus personarum and ludus personatus might wrongly include other games describable as 'masked games' (ludi personati), games whose players actually wear masks; no such games come to mind (though visions of masked balls and trick-or-treating do), but that doesn't allay the worry! IacobusAmor 15:40, 22 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amicissime, don't worry about possibilities. If you look at the Thesaurus linguae Latinae X,1, fasc.xi s.v. persona (1715, 29 - 1729, 34), you'll see that persona is quite rarely used to refer to the concrete mask (larva). In the majority of cases, persona is used to refer to various kinds of (rhetorical, social) roles, also by Cicero. A RPG can be construed as a rhetorical game. Lexicographically, persona is a heavily polysemous word. Most of the time, however, polysemy isn't harmful at all, because in natural communication, words are used in situational contexts which effectively enough disambiguate threatening possibilities of misunderstanding. I see no real danger in dubbing RPGs as ludi personarum. /// Another tack would of course be to go back to the ancestor of the word role in varius European languages (It. ruolo, &c), which is rollus (attested in 1005) 'list, catalogue'; < rotulus. However, I find this tack problematic. /// Other suggestions? --Neander 03:02, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry: I'm truly worried by almost nothing, except for rhetorical effect (when, for example, I might point out that in baseball, one person plays the role of pitcher, one plays the role of catcher, one plays the role of hitter, and so on, yet we don't ordinarily call baseball a role-playing game). ¶ Thanks for the reference to the Thesaurus, about whose day-to-day operations I recently read a fascinating article in the TLS: "You say 'putator': The first word on the first day of a Latin lexicographer" (6 February 2009, pp. 14–15). About half the article traces the author's process in producing an entry for the word putator. It notes that over 600 years passed before the noun, basically meaning 'pruner', acquired the sense of '[Christian] believer'. The article in turn led me to Watkins's PIE dictionary, which lists putare as cognate with pavere and pavire, all three verbs reflecting the same PIE root! IacobusAmor 14:37, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support ludus personarum, for the reasons given by Neander. Additionally, it closely matches the modern French jeu de rôle, which also omits the verb 'to play'. Moreover, it enables us to further distinguish the sub-genres of such ludi, such as the ludus personarum tabulae (table-top RPG), ludus personarum actandus (live-action RPG, or LARP), and so on. AlexTiefling 13:56, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you and I conspire ...?[fontem recensere]

Among categories for people who oppose the current state of things, we currently have Categoria:Rerum novarum cupidi (like Catiline) and Categoria:Repugnatores (rebels, resistance fighters). I don't think we have a category yet for people who set off bombs or for people who assassinate politicians (or try to do so). How are we to categorise Ioannes Wilkes Booth? Should the same term apply to Guido Fawkes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How un-latin are categoria:Magnicidae or categoria:Conati Magnicidia?--Xaverius 13:41, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homicida 'murderer', matricida 'mother-murderer', and parricida 'father-murderer' are classical; suicida 'self-murderer' is sixteenth-century (or so); magnicida would seem to match the pattern. I don't much like it, but people who accept a verbal catastrophe like televisio may have no standing to oppose just about any neologism. ;) IacobusAmor 16:38, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is magnicida supposed to mean? (Maybe this ain't my day ... :-) --Neander 23:39, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(DRAE dixit) magnicidio. (Del lat. magnus, grande, y -cidio). 1. m. Muerte violenta dada a persona muy importante por su cargo o poder. - violent death given to a person who is important due to his power or position.--Xaverius 23:49, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Xaveri. I'm afraid this gets a bit difficult. Unless I'm mistaken, magnicidio is an exclusively Spanish word. As a lemma it exists in the Spanish wiki without iw links. Language-internally, it also kind of competes with atentado and asesinato. It seems that different languages tend to conceptualise murders in different terms (maybe some languages fail to differentiate between murder and (hu)manslaughter). Though magnicida is morphologically quite blameless, do we really need this (political) category? Anyway, magnicida would overlap with sicarius. Hmm, good luck to anyone entering this quagmire of Sprachspiele. :-) --Neander 01:09, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I'd never met the Spanish word magnicidio, but I assumed that a Latin word magnicida would refer to the killing of magnates, and that turns out to be approximately what Xaverius meant. IacobusAmor 02:07, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, approximately. Would all persons in this list or here be magnates? The point I'm trying to make is that "magnate" may be a POV term. I don't know. And I'm not worried (but perhaps a bit metaworried... :-) --Neander 02:45, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One or two of them look nearly nonmagnatelike, but that raises the eternal question of notability, and reminds us that notability is infinitely variable, not an either–or concept. Classical Latin already had sicarius. Do we we have Classical attestations of sicarii who did their deed with something other than a dagger? A sicarius is fundamentally a person (-arius) who uses a sica. Cassell's quotes Cicero in an idiom that's especially salient: accusare aliquem inter sicarios, presumably literally meaning 'to charge someone [with being] among the sicari,' but Cassell's glosses it more generally: 'of murder', not 'of murder-by-dagger'. Do we have Classical attestations that garotters were sicarii? If so, then that would be warrant enough to extend the concept to poisoners, shooters, bombers, etc. IacobusAmor 14:14, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would admit a difference between wanting to kill just anybody, and wanting to kill someone who holds power. Therefore this is a handy word, at all events; all praise to Spanish for verbalizing the concept.
To say that those who hold power are magni is, of course, a metaphor, but does it or does it not betray POV? Isn't it roughly similar to saying that they are notabiles? -- and every Wiki editor has to be able to make that claim about a chosen subject! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand magnicidio, it normally applies to the assassination of heads state or of government, although for that we have also regicidio just for kings. Killing a president would be a magnicidio, without any POV involved, sticking to the definition of magnicidio.--Xaverius 14:32, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Webster, regicida is assumed New Latin for a king-killer (Anglice: regicide, first attested in the sixteenth century), as is regicidium for the killing. IacobusAmor 15:02, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there has never been a folk-category magni, comparable to, say, optimates, proceres, boni, or in late Latin magnates. Vir magnus may have denoted a great king, but also a great orator or even a great friend. Regicidium looks like being a well-defined category, maybe superseding the older folk-category tyrannicidium (maybe a more up-to-date category would now be praesidicidium :-) . But seriously, if we adopt a neologism, what about magnaticidium or procericidium? /// Re sicarius, at least in Italian, sicario is a contract-killer (cf. also [5] and [6]). --Neander 23:52, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and another thing[fontem recensere]

And while others are still thinking about that, CeleritasSoni's page Eugenius Victor Debs is one of our first labour leaders. It would be good if others would have a look at the page and consider terminology before any potential categories are created: "trade union", "labour leader", "Industrial Workers of the World", etc. Any discussion could go at Disputatio:Eugenius Victor Debs, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds us quickly[fontem recensere]

This may be no news, but I thought it worth mentioning that in checking the name of Alexandra Bullock I noticed our page is already on Google, just one day after it was created. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catharina[fontem recensere]

I think "Catharina" is the Latin spelling I would expect for this forename. I was going to move our new "Caterina"s to that spelling, but I realise we have sometimes accepted "Catherina" in the past. Which should we prefer? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The typography of footnotes[fontem recensere]

At least on my screen, any line of text that has a superscript footnote in it gets a tiny bit of extra space (leading) above it. Accordingly, the vertical spacing of paragraphs is irregular if they contain footnotes. This (to put it most charitably) is unsuccessful typography. Can any of our resident coders fix it? To avoid it, I've been preferring the customary social-science form of references: in-text parentheses giving surname, year, and (if necessary) page, thus: (Jones 1985:27). That solves the spacing problem, but wikipedians naturally seem enamored of the cachet of footnotes, and so they proliferate, pointlessly duplicating information that's already present in bibliographies. ¶ There's also a question of the style of footnotes & bibliographies. Traditionally, the order by which footnotes present their data (with controlling punctuation) differs from the order by which bibliographies do. IacobusAmor 14:44, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the irregularity of line-spacing is a bad thing.
I don't think I agree with the implication that footnotes are to be deprecated. My feeling is that, in this, a long encyclopedia article differs from an academic paper. Academic papers don't usually offer a guide to further reading and other such general aids: encyclopedia articles, on the other hand, need to do this. Therefore, I think, in an encyclopedia article a bibliography and footnotes can usefully serve different purposes: the footnotes to indicate what are the sources for specific statements in the text; the bibliography to provide general further reading.
And (I guess this humble act of mine may have sparked off your comment!) that was why, in the Wordsworth article, I moved Venn's Alumni Cantabrigienses and the history of Hawkshead grammar school from the bibliography to the footnotes (because these two works, unlike the others, don't offer further general information on Wordsworth); but if you think I did wrong, please revert my move: I intentionally did it in a single edit so that it's easily revertible.
I agree very strongly that we should have a style for citations. For what it's worth, a style is suggested at Vicipaedia:Structura paginae, but I don't believe there's ever been any discussion of it. There are two big problems, I think: 1. those who know about these things seldom agree on the best style to adopt; 2. those who write Wikipedia articles aren't always skilled at making bibliographical citations, and they are sometimes copying the details from others equally unskilled. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Line spacing: I changed the line spacing settings but we will have to wait a few hours until we can see the effect. Style of footnotes: The style of footnotes could by unified by promoting the use of citation templates such as those listed on en:Wikipedia:Citation templates, but that would require transferring at least some of the templates from en.wp to Vicipaedia. --UV 16:37, 28 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least on my screen, it's gotten worse: the extra spacing above a line with a footnote in it has remained the same, but now the spacing below that line has shrunk! So now we have a space that's too big, followed by a space that's too small. Incidentally, the "DIS" notice (for fuzzy links) generates the same irregularities. IacobusAmor 04:57, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the line spacing settings once again. Again, we will have to wait for a few hours until we can see the effect. Please tell me how it looks on your system now – and if it looks bad, please tell me which browser and browser version (e. g. Firefox 3, Opera 8, Internet Explorer 7) you are using. --UV 13:58, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new line-spacing is definitely an improvement. I believe you have also enlarged the footnote numbers slightly: good idea. Thanks, UV! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's better now, and it looks fine. Macte! IacobusAmor 15:31, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[On citation style:] Although I have (for years and years) had a personal preferred style, and I currently use it when starting new Vicipaedia pages from scratch, I would happily go along with any consensus and apply it from now on. I don't much like the templates on en:wiki because I find them time-consuming, but I must admit they produce consistent results. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quid encyclopaedia est?[fontem recensere]

Nescio quo spiritu haec vicipaedia aut aliae vicipaediae natae sint, sed video articulos latissimos et encyclopaediae improprios esse, maxime inter vicipaedias aliarum communitatum. Fortasse alii nexus ad continendos articulos tam latos creandi erunt aut apud secundam paginam breve compendium addendum erit, quia quisquis vult biographiam aut principalia facta legere, invenit valde longam informationem. Inde saepe malo vicipaediam latinam consulere, quia continens recolligit, quamquam tamen oportet bibliographiam cum qua singulariter haec themata amplificari possint.--Imtoo 11:34, 28 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to edittools[fontem recensere]

Edittools

I made a few modifications to the edittools box today. There should not be much visible change, but if you encounter any problems (in particular: JavaScript errors), please tell me!

Technical background: Previously, the contents of the edittools box (all those special characters that you can click on in order to have them inserted in the editing box) had to be included on every page load of an editing page. This caused unnecessary network traffic and page loading times. Now, the special characters are included not in every single editing page but just in one JavaScript file (MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js). This JavaScript file needs to be downloaded much less often because it can be stored in browser cache.

(If you currently do not see the edittools, please force-reload an editing page and/or clear your browser cache.) --UV 23:55, 28 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've all disappeared from my screen. :( IacobusAmor 16:01, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please open any editing page (e. g. open this section of the Taberna for editing) and try the following:
  1. press Ctrl+F5 or
  2. hold down Ctrl and click on Reload or
  3. hold down Shift and click on Reload or
  4. clear your browser cache.
--UV 21:26, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dei Graeci contra deos Romanos[fontem recensere]

In commentario de Polytheismo, nexus "Ares" (Ares) ad paginam discretivam redirigitur, ubi nexum "Martem" (Mars) invenimus. Ares, secundum Cassell's, "corresponds with" Mars, sed nonne sunt hi dei etiam varii? et cur nobis non sunt commentarii distincti? IacobusAmor 05:42, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the true problem lies with our inability to live through the development of the polytheism in Ancient Greece and Rome. Technically speaking, yes they are distinct deities, but, for more general purposes, Vicipaedia must agree whether or not to redirect Greek gods to Roman counterparts. For most of the purposes on Vicipaedia, I believe that "Ares" should redirect to "Mars" because of the Roman influence here, but I do not take a firm stance in support of this because I recognize the need to have information on the similarities and differences between deities from the two distinct cultures. Because the gods developed over time, they slowly absorbed the qualities of similar local gods as the influence of the culture spread. Also, the Greek gods had an obvious influence on the Roman gods and the two should have similar gods as counterparts. So, after all of this ranting, I think that, unless the specific Greek god(dess) is needed for the article to make sense or the author referenced is Greek and would not have recognized the existence of the Roman counterpart, the links should redirect to Roman deities.
And I think commentators haven't distinguished each because they either never needed to or they saw the deities as interchangeable for their purposes. Sapiens23 18:44, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since (as Josh or Justin has occasionally pointed out) this is a Latin encyclopedia, not a Roman one, we don't want to privilege Rome over all other cities of the world. In fact, if anything, the other wikis may privilege the Greek versions of these gods: where the English wiki has articles on both versions of similar gods, the Greek one is longer. Its article en:Ares has 18,765 chiliocteti, but its article en:Mars has 12,409. Its article en:Aphrodite has 37,462, but its article en:Venus has 17,123. Its article en:Zeus has 38,430, but its article en:Jupiter (mythology) has 12,409; its articles on the similar Hindu deity, en:Indra, has 22,453, and its article on the similar Etruscan deity, en:Tinia, has 1858. The French, German, and Spanish wikis have separate articles for Ares and Mars. The precedent set by the large wikis is clear: our Ares should have its own article, and the redirect to Mars (deus) should be deleted. Ares and Mars are similar, but not the same. IacobusAmor 14:01, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could make Mars (deus) redirect to Mars (deity), and have a proper discretiva for the index of alternate means?
I'm with Iacobus here. Writing in Latin doesn't enjoin us to a Roman pov. Given the category Mythologia Graeca, it'd be weird to be redirected to a Roman deity. An interpretatio Romana tends to obscure the fact that Greek gods and Roman gods seldom if ever have a shared conceptual history, to say nothing about provenience and etymology. --Neander 21:38, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a user who is much more a bystander than an actual editor over here at la.wiki, I would have to say that deities from the Roman and the Greek realm should have separate articles. If they were considered to be separate entities back then, so they should also be considered separate. And as IacobusAmor pointed out above, other Wikipedias have separate articles on appropriate gods. --Ouro 07:32, 5 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think my statement quoted by Iacobus above stands here, too. These gods have quite different origins both culturally and linguistically (despite what it might say at en:, and in the Lidell and Scott, I haven't read any serious scholarship connecting are to marnamai). They definitely deserve different articles, and I'm glad that seems to be the consensus.--Ioscius (disp) 04:33, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: god vs. godhead[fontem recensere]

Vocabulario Latino est discrimen inter haec verba? God = 'deus' et godhead = 'deitas' ~ 'numen' ~ 'natura dei'? Or what? IacobusAmor 16:07, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has 'divinitas' for 'godhead' in the Symbolum Quicunque, and 'deitas' in the Symbolum Chalcedonense. 'Natura dei' would seem to refer to the metaphysical character of God, rather than his quiddity as divnity; and 'numen' immediately suggests to me the qualities of beings which might be called supernatural; angels might be said to posess numen, but not the other qualities. AlexTiefling 15:59, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Its primary meaning though is "divine will", so in the sense that angels should theoretically be performing god's(s') will, I wonder in a philosophical sense to what extent we might actually say they have numen. In the secondary sense of divinity, you're probably right. --Ioscius (disp) 04:42, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen "religio"[fontem recensere]

In libris qui latine scripti sunt, "religio" non est quod in anglice "religion" appellatur sed indicat metu deum. Estne melius nome "pietate" appellare haec pagina?

Pius est qui solvit vota deis et monstrat timorem deorum aut Dei, tamen religio sunt doctrinae aut rituales fixae secundum praeceptum.--Imtoo 22:36, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verum ego quoque non existimo "pietatem" esse optimum nomen, tamen ne quidem "religionem", si scribendum est lingua latina pura et sincera.
Religio sec. L&S: "1. Reverence for God (the gods), the fear of God, connected with a careful pondering of divine things; piety, religion, both pure inward piety and that which is manifested in religious rites and ceremonies; hence the rites and ceremonies, as well as the entire system of religion and worship, the res divinae or sacrae, were frequently called religio or religiones (cf. our use of the word religion): qui omnia, quae ad cultum deorum pertinerent, diligenter retractarent et tamquam relegerent, sunt dicti religiosi ex relegendo, ut elegantes ex elegendo, tamquam a diligendo diligentes, ex intellegendo intellegentes: his enim in verbis omnibus inest vis legendi eadem, quae in religioso, Cic. N. D. 2, 28, 72: religione id est cultu deorum, id. ib. 2, 3, 8: religio est, quae superioris cujusdam naturae (quam divinam vocant).."; Confer Pietas:"I dutiful conduct towards the gods, one's parents, relatives, benefactors, country, etc., sense of duty.:I Lit.
A With respect to the gods, piety: est enim pietas justitia adversus deos, Cic. N. D. 1, 41, 115; 1, 2, 3; cf.: aequitas tripartita dicitur esse; una ad superos deos, altera ad manes, tertia ad homines pertinere. Prima pietas, secunda sanctitas, tertia justitia aut aequitas nominatur, id. Top. 23, 90: pietas adversus deos, id. Fin. 3, 22, 73: deos placatos pietas efficiet et sanctitas, id. Off. 2, 3, 11; id. Rep. 1, 2, 2: senex fretus pietate deum, Naev. B. Punic. 3, 1; Enn. ap. Non. 160, 2 (Trag. v. 369 Vahl.): nec pietas ulla est, velatum saepe videri Vortier ad lapidem atque omnes accedere ad aras, etc., that is not piety, to incline with veiled head to the marble, etc., Lucr. 5, 1198. — 2 Conscientiousness, scrupulousness, Ov. F. 6, 607. — So of love and duty towards God (eccl. Lat.; freq.), Vulg. 2 Macc. 3, 1; id. 2 Pet. 1, 6. — Plur., Vulg. 2 Pet. 3, 11. —
B With respect to one's parents, children, relatives, country, benefactors, etc., duty, dutifulness, affection, love, loyalty, patriotism, gratitude, etc.: Pa. Salve, mi pater insperate. Tr. Volup est, quom istuc ex pietate vestrā nobis contigit, Plaut. Rud. 4, 4, 132: patrem tuom si percoles per pietatem, dutifully, id. Trin. 2, 2, 3: justitia erga deos religio, erga parentes pietas nominatur, Cic. P"
Ergo, Religio Latine melius dicit Religion quam pietas, ut dixit Cicero ipse.--Rafaelgarcia 20:57, 3 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recensores?[fontem recensere]

Nobis oportet incipere categoriam de eis qui textus classicos et mediaevales ediderunt (vide e.g. hodie Ludovicus Antonius Muratorius). "Editores" significationem generaliorem habet; igitur fortasse "Recensores"? "Textuum editores"? Quid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 7 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro tempore Categoria:Recensores incepi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ita sit! --Fabullus 13:41, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verba peregrina[fontem recensere]

IacobusAmor noster in pagina Mangaca categoriam suggessit Categoria:Verba Iaponensia. An utile est categorias incipere verborum peregrinorum quae in linguam Latinam usurpamus et in summis paginis praefingimus, necne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non fui, sed fuit en:, quod hanc notionem primum subiecit! IacobusAmor 14:35, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hanc eandem rem et ego cogitavi de nominibus Latinis e lingua Arabica mutuatis. Distinguere velim nomina vere peregrina, ut Ǧamāhīrīyya, a nominibus quae pro Latinis usurpantur, ut Algebra. Fortasse Categoria:Nomina Arabica et Categoria:Nomina e lingua Arabica mutuata vel brevius Categoria:Nomina ex Arabico mutuato aut Categoria:Nomina ex Arabicis derivata. Quid censetis? --Fabullus 13:49, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Si licet, cum titulos categoriarum fingimus, praefero "Verba" appellare nomina communia, quia "Nomina" de nominibus propriis (nomina geographica, nomina hominum, etc.) usurpavimus. (De titulis paginarum nihil dico.) Recte dicis species duas exstare, verba mutuata et verba derivata (vel acclimatizata). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In pagina Anglica en:Loanword#Classification of borrowings haec definitiones adhibentur:

  1. importation
    1. foreign word = non-integrated word from a foreign language, spelt as is, e.g. E café (from French); Sp. whisk(e)y (from English) (*the word whiskey in fact comes from the Irish phrase "uisce beatha" which means the water of life, "aqua vitae"); E weltanschauung (< G Weltanschauung); It. mouse ‘computer device’ (< E mouse ‘rodent; computer device’).
    2. loan word = integrated word from a foreign language, orthography adapted for the receiving language, e.g. E music (from French "musique"); Sp. chófer (from French "chauffeur").

Propono hac divisione in Categorias faciendas utamur. Si consentitis, quomodo haec nomina Latine convertamus?

  • importation ?
    • foreign word = verbum peregrinum, verbum alienum (?)
    • loan word = verbum mutuatum (?)

Opiniones vestras libenter legam. --Fabullus 19:34, 12 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da veniam, Fabulle! Usque adhuc non respondi. Sed, summatim, tibi consentior. Contra "alienus" praefero "peregrinus" quia significatio est vel neutra vel positiva. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paginae partim corrigendae[fontem recensere]

As our quality improves it becomes more necessary to be able to mark poor-quality edits that need to be brought up to the standard of the page. We have talked about this before and I want to suggest that we regularly use the method of marking or highlighting text that needs improvement. A good way to do this is to enclose the whole dubious text in a formula, and I have made three, for others to try out.

  • This one is called Formula:Verba vicificanda. Use it if the new text needs Wikifying, has no links, etc.[vicificanda]
  • This one is called Formula:Verba Latinizanda. Use it if the new text is in worse Latin than the rest of the page[latinizanda]
  • This one is called Formula:Verba verificanda. Use it if the new text is factually dubious or needs sourcing[verificanda]

They each have categories attached, so it will be possible to cruise pages that need partial corrections. The categories are Categoria:Paginae partim vicificandae, Categoria:Paginae partim Latinizandae, Categoria:Paginae partim verificandae, all of them subcategories of Categoria:Corrigenda. Will these formulae help, do you think?

It is also possible to use them in our own writing. If you are doubtful about a date or a fact you can mark it as doubtful[verificanda]. If you can't find a Latin word you can mark your near guess as dog Latin[latinizanda]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:13, 12 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are being noticed![fontem recensere]

Have any of you seen this? --Fabullus 20:19, 12 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient language localization contest[fontem recensere]

Hello wikimedians:

Currently Ancient Greek is ahead in localization amomg classic languages. We invite you to a competition. The goal is to complete the translations of Wikimedian languages and its extensions. at Betawiki.

What languages will complete the localization? you can decide that. Crazymadlover

Pan (genus)[fontem recensere]

Quomodo declinatur Pan genus (Anglice: chimpanzee)? IacobusAmor 20:19, 14 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen generis, ut videtur, derivatum est a nomine dei Graeci, quod apud auctores Latinos plerumque Graece declinatur: genetivus Panos (Ovid.), accusativus Pana (Verg., Ovid. sed etiam Livius et Plinius). Tantum ablativus, quem Graeci non habuerunt, Latine formatur: Pane (Hyg. Fab.). Hoc nobis paradigma sit declinationis omnino Latinae: Pan, Panem, Pani, Panem, Pane. --Fabullus 07:21, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias, amice. Et habemus formas plurales (Anglice: chimpanzees, chimps)? IacobusAmor 12:58, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tituli Pellicularum[fontem recensere]

Salve! Since 99% of the films we have on Vicipaedia are in another language, I wanted to create a template for the Latin translation of the titles. This would keep all the pelliculae pages looking more consistent. Andrew Dalby suggested:

English title (titulus Anglicus, sc. "Latinus titulus") est... (vide: Citizen Kane)

I just wanted to get everyone's input before I went ahead and created it. Does this format look good? Can it be condensed more? Thanks!--SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 03:26, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A variant "formula", which emerges from my and Neander's edits to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, is:
English title (titulus Anglicus; Latine fere "Latinus titulus") est ...
This may be preferable because the "fere" modestly indicates that our Latin version is an approximation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three things: (1) We know it's a title, so the titulus to the left of Anglicus is unnecessary (and the same situation can occur with lemmas that aren't film-titles, where we likewise don't need a reminder that the lemma is a liber or a nomen or a vox or whatever, because that's going to come up in the definition, only a few words or syllables later), (2) and sc. is almost always understood, and (3) modern linguists always use single quotes for glossing (and double quotes therefore only for quoting); so that leaves us with:
English title (Anglicum; Latine fere 'Latinus titulus') est ...
Note that Anglicum is neuter, with nomen or verbum understood. Or, avoiding that problem:
English title (Anglice; Latine fere 'Latinus titulus') est ...
That might work, if we can use bare adverbs like that. Or is the obvious fact of the Latinity needed?
English title (Anglice; 'Latinus titulus') est ...
Hmm. IacobusAmor 13:15, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you say of single quotes may well be true of modern linguists, but single quotes are scarcely ever used as such on Wikipedia. There are specific reasons why double quotes are preferred: (a) because single quotes can interfere with the Wikipedia search facility; (b) because single quotes can interfere with the formatting of italic and bold. The recommendation at en:Wikipedia:Manual of style#Quotation marks is to use double quotes for "quotations" and also "other uses of quotation marks"; single quotes are recommended only for "Quotations 'within' quotations". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your last line, Iacobe, I feel that, neat though it is, it relies too much on the semicolon. If it were a colon, the whole formula would mean exactly the opposite:
Titulus Latinus (Anglice: English title) est ...
It is for this reason that I've tended to prefer a slightly more explicit formulation when what's happening is that we are explaining a lemma that is in a foreign language. Sort of drawing attention to the fact: "This was an English title, folks!" But, yes, it requires more words and isn't as neat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De: "(b) because single quotes can interfere with the formatting of italic and bold": I don't see any interference here:

verbum
'verbum'
'verbum'
verbum
'verbum'
'verbum'

Perhaps I'm missing something (which wouldn't be the first time). IacobusAmor 20:51, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps I am. But I think it's best to go with the en:Wikipedia:Manual of style on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:52, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I made a template Formula:cine-t, but something's wrong with it. When I try to include it in a page, it ruins the formula for the whole rest of the paragraph! Check it out at the sandbox! What's going on?! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 00:45, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I fixed it! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 06:48, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks neat. I guess it would be preferable, if PAGENAME includes a parenthesis like "(pellicula)" or perhaps "(pellicula 1938)", to avoid including the parenthesis in the lemma. There may well be an automatic way of achieving this?
Incidentally, an added advantage of using a formula like this is that, if the agreed style on quotation marks etc. changes as Iacobus suggests, all that's then required is a quick edit to the formula: no need to make the change on every page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was thinking! I'll look into finding a way to get rid of the parentheticals. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:49, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot[fontem recensere]

Should we flag usor:AttoBot? It is impossible to keep track of recent changes. We tel Adam in these cases, don't we?--Xaverius 12:26, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

élite et haute cuisine[fontem recensere]

Sunt nobis voces Latinae pro eis notionibus? IacobusAmor 12:55, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De coquendo, Andrew noster peritus est, ei quaeremus. De elite... nescio, sed mihi videtur simul oligarcha esse--Xaverius 13:05, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... vel fortasse "optimates"?
... vel "electi", verbo cognato utens?
Cuisine, dico, "Ars coquinaria/culinaria"; haute cuisine fortasse "Ars culinaria elegans" vel "elegantior"? Nescio ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fortasse "ars coquinaria tricliniaris".--90.163.30.255 12:25, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ni fallor (et ego saepe), verbum "élite" de verbo "electissimus" descendit.Sinister Petrus 23:13, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology et Dictionnaire historique de la langue française congruunt: élite n.f. < Mid.F. eslit(e) p.p. quod ex elect(um, am, um) p.p. derivat (igitur hoc verbum supra proposui). Ab electissimum Mid.F. *eslisme, Mod.F. *élîme exspecto. Sed saepe fallor et ego! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:14, 25 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farrago[fontem recensere]

Habemus verba pro (Anglice): developmental psychologist, extrasomatic, flake (non nivis), foreignness, a kick-start, norms, popularize, processual, species-unique behavioral abilities, statistics, values? Et quid est rectum pro five or six million years ago (sine verbo falso milliona)? IacobusAmor 20:43, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

foreignness --peregrinitas?
norms--normae
species-unique behavior abilities --facultates consuetudinariae speciei cuidam adiunctae
statistics --(normal sense)indicia/(discipline of mathematics) statistica
five or six million years ago--quinque aut sex miliones annos abhinc; non puto milionem "falsum" esse, sed "novum"
processual--nescio egomet quid hoc vocabulum dixerit Anglice
popularize --populari favori citare
kick-start --calcitrando incipere
extrasomatic--extrasomaticus?
flake-- (psychologicus status) vacerrosus; (pars minora) assula
developmental pyschologist--psychologus evolutionis humanae peritus (NB. evolutio sensu "evolution" est sensus novus huius vocabuli, sensus primus est "development")--Rafaelgarcia 21:45, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, some of which I suspected more or less in your forms. For million, I'm trying to work with as much of the classical vocabulary as possible, so I get abhinc annorum circa quinquaginta sexagintave centum milia. Is that understandable? Calcitrando incipere could be a little too literal? A developmental psychologist studies the changes in an individual during a single lifespan, so the "development" refers to a single human's mind, not to the species. (Whatever "developmental psychology" is, a wiki should have an article on it.) Extrasomaticus seems like cheating (with Latin+Greek), but it may do in a pinch; extracorporealis? extracorporeus? IacobusAmor 22:25, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your number phrasing fine, although it seems overcomplicated to my modern ear. I am not good at roman numerals, but I suspect that a Roman would write the number in a way that would easily be switched into a roman numeral notation.--Rafaelgarcia 23:46, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extracorporeus sounds better, by being all Latin. I think evolutio strictly speaking means individual development; the meaning "species evolution" is a modern meaning attached to the old word. If calcitrando incipere is too literal, figuratively plain incipere would mean the same thing.--Rafaelgarcia 23:57, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking initium repentinum 'a sudden start' should do the trick. IacobusAmor 01:14, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about feedback? IacobusAmor 22:59, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Morgan cites Vox Latina translating it as "retroactio"--Rafaelgarcia 23:46, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! IacobusAmor 01:15, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: ratchet[fontem recensere]

Habemus verbum pro (Anglice) ratchet et a ratchet effect? IacobusAmor 20:59, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what part you are refering to:
ratchet = mechanismus dentatus qui constat in rota dentata seram cardineam iungente
Functionally, perhaps, retinaculum or retinaculum hamatum? --Neander 03:39, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ratchet closer = appropinquare gradibus distinctis--Rafaelgarcia 22:12, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for something succinct enough to make the phrase the ratchet effect. The cog of a wheel is dens. Maybe that would be useful (effectus dentatus?). IacobusAmor 22:29, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the general concept, perhaps Processus irreversibilis? Processus fatalis? Processus inexorabilis? In english the "rachet effect" is an analogic term, it isn't necessary to preserve the analogy when translating. In this case, however, in so far as it refers to the tendency of expanding government I would then translate it as "inpulsus inexorabilis ad socialismum".--Rafaelgarcia 00:16, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, when seeking for a Latin term for the ratchet effect, there's no need to stick to the English figure of speech (though it's very good). Yes, the ratchet effect consists in irreversible processes, but somehow you seem, in your brave efforts, to be picturing the process in negative and pov terms. Also cultural evolution can be characterised in terms of a ratchet effect (witness Tomasello), so we may need some extra effort in order to figure out an adequate Latin term for this important notion. I regret to confess that right now I have nothing to offer. --Neander 03:39, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that something related to stepwise catches the idea, and that gets us to gradus, and perhaps therefore to effectus gradarius. What say? And as you seem to know of Tomasello, Neander, and of cultural evolution and such, be advised that I'm in the process of producing a loooooooooong article on related subjects. (I keep choosing new topics because they offer new lexical & idiomatic challenges.) Forewarned is forearmed! IacobusAmor 03:59, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that stepwise catches half of the idea, the other half being the (irreversible) locking effect that affects degrees of freedom in the future. Gradarius looks good but conventionally it characterises a horse moving at an even pace. I think gradalis or gradatus would fare better. But how to put "gradatus & obseratus" succinctly? I don't know, maybe it's better to subsume the ratchet effect under progressio irrevocabilis? --Neander 02:16, 17 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the latin for "Ratchet" is "Cliquetum", so it is possible to call it "Cliqueti effectus"; [7]--Rafaelgarcia 00:27, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But here, "cliquetum" means "matutina campanae pulsatio" (though ratchet seems to be "cliquet" in French). --Neander 03:39, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that word seems rather late, while I'm trying to stay classical, though of course there may be some value in retaining a few obvious back-formations from modern jargon (civilizare, eruditio aemulativa, etc.; and for Elementargedanken and Volkergedanken, notiones primae and notiones populares, respectively). ¶ Speaking of which, is popularis OK for both 'popular' and 'folk'? ¶ For 'behavior', Cassell's gives only mores, -um, pl.; is that OK? IacobusAmor 03:59, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For popularis, the answer is probably yes. For the second question, it seems to me that behaviour is semantically more comprehensive than mores. At least, if animal behaviour is rendered as mores animalium, we're probably speaking a bit metaphorically. --Neander 02:35, 17 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my reference wasn't the best. However, it does seem from further searching that in latin a Triquetum refers to a hinged instrument like a ratchet. The term is used in medical latin (os triquetum is a bone in the knee) and in astronomy (triquetum an instrument for reproducibly measuring angles between objects in the sky). From what I can deduce, the french morning bell was apparently rung by an automatic ratchet type mechanism. Lastly, this is the origin of the modern french word for ratchet.--Rafaelgarcia 12:38, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. Sounds like maybe it is not the best word for ratchet. See en:Triquetrum (not Triquetum) meaning triangular-shaped, not specifically ratcheting.--Rafaelgarcia 17:16, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

logic[fontem recensere]

Anyone know where best to go for logic related terminology? I would like to write articles on predicate logic and propositional calculus as a background for an article (or several) on determiners which would ultimately be background for a discussion of the preference or natural languages (exclusively, to our knowledge) of conservative determiners over non-conservative. --Ioscius (disp) 05:12, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're looking for but on page 1152, he gives some philsophical terms that may be useful for your article Institutiones philosophicæ By Juan José Urráburu--Rafaelgarcia 11:55, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rafael. Certainly is an initium optimum.--Ioscius (disp) 17:24, 6 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Très Sainte Trinosophie[fontem recensere]

The Most Holy Trinosophy, was a book edited by Count Saint Germain. Here is a link to a book in spanish PDF. La Santísima Trinosofía I request if anyone who has advanced knowledge in Latin language could take the time to translate this book. The original version of this book was in latin but it get lost many centuries ago. The main topic is occultism, alchemy, and predictions a kind like Nostradamus. --Kinto 00:39, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adiuvate, quaeso, me[fontem recensere]

Salvete!!! I have troubles translating the word "bead" — id est, a small round object with a hole to allow it to be threaded on a cord or wire. I've looked up in the Words dictionary, and I found the word "faba" as a translation. I'm using this word, but I'd like to know whether it's correct or not; if correct, I'd like to know how to translate the word "jewelry" (or "jewellery"). Gratias multas prius ago vobis omnibus.--Le K@l!nuntia? 23:33, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan cites Levine as giving "globulus perforatus (or terebratus) " for a perforated bead; faba means bean and only means bead by analogy or secondary meaning; you could also use magarita perforata for perforated pearl. Morgan also gives Ornatus (decoration) for Jewelry; but following Traupman you can also use Gemmae (pl) (gems).--Rafaelgarcia 00:02, 19 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Jewel' = gemma, et 'jeweled' = gemmeus & gemmatus. 'Jeweler' = gemmarum compositor. 'Brooch' = fibula. 'Necklace' = monile & torques (torquis). IacobusAmor 00:59, 19 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27,000[fontem recensere]

Credo aut paginam discretivam Alcmaeon a Fabullo inceptam, aut paginam Monica Macovei‎‎ Massimi, numero 27,000 fuisse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 19 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bottom-up enterprise[fontem recensere]

A bottom-up enterprise (as all the wikis predominantly are, despite top-down efforts, as from regular editors) will serve its clients by offering them what they want. Therefore, the first question that arises is: What do potential clients want? For the record, here are the top 50 terms searched for on Lycos during the past week, grouped by apparent frequency (the most requested terms in the first set, the least in the last set; a few duplications omittted; since frequency was originally indicated onscreen by size, this distribution may not be fully accurate):

  • 1. youtube, natasha richardson, gmail, abraham betech moussan, cars, drudge report, facebook, imagesinde
  • 2. ncaa basketball, infowars, rense, alex jones, yorkies, adoption, arbeitszeugnis, muster, travel, kirklands, home decor
  • 3. zeroboard, cnn, new york city, modx, ru, craigs list, coast, google maps, test
  • 4. quotations, powered, icewarp, muster, medezin, tax rebate, arbeitnehmer, vorlage, fresenius, schematics, google_monitor_query, googlestad
  • 5. english bulldog, adoption, steve quayle, american idol, kitco, ixquick, lookup, wikileaks, wikipedia
  • 6. netflix, e, portfolio, hulu, fox news, tax forms
  • 7. oath keepers, prison, planet, weather

Anyone wishing to oblige Vicipaedia's potential clients by writing the missing articles is welcome to do so! IacobusAmor 02:56, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that our potential clients' interests are different than these, especially since 90% of the people who searched using Lycos probably do not speak or read Latin. Our wiki targets a much more specific audience. I know you weren't suggesting that we focus on only writing articles about these things, but I just wanted everyone to keep in mind that Latin-speaking/reading people are probably searching for different things than the world as a whole. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 07:24, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must be a generation thing, because I don't recognize a good number of those. The inclusion of Kitco is humorous/tragic, people watching their national currencies/salaries fizzle due to inflation.--Rafaelgarcia 09:20, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recognize most, either. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:25, 22 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One should take such statistics for what they're worth. You can tell this one is rigged by the mere fact that it contains no sexual terms. But I wonder what sort of people use Lycos anyway. Doesn't everybody google?--84.190.4.144 22:52, 23 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes everybody googles, and Wikipedea pops up very often then. I once googled some mythical beast, like Leviatan or Behemoth, I don't remeber. It turned out the Latin Vicipaedia was the best documented, or maybe even the only match. So maybe that's where it's strength would be, eventually--Kladderadatsch 18:32, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: symbol[fontem recensere]

Latine, utrum est melius: symbolum, -i, vel symbolus, -i? Vicipaedia ambabus formis utitur! IacobusAmor 13:27, 22 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod cum omnia hac de re habeantur aequalia, melius esse puto symbolum neutri generis, quia symbolum est artificium inanimatum.--Rafaelgarcia 20:01, 22 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias. IacobusAmor 17:19, 23 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax: cum X (sicut Y et Z)[fontem recensere]

In this construction, are Y & Z in the ablative case because they're associated with X? or are they in the nominative case because an elided sunt (as in sicut sunt Y et Z) might be lurking in the grammatical background? IacobusAmor 17:19, 23 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are with X as with Y and Z OR They are with X as Y and Z are?? --Alex1011 17:22, 23 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more explicitly "They are with X just as they are with Y and Z?" OR "They are with X just as Y and Z are with X"??--Rafaelgarcia 17:59, 23 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give us the concrete sentence that elicited your question? --Neander 20:28, 23 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex & Rafael highlighted an ambiguity that's somewhat hidden in English. I've finessed it by changing the structure to cum Y et Z et aliis X (in the original, X was a generic plural). Amateur writers in English overuse the such as construction, sometimes creating logical conundrums; e.g., "composers such as Beethoven" (but there are no composers such as Beethoven! and he's only one composer anyway, so it should have been "composers such as Beethoven & Gottschalk" or "a composer such as Beethoven"). Anyway, Neander, I've already suppressed all memory of the particulars of the original phrase! IacobusAmor 02:17, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: environment et environmental conditions[fontem recensere]

What are the best Latin terms for these notions? Where's a searchable online wordlist of such terms? IacobusAmor 02:17, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Circumiectum" (or "circumiectum naturale" for natural environment) is apparently the neolatin term for "environment," according to Words. "Circumiecti status" would then work for "environmental conditions", if we follow the example of "status caeli" for the "weather". --Rafaelgarcia 16:45, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: hamburger[fontem recensere]

Habemus verbum pro hoc cibo? IacobusAmor 04:56, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certe, vide Pastillum Hamburgense --Rafaelgarcia 05:37, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Certe profecto! ¶ The list under Vide etiam seems just to be a list of demotic American foods. Would it be more useful if it were turned into a category? IacobusAmor 13:12, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category exists (Categoria:Alimenta Civitatum Foederatarum) and I have added this page to it. The others in the list can be added as well ... whenever someone writes them! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 24 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: download et upload[fontem recensere]

Habemusne horum verborum interretis?--Koika 15:05, 5 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utimur "(fasciculum) depromere" et "(fasciculum) imponere". Vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#Computer terminology in Latin et Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 8#fasciculos onerare. --UV 15:23, 5 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2009: Scholarships[fontem recensere]

English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun!

Latina: Please translate this message into your language. - Rjd0060 01:25, 9 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carantonus[fontem recensere]

Can someone check this Carantonus ? (sorry my latin is very poor, especially my declension). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:18, 9 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No big problems, but I think it's better now. Thanks Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 9 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can always add the {{tiro}} template to indicate that you are not sure of your Latin and want it checked--Xaverius 15:13, 9 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx ! I knew this formula but I lost it name ! Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 12:15, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diarium, radiophonia et televisio sunt ...[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, Neander told me you might be the right person for questions about modern words in Latin. I'm looking for a translation of "(mass) media" (simple:mass media) and "media studies" (simple:media studies). Right now, radiophonia and televisio are parts of the Categoria:Technologia, while diarium is part of the categories "Opera" and "Litterae". Greetings from Berolinum --Kolja21 18:31, 13 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this from my userpage: see also discussion at Disputatio Usoris:Neander. I think Kolja is right: there ought to be a supercategoria into which all these concepts would fit. Since other people call these things Media, and it is a Latin word, perhaps we, also, should call them Categoria:Media. Or is there a better word? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 13 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Media communicationis" and "nuntiis vulgandis instrumentum" are given by Redmond for "media"; but perhaps to capture the sense of media in "mass media" "media vulgatoria" might suit? Or perhaps "ars vulgandi" or "ars nuntia vulgandi" or "ars communicationis"?--Rafaelgarcia 23:36, 13 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In vulgus" (für jedermann; everybody) is a good approach. I find "media vulgatoria" convincing. It even has the same pejorative sound as "mass media". And as "religious studies" are called "scientia de religionibus", "media studies" might be translated with "scientia de mediis"? --Kolja21 01:45, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rafael, why would you say vulgatoria over vulga?--Ioscius (disp) 03:40, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong but I think "mass media" refers to not the media being common ("the common media"~"media vulga") but to the media being "the means of distributing information to the masses" = "the means by which something is made common"~"the diffusive media" ~ "distributive media" ~ "media vulgandi"~"media vulgatoria"--Rafaelgarcia 05:29, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probe dicis. Secundum Merriam-Webster, mass medium est "a medium of communication (as newspapers, radio, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people—usu. used in pl." Cassell's doesn't have any adjective vulgus, -a, -um, but does have vulgaris, -e 'common, ordinary, usual' and vulgatus, -a, -um 'common, esp. commonly known'. (Vulgus, we should remember, is generis neutrius.) ¶ As for scientia de religionibus 'knowledge about worship', Cassell's does allow that de, but first suggests a genitive, which here would be scientia religionis 'knowledge of worship'. IacobusAmor 09:41, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside Merriam-Webster: The definition is popular, but the word "communication" is vague. If I write a letter (to one single person) it is "a medium of communication", and even if I throw a stone at someone it communicates him, he should go away. A bomb would be – exaggerated – a form of mass communication. --Kolja21 14:42, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mistook vulga for an adjective. The proper adjective would be "communis" so that "media communia" = "common media". I think either "media vulgandi" or "media vulgatoria" would do.--Rafaelgarcia 16:14, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summarized: vulgus (Stowasser: die Masse; mass) -> "media vulgandi" or vulgaris (gewöhnlich, alltäglich; common) -> "media vulgatoria". And the study/science would be "scientia mediae" (like scientia religionis or sociologia musicae). Right? --Kolja21 19:48, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective "vulgaris" means "common", or "of the masses" as contrasted with the verb "vulgare" "to disseminate/spread among the people"; "media vulgandi" "means of disseminating or speading information among the people" ; "media vulgatoria" would mean the same but in adjectival form "the means having to do with spreading among the people". Note that media is the plural of the neuter noun medium. So that "media science" would be rendered "mediorum vulgandi scientia" "science of the means of dissemination".--Rafaelgarcia 21:05, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the study/science no language adds the "mass" or uses the singular. It's just "Medienwissenschaft" (German), "medievidenskab" (Dutch), or "mediální studia" (Czech). --Kolja21 22:51, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As Rafael pointed out, L. media is a plural noun: media, -orum n/pl., the singular being medium, -ii; cf. datum / data, factum / facta. (2) The German page brings forth two acceptations of medium that I find helpful. Whereas L. medium is rather readily applicable to the first meaning ('intermediary stoff'; cf. the μεταξύ / medium in Aristotle's theory of vision), I've had scruples about the "instrumental" use of L. medium. On the other hand, medium qua instrumentum mediandi ('means') is attested in medieval Latin (the source phrases being perhaps paci medius [Vergilius, Aen. 7.536] and pacis medius [Horatius, carm. 2.19.28] ('mediator pacis'). (3) In practice, I think we may need both media vulgatoria and media (di)vulgandi (+ NACC). (4) Sorry, but "mediorum vulgandi scientia" is a bit cumbersome. To get ahead, let me suggest "scientia mediorum" on a par with "scientia religionum". --Neander 23:14, 14 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. IacobusAmor 01:43, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be entirely in favor of "mediorum scientia", but hesitate since there is also the term "science of means" used to describe certain views philosophy and economics, for example. On the other hand, we could live with the ambiguity and set up a discretiva. Or we could imagine translating "science of means" by other words such as "agendi scientia" (science of acting/science of action).--Rafaelgarcia 01:40, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Science of means' = scientia viarum ~ rationum ~ consiliorum ~ facultatum? IacobusAmor 01:43, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"scientia consiliorum" may be just the thing!!--Rafaelgarcia 02:04, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, because those "means" Rafael is referring to, are supposed to be part of a "means—end" relation defining a functional-teleological explanation. I suggest "means" of that ilk have nothing to do with L. media, which should be construed as pregnantly referring to everything media science is concerned with. Clearly, how to latinise "science of means" is worth another discussion. But Iacobus's is a good start. --Neander 02:43, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should someone move scientia de religionibus? The lemma was chosen by an ip, so unfortunately we can't ask the author. --Kolja21 00:15, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The author was the same anonymous IP that bestowed this sentence upon the article Asia: "Religio Buddhistica et religio Hinduistica populari sunt." And it gave Superstitio these immortal words: "Superstitio vocabulum imperii Romani et Christianorum erat. Id religiones in bono et falsa dividit. In scientiam de religionibus verbum superstitio irritus est. Religio Christiana et religiones Arahamiticae elementas electas de religiones ante adventibus suis nominant: religio Celtica, religio Germanica, religio Slavica, religiones Africae, Americae et ante saeculo nine-decimo etiam religiones Asiae." In some quarters, these indications of its authenticity may be held to cast doubt on the rest of its works, including Scientia de religionibus. IacobusAmor 01:20, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: scientia mediorum and scientia religionum seems to be accepted. Only question left: Should the category for radio and television called "media", "media vulgandi" or "media vulgatoria"? --Kolja21 04:11, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "vulgatorius" is a very good word. I don't quite know where we got it from, but it is a natural development from "vulgator" one who publishes or broadcasts, which is in Lewis & Short. Maybe for clarity's sake we use "media vulgatoria" at the beginning of the article, and for the category, while allowing ourselves to use "media" alone later on. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:21, 15 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Categoria:Media vulgatoria. Thanks for your patience. (If someone would have time to start the two articles, it would be awesome. The interwikilinks are a great help.) --Kolja21 00:13, 17 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is making up words allowed now? Vulgatorius is not attested, and a vulgator at Ov. am. 3.7.51 is someone who spills a secret, which is not entirely the connotation we are looking for. Nor is scientia mediorum intelligible to anyone who does not know the modern language pattern after which it is modeled ("science of middles"?). If Latin does not offer ready-made translations for modern concepts, this does not mean we just have to invent them. Speaking about our own time in Latin will always involve some element of circumlocution and creative wording. As we all know, attempts at word-by-word versions from English - which will work for most other foreign languages, whose vocabulary has been streamlined - will fail in Latin (or rather they will create texts which look Latin but would have been utterly incomprehensible to a native speaker - like still too many articles on Vicipaedia). This is what makes Latin fun: We have to think in order to translate, because we do not only translate words, but concepts. I do not have a good word for "mass media" right now, but I think we need to search a little harder.--Ceylon 16:51, 17 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media here is obviously a different sense of medium than middle. However, I won't try to defend scientia mediorum. Rather let me point out that L&S give "vulgātor (volg-), ōris, m. 2. vulgo, I one that makes a thing generally known, a publisher. divulger: taciti, i. e. Tantalus, who divulged the secrets of the gods, Ov. Am. 3, 7, 51. " which is a direct derivative of "vulgo (volg-), āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. vulgus, I to spread among the multitude; to make general, common, or universal; to put forth to the world, publish (cf. publico)." Vulgatorius is simply the adjective form which is attested in late latin/newlatin literature (e.g. [8], and other places). Using only verbals media vulgandi would say the same thing. --Rafaelgarcia 17:18, 17 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vulgo or divulgo fit very well; I only have misgivings about vulgatorius (even in your Neo-Latin example I am not sure it has the meaning you want it to have) and vulgator (is there a classical attestation besides Ovid? L&S do not say from where they take their translations). Maybe something like instrumenta (di)vulgandi or ... divulgationis or ... ad nuntios vulgandos could work. This would then yield scientia instrumentorum etc. for "media science" - an unwieldy word for an unwieldy concept. Medium is not usually used for means as far as I can see.--Ceylon 01:34, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're quite right to raise these doubts.
If we use media (pl.) in this sense, I would regard it as a neologism in Latin based on the modern international use of a word which is itself, in origin, Latin. Sometimes we have to do that, and it's not the worst solution if we make our procedure clear, but you are right that other avenues should be explored first.
As to vulgatorius, I'm very glad you got Rafael to give a citation, both because it's a useful book that I didn't know before, and because I think the meaning intended by "vulgatorius" there is just what we want. I understand the clause as follows: "and he played a full part in making available to the public the Greek, Italian and French works of the most famous physicians in Latin and German translations". "Available to the public/the masses" is exactly the sense intended by "mass" in "mass media", isn't it?
O for the time when a Latin translation by Clusius or Wolfius would make a book available for the first time to a mass audience! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:00, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If media is a neologism, then it wasn't made up by any of us, since it is cited by Redmond and Morgan, but Morgan also lists "instrumentum communicationis sociale" as the LRL translation for "mass media". I would translate that as "social tools of communication" =?? nonsense! Perhaps it is that I have trouble equating an instrumentum with a medium in this sense. It is certainly no more classical than using medium. See the Lewis and short entries for these: instrumentum, medius, modus, methodus
Can an instrumentum be an abstract quantity or thing? can it be water? can it be air? can it be people? For "mass media" includes reporters and TV personalities too. Surely this sense of medium must have been picked up when people translated aristotle: How does one describe in latin "means to an end"; "Freedom is a means, life is the end"; or "a wave vibrates in a rigid medium"? "instrumentum quo finis attingatur"? "libertas est instrumentum, vita finis"? "unda in instrumento rigido fluctuat"? --Rafaelgarcia 12:44, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting questions. From checking the (quite rare) Google results for vulgatoria it is hard to see a difference in meaning to vulgaria. I would therefore translate the quote (in a similar fashion to Andrew Dalby's): "He endeavoured as much as he could to make known to the public the works of the most famous Greek, Italian, and French medical writers in Latin and German translations". The "mass" in "mass media", however, does not so much appear to mean "media available to the masses" or "... known to the masses", but rather "... capable of reaching the masses" (cf. also the Russian translation Средства массовой информации "Means of mass information"). I would also doubt that "mass media" should be taken to refer to individuals (such as a reporter); to my mind it refers to the whole genre of communication (such as television) or a certain station or newspaper of which the single reporter is only a part. I would not claim that instrumentum is the Latin equivalent of means: It certainly is not, and neither is medium. But for the question at hand - how to render "mass media"? - "a tool for making (news) public" might still seem clearer than "a middle known to the public".--Ceylon 15:02, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. ¶ However, maybe the vulgar masses (the public, hoi polloi) are a red herring here. Let me toss a monkey wrench into the supposed etymology. No one has disproved the possibility that the phrase is structurally a member of a small set of English idioms irregularly formed from past participles, of which three that quickly come to mind are ice cream, roast beef, and shave ice. The regular formations would be iced cream, roasted beef, shaved ice, and that pattern would give us the form massed media—and that may be apt, because that's exactly what they are: the aggregated media, not just one of them (like, for example, the print medium), but a collection of them. Perhaps this possibilty will help in the search for an appropriate Latin term. IacobusAmor 15:22, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the OED article will help:
MASS MEDIA
[< MASS n.2 + MEDIA n.2 Compare MASS MEDIUM n.]
With sing. or pl. concord (usu. with the): the main means of mass communication, such as television, radio, and newspapers, considered collectively."
And when we look up MASS n.2 there is a section of "compounds" at the bottom of the entry. One of the compounds is Mass Communication, and the OED defines Mass in this situation as "In attrib. use, with the sense ‘relating to, involving, or affecting large numbers, or the majority, of people or things’ (examples of which are very common in 20th-cent. use)." Does that help? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 17:10, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. An essential part of the definition: "considered collectively." IacobusAmor 17:42, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it does not address the "mass media" issue itself, the following link to Euler's work shows that E. "medium" in the scientific sense is indeed L. "medium" : [9] (you need to do a search for the term medium using the search gadget at the RHS)--Rafaelgarcia 17:34, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion! In case we create an article on Medienwissenschaft / media studies, what'd be its title? --Neander 19:50, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't need the "mass" in this case, I still find "scientia mediorum" (comparable: scientia religionum) convincing. --Kolja21 23:43, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but we do need mass. If we can abridge "mass media" to "media" in English that does not necessarily mean we can use the same shortcut in Latin.- I tend to think Vicipaedia's objective should not be to mould a new language using Latin grammar, but to write in a language which already exists. So when we speak about modern concepts, the question to ask should be: Would the Latin expression I use be intelligible to an hypothetical ancient Roman familiar with the modern world, or indeed to people around the world who know Latin, but have no recourse to Vicipaedia? If Newton Euler uses medium as a technical term for a physical intermediary, this in itself does not appear to be enough of a lead to decipher "science of middle things" as media science.--Ceylon 10:20, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one is recommending that we abandon all neolatin and humanistic latin coinages in favor of strict circumlocutions based on classical vocabulary only! Ignoring the centuries of new concepts and coinages within the latin tradition, if implemented, would be a serious tragedy. Caesar cannot be expected to take in a new concept based merely only on its modern naming, since most of those concepts and names didn't exist in 40BC Rome. Rather the standard should be that after laughing at some modern term for which he hasn't a clue as to what it would mean, Caesar would click on the link and see a definition or explanation that he could follow. For example, he might see a term "science of middles", laugh quizzically, click, and read something like "Mediorum scientia, potius "Mediorum nuntia vulgandi scientia", etc., est disciplina quae investigat instrumenta, instituta, et modos quibus nuntia ad populum late vulgetur....." --Rafaelgarcia 14:11, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely would not recommend that. Of course we should benefit from the post-classical and neo-Latin tradition when there is no classical term. But in this case, despite Newton Euler, I am still not convinced that there is an established neo-Latin usage of medium in the sense of either "media" or "means". What I would, however, argue is that new coinages should be self-explanatory. Or do we really want to tell readers: 'If you cannot understand our way of writing Latin, just look up the words on Vicipaedia'? This here would then be the only such self-referential wiki.--Ceylon 16:56, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scientist who wrote the above was Leonhardus Eulerus, who was not only the most prolific scientific writer of all time, writing primarily in latin, who with a photographic memory could recite the Aenid on the spot, but who also wrote the most extensive treatises on the nature of sound in the 18th century, establishing latin terminology which were taken up by romance and germanic languages. The source of medium as a thing that a wave propagates in (not necessarily for means however) evidently came from him. Mass media is a generalization of the term "the press", meant to emcompass not only print media (paper) but also electromagnetic media such as television, radio, and electronic media such as blogs on the internet, etc.... Thus the term originates in a very awkward way. "the press" does not literally mean "a press", and "print media" does not literally mean paper but those institutions that use those media for divulging information. I don't know if there is a better way of saying this in latin. But perhaps studying this origin of the term "mass media" may help.--Rafaelgarcia 17:38, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops.--Ceylon 17:52, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered a curious problem in this regard: our article on the brain, Cerebrum, had been linked to the English article of the same name, en:Cerebrum—but that was a false link, because the Classical Latin term refers to the whole brain, while the English (and presumably the modern Latin term!) refers only to the anterior brain, or to the en:forebrain. I changed our link, from en:Cerebrum to en:Brain (thereby recovering for us the points we should long have had in the tally of the 1000 famous pages), and now suggest that someone supply a new article to be equivalent to en:Cerebrum, to be named Cerebrum antecedens or Cerebrum anticum (in Classical terms), or Prosencephalon, or perhaps Cerebrum anterius (if we may use a modern adjective). There may be a distinction between "anterior brain" (English cerebrum) and "forebrain"; I haven't read the texts carefully enought to tell. In any case, this issue is complex and needs further development. Check out the definitions & links at en:Cerebrum and see what you think. IacobusAmor 14:32, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Prosencephalon would be a better page name, citing the other alternative names in the page, since it is the name in the very useful medical diagram shown on the en:Cerebrum page.--Rafaelgarcia 15:50, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One must also be aware that names of "Categories" have to be brief, because you have to type them at the bottom of every page of that category--they can't be circumlocutions.--Rafaelgarcia 14:15, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We do need mass" (in media studies)? Why, if all spoken languages life prosperous without it: from Danish "medievidenskab" over German "Medienwissenschaft" to Czech "mediální studia"? --Kolja21 16:12, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he is uncomfortable I think is that the meaning of the latin term Medium is first and foremost "middle", with the modern additional meanings of "average/mean" and "medium" are very remote extended coinings. The extra term would presumably provide the additional context to bring us to the modern meaning called for. I don't think there would be confusion in terms of categories, because there isn't a science of middles, of intermediaries, or of averages/means (already encompassed by the more extended statistica).--Rafaelgarcia 16:30, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is this: There is no straightforward equivalent to either "media" or "mass media" in Latin. Media and media vulgatoria may look nice, but they are non-reversible as translations. So our best bet would be to find one good translation for "(mass) media" (which can be treated as synomymous for our purposes) and then work with this for translating "media studies".--Ceylon 17:05, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So back to the start: What is your recommendation for media/mass media ;-) Medium as 1. "middle; center" (die Mitte): "in medium sarcinas conicere" (in der Mitte zwischen) and 2. "public" (Öffentlichkeit): "de medio removere" (auf die Seite bringen) or "in medium proferre" (to announce; bekanntmachen) fit imho to a modern use of the word as "media" or "mass media". --Kolja21 20:32, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Another problem with adding "mass" to "media studies": Some media scholars have are very broad understanding of their subject. I looked up today de:Werner Faulstich, he includes e.g. letters and the telephone to the field of media studies. --Kolja21 23:35, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first blush, I wasn't overly fond of the idea of using Latin medium/media in the sense of '(mass) media', but then I decided to accept, for my part, medium as a semantic back-borrowing (something like Modern Greek μέσα (επικοινωνίας) which is clearly a loan translation of the English term). Earlier, too, I've argued for back-borrowings (witness articulus for 'article' and revolutio for 'revolution'), but without much success. Now, Ceylon is of course right in criticising the proposal to use Latin medium in the sense of 'means'. On the other hand, however, it must be recognised that all those means and organisations of communication (press, film, radio, TV, internet) subsumed under the term (mass) media in fact stand in the middle of the (web, film &c) content / Medieninhalt and the general public. Given this point of view, let me make a fresh start. From Augustine on, a word family including mediator, mediatrix, mediatorius, mediare ('to be in the middle; to act in the middle') begins to crop up. While waiting for the clencher, I'd propose mediatrum, a neologism eager to get established by massive use :-). Accordingly, mass media would be mediatra vulgatoria. --Neander 00:36, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your philological knowledge and all but one thing, I think, is to use an attested term creatively in translation, another is back-borrowing which all languages do, and yet another is neologizing. I'm afraid that neologizing goes against our noli fingere policy of not making terms up. In this case, though, in addition I worry that this would be "Ignotum per ignotius". The derivation of the terms "mass media" and "the press" is very figurative and it is very difficult to satisfactorily duplicate this in latin. However, if we duplicate the process occuring in english, I think media vulgatoria and vulgandi scientia is what we would get, medium referring to the material in which things are written and communicated, vulgatoria meaning known to the public or by which the news is spread to the public. Also consider vulgandi apparatus (preparation/equipment/trappings of publishing/spreading among the people) or opes vulgandi (resources for publishing/making known) for mass media. These simpler alternatives are more readily understood, and skirt the issue of noli fingere. --Rafaelgarcia 02:40, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, no problem with the creative use of medium as a back-borrowing. My toying with mediatrum is/was due to the fact that I wasn't quite sure whether or not medium had lost its flare in the heat of the discussion. ||| WRT the noli fingere policy, I'm wondering why the tack of neologising should be totally blocked for us in the Vicipaedia, while it's one of the possibilities of enrichissement du vocabulaire available to other Latin media (Nuntii Latini, Ephemeris, Vatican, etc.). I realise that it would be irresponsible to interfere with a system you don't have a good grasp of. I'd like to qualify the principle noli fingere with the tag: nisi scis, quid facias. --Neander 17:28, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in wholehearted agreement with you on that! This "noli fingere" shibboleth derives from the principle that an encyclopedia is not an appropriate place for original research (itself an idea that my own dead-tree encyclopedia disproves). Any act of translation contains an element of shaping. Hence, "Noli fingere, nisi scis quod facias" seems a much apter formulation! IacobusAmor 18:28, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The addition of a "nisi scis, quid facias"-tag would become a licence for large-scale invention of words by people who are convinced they know what they're doing (as we all are). As for the present matter, I like 'media' (with Rafaelgarcia's explanation above) and 'vulgatoria' (Rafaelgarcia's too). --Fabullus 05:20, 21 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[fontem recensere]

Right now the logo in the upper-left corner has a white pixel border around the globe and the text. Here's a version where this is removed, if anyone could replace the old one. - Ssolbergj 20:04, 16 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ssolbergj, thank you for improving our logo. While we do use the ligature Æ in the "title" (VICIPÆDIA), we do not use ligatures in the text. Therefore, the text should read (as it currently does): "VICIPÆDIA / Libera encyclopaedia" (not "encyclopædia"). Could you please change that? After this is done, I will switch the logo in the upper-left corner. Thank you, --UV 21:25, 16 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Ssolbergj 22:29, 16 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logo updated, thank you for your work! --UV 21:29, 17 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translationhelp[fontem recensere]

Salve everyone, i'm trying to work out the taxobox and i need some help with some translation, here is a part of the template and the translation is especially needed for the linked words and categories, Hendricus 08:49, 17 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Hendricus 20:19, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the translations in the part of the taxobox, just one thing remains: Hendricus 07:50, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
corruptus conservandi status --Rafaelgarcia 23:56, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the -us adjectives above should be turned into -a adjectives to agree with species, but into -um to agree with genus, depending on which they are describing. --Rafaelgarcia 02:50, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "European" in Latin?[fontem recensere]

Is it "Europaea" or "Europaeae"?

The EU article is called "Unio Europaea", but is "unio" a proper word? What does "EUROPAEAE REI PVBLICAE STATVS" mean? - Ssolbergj 16:29, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the number, gender, and case of the noun by which it is governed. Masculine: Europaeus, -i, -o, -um, -o, -e; -i, -orum, -is, -os, -is. Feminine: Europaea, -ae, -ae, -am, -a, -a; -ae, -arum, -is, -as, -is. Neuter: Europaeum, -i, -o, -um, -o, -um; -a, -orum, -is, -a, -is.--Ceylon 16:41, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! But does anyone know what "EUROPAEAE REI PVBLICAE STATVS" means, and whether "unio" is a real word? What is the best translation of "European Union"? - Ssolbergj 16:57, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"EUROPAEAE REI PVBLICAE STATVS" means in latin "status of the European common wealth" where "status" can be interpreted in late latin sense as either "the state", "states" or perhaps better in this context "organization", so "Organization of the European Common Wealth.
The latinity of the term "Unio" was discussed in depth in the "Disputatio:Unio Rerum Publicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum" page, where is was concluded that "unio" (meaning union, a unification, or unity) was ok to use in this sense. See also the discussion of the term status at Disputatio:Civitas Vaticana. --Rafaelgarcia 16:59, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Hm.. I'm not going to dispute that you found Unio Europea written in a dictionary. That would seem like the definitive translation, but I'm also pretty sure that when (presumably) latin linguistic experts in Rome wrote "EUROPAEAE REI PVBLICAE STATVS" as decoration for the signing of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, they were extremely concerned with getting it as right as possible. And it looks like they deliberately avoided using the obvious and simple 'unio'. I'm not sure what's classic latin and late latin, or what Vicipaedia's policy on latin periods is, but there are at least two alternatives. Could STATVS be a verb ('organising' of the EU in the occation of signing a reform document), or is it undoubtedly a noun that's part of the name? - Ssolbergj 18:05, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status 'standing, standing position, posture, position, condition, state, mode of operation' is a noun derived from the verb stare 'to stand', and is therefore a cousin of statio 'station' and statua 'statue' and statura 'stature'. ¶ A unio is a pearl (mentioned as "an union" in the last scene of Hamlet), or an onion. The idea that politicians have gotten together to form an entity to be called 'The European Onion' might have given Cicero (who often made puns, as his familiar letters indicate) no little merriment. IacobusAmor 18:18, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the merriment, but "unio" was used in the bible in the sense of "union".--Rafaelgarcia 18:23, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even funnier, if it's referring to a sexual union! IacobusAmor 18:28, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is EUROPAEAE REI PVBLICAE correct in terms of grammar? Why "rei publica" instead of "res publica"? (BTW the ending "-AEAE" is nowhere else on Vicipaedia)
Also, do you know whether it's 'Pax Europea' or 'Pax Europaea'? The various language versions of that article mix it up. - Ssolbergj 18:05, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that grammar is correct. Rei publicae is in the genitive case; res publica is nominative. ¶ It's Pax Europaea. IacobusAmor 18:19, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Forms like "Europeus -a -um" are often written by people more familiar with modern languages. In Latin they are definitely wrong: it has to be "Europaeus -a -um".
I haven't found "unio" (as noun) in the Bible, though it can be found (as an abstract concept, and in the procreative sense) in later Christian Latin. Maria unione Dei fecunda, in Jerome's letters. No onion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:48, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"17 Et adjunge illa unum ad alterum tibi in lignum unum : et erunt in unionem in manu tua." Ez 37:17.--Rafaelgarcia 19:08, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rafael. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That unio apparently = 'one, a oneness, a singularity', not 'a union'. KJV: "And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand." The RSV: "that they may become one in your hand." The Spanish: "y serán uno en tu mano." The Samoan likewise: ona avea lea o i laua ma laau e tasi i lou lima, which may be englished as "and then take the two of them up as a single stick in your hand." Nothing there about a union. IacobusAmor 19:50, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think the primary meaning is "unity/oneness" and "union" would be a secondary derived sense of this new biblical word. Unio Europaea ="The European unity/oneness". I'm certainly not defending it. As you can see on the discusison on the USSR page, I wanted to change it but apparently enough Latin people all over are using it that we are justified letting it pass. Same as for televisio. I think either "Res publica Europaea" and/or "Europaeae Rei Publicae Status" would be better. But no one seems to call it that. And Unio Europaea is attested and older. How about USSR --Status Rerum Publicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum? I don't think that is attested either.--Rafaelgarcia 00:28, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Rei publicae exact' is a classical idiom for 'constitution', in the sense of the form and makeup of the government. Thus that arch raised at the signing of the European Constitution simply means to say 'European Constitution'. —Mucius Tever 15:48, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is a misnomer. "European consitution" refers to a document or treaty while European constitution in the sense you say means "form and makeup of the government", which is a different thing.--Rafaelgarcia 19:46, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. So would the grammar and endings of "Res publica Europaea" or "Europaeae Rei Publicae" be correct after "status" is removed? What's best? - Ssolbergj 18:09, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Res publica Europea" means "The European Commonwealth", "Rei publicae Europeae" means "OF the European Commonwealth". --Rafaelgarcia 20:16, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But are you trying to translate Europe, European Constitution (document), European Union, or European Republic/commonwealth, or Form of the European Commonwealth (European constitution second sense)?--Rafaelgarcia 19:46, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
European Union. I asked because the Latin decoration suggests that "unio" is a word that should be avoided and that "European Commonwealth" is the best possible translation in 'proper' Latin. I think I'll move Unio Europaea to Res Publica Europea, if that's alright. Thank you very much for the help! - Ssolbergj 22:57, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, bear in mind that Unio Europaea is attested in multiple sources, so it should be retained as an alternate lemma. For example, from The Guardian:
<<Finns turn jargon of Unio Europaea into poetry with Latin
Sniffy classicists, who have always looked down at the European Union as a pale imitation of their beloved Roman Empire, will be delighted. Having pinched the Romans' idea of a single currency, the EU has now decided to embrace Latin. Finland, which is running the EU for the next six months, is to publish weekly news bulletins in Latin on its special EU presidency website. Leaders of the Unio Europaea, who have had a wretched year grappling with the Constitutio Europaea, will be reaching for their dictionaries at their next shindig in Bruxellae.>>
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=204118&sectioncode=26. IacobusAmor 23:20, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah but to be honest I'd not be surprised if they got "Unio Europaea" from Latin Wikipedia. - Ssolbergj 08:57, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I could be wrong and you have to worry about this kind of thing in general, I don't think we are the source. In modern ecclesiastical latin, unio characteristically is taken to mean union in general. See the writings of at the so-called DOCUMENTA LATINA, eg. [10] where he contrasts unio with unitas. I think this is the source.--Rafaelgarcia 11:44, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I came across the term 'Unio mystica' yesterday in school. - Ssolbergj 23:05, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.N. creavit paginam scribendo ...[fontem recensere]

Quae verba in indice commentationum nuper mutatarum legimus, nonne melius N.N. instituit paginam (sive commentationem) scribens ... Latine redderentur?--Ceylon 10:08, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usor quidem paginam botonem imprimendo instituit postquam in fenestram verba scripsit. "instituit paginam scribens" igitur melius est quia scribendo non est quomodo paginam instituit. "Creavit" autem hic nonne fere idem dicit quam "instituit"? Quod antequam usor paginam incepit, illa pagina adhuc non erat.--Rafaelgarcia 14:30, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De paginis de alia lingua conuersis[fontem recensere]

Valete. Incepi commentariolum de Ritchie Boys in translationis hebdomadis loco propositum de Anglico in Latinum uertere. Attamen quomodo auctoritatem scriptorum, quae scilicet externa sint, declarem, nequeo invenire. Nonne est aliquod electronicum exemplar translationis declarandae gratia ? --Chronotribe 00:44, 20 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What gender on "verus"?[fontem recensere]

Hi
I am trying to formulate "I say it, therefore it is true", as in a very dogmatic assertion that because I say something it is true. So far I've come up with "inquam ergo vērum", but I don't know if "inquam" is the correct verb to use in that context nor what gender "verus" should be conjugated as.
So is "inquam" the correct verb to use in that context, and if not what would it then be? And what gender should verus be conjugated as? I guessed on neuter as that is what it would be if it was Norwegian.
Thanks 88.89.207.245 20:43, 21 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believing that your "I say it, therefore it is true" involves a touch of self-irony, I'd propose you put it in this way: "Egomet dico, ergo verum est." --Neander 01:01, 22 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you <3 :D 88.89.207.245 15:09, 24 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I say it, therefore it is true" is obviewsly a fause statement while "Egomet dico, ergo verum est" sounds like a famous motto...
Why lingua latina could offer such a power..? Gesalbte 10:21, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gesalbte, Hic sententia iucundus est...ad me quoquomodo, si meus Latine mala est, me tibi excuso. Latine reddere est difficilis interdum. Bandit V. 19:19, 6 Iunii anno 2009 (CST)

Bandit, in latin adjectives conform to the gender of the noun they modify.--Rafaelgarcia 03:54, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall of China[fontem recensere]

Is it murus? moenia? vallum? agger? or what? IacobusAmor 01:18, 24 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, murus. Vide Murus Sinicus.--Rafaelgarcia 01:52, 24 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias, amice! IacobusAmor 01:28, 25 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's already been settled, but I thought I'd put in that I always attached a more I don't know special connotation for "moenia". Maybe it was just too much Lucretius (ultra moenia mundi and all). Anyone else get this sense? --Ioscius (disp) 02:44, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Fuji[fontem recensere]

Is it Fuji Mons? Futsi Mons? Futi Mons? or something else? IacobusAmor 01:28, 25 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secundum Iaponiam, appellatur Mons Fusius.--Rafaelgarcia 08:05, 25 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that, but note that it has no source in either article (so one worries anyway). IacobusAmor 12:06, 25 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People really need to cite their sources! I'm sure there must be an attested name for it somewhere...--Rafaelgarcia 12:36, 25 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake! What is wrong with Fugi? Even if you don't pronounce Latin like the Holy Father it still LOOKS better than Futsi!--Usor ignotum
Do you have a verifiable attestation for that which we can reference?--Rafaelgarcia 20:29, 26 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have mons Fusi and Fusi mons. --Gabriel Svoboda 19:30, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need attestation? All you are doing here is finding the best Latin transliteration of a Japanese word. According to one system of Latin pronunciation that would be "fugi", but from a more neutral perspective, probably "fuzi" would be best.
A translation is better than a mere transliteration, which is what Mons Fusius purports to be. Translations are superior because they can be declined. For transliterations, see our rules here: Vicipaedia:Translitteratio, I think it would be Mons Fuji or perhaps Mons Fuii--Rafaelgarcia 11:05, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For transliterations of other scripts, we have generally agreed to use the international standard if there is one. For Japanese, there is an international standard. So it would definitely be Fuji mons (or Mons Fuji if we prefer) ... but, trumping that, if there is an attested Latin form that can be cited, we accept it unless there's some good reason not to. So the question is, is Fusi mons to be treated as an existing Latin form, or as someone's one-off transliteration?
Above all, we should never trust articles on Vicipaedia that consist mainly of lists of Latinized names without references! Unless someone can find a real authority for Mons Fusius, that form should be eliminated as soon as we have made our decision. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Fusi Mons is attested, as Gabriel found above, unless we can find Mons Fusius somewhere, we should move to to Fusi Mons.--Rafaelgarcia 20:41, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: science vs. knowledge[fontem recensere]

Vicipaedia has an article Scientia, linked to en:Science. But en: also has an article, en:Knowledge, which tackles scientia in a different manner. The distinction is important because en:Knowledge is one of the 1000 important pages, and so is Scientia. Therefore, we need two (different) articles that could have the same Latin title. This is a muddle. ¶ Is it possible that the present article Scientia should be renamed Doctrina? Cassell's says scientia is knowledge "subjectively, as the state of knowing" (which seems rather like what en: gets at in its article en:Knowledge), whereas knowledge "objectively, as something imparted and acquired," is doctrina & disciplina (which implies an approach rather like the current version of Scientia, which, after introductory matter, jumps right into imparted & acquired disciplinary knowledge). ¶ If people want to retain Scientia as it is, with its link to en:Science, what should be the title of the Latin article equivalent to English en:Knowledge? Intellegentia? IacobusAmor 02:44, 26 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doctrina = a teaching; disciplina = a traing/discipline; neither quite catches the idea of modern science as well as scientia. There are doctrines and disciplines that have nothing to do with science. However, you are right that the current article is as much about the discipline of science as the content of science. In english there are two separate words signifying that the difference between the content and the discipline is important enough that we should have separate articles. We could move "Scientia" to "Disciplina scientifica" or "Disciplina scientiae", and create a separate "scientia" page that talks about the nature and theories of knowledge in general.--Rafaelgarcia 20:45, 26 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reference:—In German, French, Spanish, and Polish, science is
wissenschaft, science, ciencia, scienza, nauka
and knowledge is
wissen, connaissance, conocimiento, conoscenza, wiedza.
The German model points the way to a possible distinction between Scientia 'science' and Scire 'knowledge'; the Romance models, to a possible distinction between Scientia 'science' and Cognitio 'knowledge'. For Vicipaedia, is the latter better? IacobusAmor 11:53, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that applies to latin so well. L&S give cognitio = "a becoming acquainted with, learning to know, acquiring knowledge, knowledge as a consequence of perception or of the exercise of our mental powers, knowing, acquaintance, cognition (in good prose; esp. freq. in Cic. and Quint.)." The latin notion of "cognitio" apparently focuses more on "inquiry" = "process of getting to know, of becoming aquainted or of gaining knowledge" rather than on scientific knowledge or knowledge as such. agnitio ="recgonition/consciousness" is about as closely related.
However, L&S do give naritas="knowledge, discernment" and mathesis= "knowledge, science, mathematics" as synonyms for knowledge. Perhaps naritas would be just the thing for knowledge as opposed to science.--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cassell's says gnarus, -a, -um is "connected with nosco," and gnaritas is indeed classical for 'knowledge'. IacobusAmor 18:49, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what then sapientia would correspond to wisdom? --Ioscius (disp) 02:47, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, although L&S also give sophia as a synonym. --Rafaelgarcia 16:37, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army[fontem recensere]

The Salvation Army International Headquarters, 110 Victoria Street, London.

Well I think we may need a pagna for this topic... Just a few sentences could be better than nothing? 119.123.11.102 10:47, 26 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Trombones canunt". Satis?

That's not funny - - Salvus Acies ordo christianus est.. bla bla bla... By the way I'm not sure that Salvation Army in latin is 'Salvus Acies'... 116.25.164.137 16:22, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitkäranta gives Exercitus salvificus. --Neander 21:16, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clipeus Latinitatis - Neanderi?! [11] No results found for "Exercitus salvificus". 119.123.8.127 08:35, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what anon really meant was, thanks, Neander, for finding an attested Latin name beyond the reach of a Google search. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should find it highly unlikely that in all the publications of the Holy See in the last century and a half there has been no mention of "General" Booth's organisation. I should find it even more unlikely that it would be referred to as anything other than "Exercitus Salvationis". Exercitus salvificus would suggest that it effectively brings about salvation - a "saving army". Exercitus salutis could also mean 'health army'. My feeling is that, if in doubt, one should opt for the most recognisable form. Tergum Violinae
Spiritual salvation was/is the goal of the salvation army; originally they were more overt by preaching the bible in soup kitchens during the previous depression.See their website which describes their evangelical mission to spread christianity: "Leadership in The Salvation Army is provided by commissioned and ordained officers who are recognised as fully accredited ministers of religion." and "Raised to evangelise, the Army spontaneously embarked on schemes for the social betterment of the poor." In other words, receive our help and hear our word.--Rafaelgarcia 11:29, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A click around other wikipaediae on the subject shows the "salvation" part in the genitive: "Leger des Heils, Esercito della Salvezza, Armee du Salut etc etc. The Salvation Army may proclaim salvation, but they would hardly claim to effect it! -- [Anon]
The argument "it works like that in one foreign language I know; therefore it must work the same way in another" sometimes fails. One of the things that makes languages so interesting.
"The Salvation Army may proclaim salvation, but they would hardly claim to effect it!" is (I think) contradicted near the beginning of the en:wiki article: William Booth described the organization's approach: "The three ‘S's’ best expressed the way in which the Army administered to the 'down and outs': first, soup; second, soap; and finally, salvation.". Or would you also argue as regards soup and soap that the Army may proclaim them but "would hardly claim to put them into effect"? My experience speaks otherwise: in Halifax, Nova Scotia, they didn't just proclaim soup and soap to me, they effectively provided them. Maybe, if I had given them more time, they would have saved me as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have missed something rather fundamental about the Christian faith. Even a group on the fringe of Christianity like the SA would not claim to 'effect' salvation - that is done only by God's grace. They can put soap in your hand and soup in your bowl, but can only preach the good news of salvation to you. The 'salvific' part is God's action. It may all seem a bit technical or even esoteric, but what I'm saying is that 'salvificus' (a Christian Latin word, not a classical one) is not the right one here. To answer the initial question, I shall create a page based on a translation of the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed Cross. TV
Sounds an excellent idea. On the other issue I defer to esoteric theologians, of course, but do keep in mind the parallelism of Booth's claim. Anon may say "they would hardly claim to effect it", and you may say the same, TV, but more important (in this context) is what Booth said. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exercitus Salvationis = "army of saving" clearly is not nearly as good latin as "Exercitus Salvificus" = "saving army"
The saving aspect of the SA is apparently both physical (providing food and soap) and spiritual (providing literature)
Anyway, I wouldn't think that merely because "salvificus" is church latin that this would disqualify it for naming a specifically christian institution. It is clearly formed according to latin rules.
And I hope you are not proposing to ignore all ecclesiastical latin in favor of "pure classical" words when describing christian/church related things! Likewise isn't ecclesia a christian latin word? Do you propose that we substitute some classical word for "ecclesia"?? I hope not!
And besides, this is a nonissue since exercitus salvificus apparently is already attested in the latin literature. --Rafaelgarcia 18:11, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last point there is the killer for anybody who'd prefer something else: the attested form should probably be the lemma, with imagined alternatives to follow. How useful it would be to be able to search for specific terms in the entirety of the archives of a modern resource like http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net! ¶ Even in the absence of an attestation, salvificus sounds better to this writer than a genitive would, but the issue of adjectives vs. genitives for such things is an ancient & unresolved issue among some of us. IacobusAmor 18:58, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The noun phrase " Exercitus + NounGEN " always denotes a possessive relation (exercitus Achaeorum, Atheniensium, Dacorum, Samnitium; populi Romani; Agamemnonis, L.Luculli, etc) or a locative relation (exercitus Africae, Pannoniae, Syriae, etc.). Now, it looks like the only way the phrase "Exercitus Salvationis" will make sense is to think of Mr.Booth as "Mr.Salvation". Not a bad idea, after all?   :–)   ||| WRT salvificus, in theology, it's a matter of course that God finishes the job, but unless there is any "salvific" try on the human side, God will do nothing. Nor does fides salvifica "effect" salvation without God's grace, yet it's called salvifica. How do you explain that, TV? --Neander 22:08, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should know well enough, Rafel, that I would not propose classical Latin in favour of Ecclesiastical. I just feel that the folks at Pitkaranta are misusing a theological word. 'Gratia salvifica', 'fides salvifica', 'salvificum Dei opus' are OK, but it is not a word that would normally be used of people or organisations. Just to pre-empt another potential contention:-I am aware that the nature of Vicipaedia means that almost all articles are written from a Roman Catholic perspective. I have tried to correct the balance here and there. On the Christian status of the SA, I believe that the RC church recognises them as a Christian body (though a defective one like all protestant churches). Some evangelical christians however do not recognise them as Christian because they have no sacraments - an irrelevant to Rome as no Protestant churches have proper sacraments anyway. As I said earlier, there must be reference somewhere to the SA from the Vatican - from Cardinal Kasper's office one might have thought - and this would be the better Latin form to use. Exercitus Salvificus may look neat to the grammarian, but it seems wrong from a neutral theological POV. TV
If there is any POV it isn't because we sanction it in any way. We try to correct whenever possible. The idea of a word being a "theological word" only applicable to describing God actions, is a new one to me. If there is such a thing, I don't think it applies to salvificus. According to L&S "Salvificus" merely means "saving" in adjective form, just as "salvatio" means saving in substantive form, and "salvare" means saving in verb form. The fact that christians have used the word to describe spiritual salvation does not in this writer's opinion coopt the range of the word or restrict it in anyway. It should be taken to mean saving in all possible religious and non religious senses.--Rafaelgarcia 12:00, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (perhaps the most widely used dead-tree dictionary in the United States), salvific, the English word derived from Latin salvificus, means 'having the intent or power to save or redeem'. Surely the Salvation Army has an intent to redeem? IacobusAmor 12:18, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Well, I apologise for what I said which is ambiguous and has caused, maybe, a little misunderstand.
It seems that I haven't blended in western culture very well..
What I meant was to say that 'Oh? Neander?! Clipeus Latinitatis?! nice to meet you.! And do you sure that the correct translation is Exercitus salvificus?.. But google disagrees..'
And I was personally agree with Exercitus salvificus this translation, because it similates to something like Expeditio sacra..
May you forgive a silly sucker..- - 119.123.1.214 16:38, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no problem, but thanks very much for explaining! As you can see, you have contributed to a very lively discussion. :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:21, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, indeed. Welcome to the group, and please consider getting a nickname like most of us and telling a bit background info of yourself. The more we know of each other, the less there's room for misunderstanding. Best, Neander 22:26, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
囧..Back to the topic, I do think that Exercitus Salutionis (N+Adj)may lead readers to consider it attempts to taunt the SA, while Exercitus Salvificus could be well accepted if the Salvation Army wants a latin name...
To give a conclusion, perhaps we must look for certain publications of the Holy See which have mentioned the SA..Unfortunately I don't have such a way yet..Gesalbte 08:22, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: child[fontem recensere]

The 1000 articles that all wikis should have (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have) include en:Child, but we have no page for it. We do have Puer, linked to en:Boy, and Puella, linked to en:Girl, and a tyro-produced experiment for Filius, linked to en:Son. What should our page for en:Child be? For perspective, here's how the English text starts:

A child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority. "Child" may also describe a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; it can also signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties."

For (English) 'child', Cassell's gives filius & filia, with plural pueri ; but then for (Latin) filius, the primary sense it gives is 'son', while for puer, the primary sense it gives is 'child'. We presumably can't use iuvenis, because, for the Romans, it meant a human between the ages of about 20 and 45, not a child in any ordinary sense of the word. What to do? What's the best Latin term for 'a human being between the stages of birth and puberty'? IacobusAmor 17:08, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is to have an article on childhood (pueritia) in addition to one on puer and puella. Like behavior, this is not a concept that translates directly. Sometimes people use liberi for children, but this is a term that means different things in different latin speaking cultures throughout history, depending much on social and legal custom, so it is best avoided as a synonym for child (though it does deserve its own page).--Rafaelgarcia 17:12, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the defintion of a liberi is legal and technical, as is the definition presented on the Children page. So maybe it would be a nice page to link to.--Rafaelgarcia 17:18, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked Pueritia when I first read that, but it appears to be impossible because it would want to link to en:Childhood, not en:Child, and would accordingly stand in a series of articles that would cover the stages of life, to match en:Puberty, en:Adulthood, and en:Old age. (Oddly, though, in this connection, en:Infancy redirects to en:Infant.) Liberi, according to Cassell's, is used only in the plural, and only with reference to the parents; so it would seem to be inappropriate here, where parentage is not the issue. IacobusAmor 19:17, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute that about "Liberi" see the three references on the liberi page for a full explanation of the usage of this term.--Rafaelgarcia 19:30, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the way Roman lawyers divided humans according to their age:
  • infantes — between birth and 7 years of age
  • impuberes infantia maiores — between 7 years of age and reaching the ability to reproduce (later defined as 12 years of age for females / 14 years of age for males)
  • puberes — those old enough to reproduce
    • minores viginti quinque annis — a self-explanatory-named subset of the formers
The definition of en:Child as "a human being between the stages of birth and puberty" obviously includes infantes and impuberes infantia maiores. Is there any common name of these two categories? The name impuberes infantia maiores suggests that there are also other impuberes, namely impuberes in infantia, i.e. the infantes. Hence, from the Roman legal point of view, I propose Impubes as an equivalent of en:Child. --Gabriel Svoboda 18:58, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useful ideas! I'd respond right now, but I have to run. Let others jump in. IacobusAmor 19:17, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impubes may work best indeed.--Rafaelgarcia 19:31, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cassell's says it's used thus only in the plural (impubes vel impuberes), but the English is plainly singular, and indeed lemmata by default are singular; but in this case we may have no way around the problem. IacobusAmor 13:42, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is because it is strictly speaking an adjective so you need some context before you can interpret as a substantive. I started the article and hopefully it is ok/grammatically correct as I've worded it.--Rafaelgarcia 14:01, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo! Macte! I'll manually add the link over at en:, so as to get it in process as quickly as possible. The last couple of rankings of the wikis occurred during the first weekend of the month, and so another one may be imminent or in progress. IacobusAmor 14:05, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottus[fontem recensere]

Amici, propono executare bottum ad Vicipaediam, quod corrigit interwiki-referentias et applicat alteratios cosmeticibus. Per hac causam usor:MauritsBot creatum est, pro quid conamur botbittum.

My apologies for the poor latin... feel free to comment on my grammatical skills (especially on the declination of the last word, which sounds very odd...). I supposed that the bot has the same gender as I do, my apologies if any feminists find this offending. --Maurits 22:58, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maurits, I am going to let others comment on the Latin ;-) but if you would like to write articles here, we have a number of experienced mentors that would, I am sure, gladly accept you as "mentee"! As to your bot, you are welcome to run it here. The community may decide to grant you the botflag later. Please see Vicipaedia:Bot policy.
Performing cosmetic changes is ok, but please edit your cosmetic_changes.py and add 8201, # &thinsp; to the ignore list of resolveHtmlEntities (around line number 280) so that your bot will not convert &thinsp; to its character equivalent.
Welcome here! --UV 23:13, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salve UV, thank you for your friendly welcome message. I will seriously consider to write articles here, although for the moment (until June) I will have to fit it in my busy schedule of finishing my master's thesis et cetera. I would be glad to be mentored, because I suppose I will make many mistakes (which of course, will disappear as time and knowledge progresses ;-)).
I made some corrections in cosmetic_changes.py and will ask someone later on to upload it to SVN. Kind regards, --Maurits 00:30, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most people treat "bot" as an indeclinable neuter; but even if you declined it as second declension, it would be neuter right by virtue of being an automaton, so that the accusative and nominative would be bot. See also robotum. I think therefore what you would have said is: ""Amicis, propono operare apud Vicipaediam bot meum, quod nexús interwikianos corrigerit, et mutationes cosmeticas efficeret. Quare usor:MauritsBot creatum est, ...." I don't know what you mean by "pro quid conamur botbittum = "for what we try botbittum"?--Rafaelgarcia 00:51, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I conceived of "conamur" as a latin form of "to desire" (or something equivalent), but made the dumb mistake of putting it in the first person plural instead of singular. The alternative version of the sentences is much better than the original. Your mastery of Latin makes me so jealous... ;-{ --Maurits 01:42, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we have been using automaton outright, not bot indeclinable...--Ioscius (disp) 02:50, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'Cursus Nostra Ad Regnum Caelorum Versus' stardard and available?[fontem recensere]

Is 'Cursus Nostra Ad Regnum Caelorum Versus' stardard and available for a latin translated motto?
In Anglice it should be something like 'Our path leads to the Kingdom'..
I'm not sure that 'Cursus Nostra' (our path) and 'ad...versus' are Latina Classica and available for Vicipaedia..Please have it judged..
(in addtion, We don't have the pagina for Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici, the Knight Templars yet..- - )
116.25.196.17 17:36, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be cursus noster? Those sound like jokes--is that right?--Rafaelgarcia 14:47, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um? So what the correct Latin translation to that 'Our path leads to the Kingdom' ?
And, is 'ad ... versus' correct in grammer? Gesalbte 07:43, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notiones Anglicae: tourism et travel[fontem recensere]

Quomodo debemus convertere haec verba? IacobusAmor 14:20, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Mogans gloss.: tourism = res periegetica (LRL); travel abroad = peregrinatio (Helv); space travel = iter celeste, travel = iter facere, travel (adj) = perietica, viatorius--Rafaelgarcia 14:46, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo Res periegetica erit en:Tourism, sed Peregrinatio non est en:Travel quia peregrinationem noster commentarius definit "iter sacrum," i.e., en:Pilgrimage. Quid est nostrum nomen pro nomine Anglico travel ? IacobusAmor 17:20, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secundum Words, Periegesis est dictum neolatinum pro tourism. Pro travel, sensu latissimo, fortasse iter tantum sufficit? Peregrinationem non censeo esse solum "iter sacrum" esse: secundum L&S significat "iter peregrinum" (foreign travel). Ergo commentarius pravus est. --Rafaelgarcia 00:21, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbum Anglicum: currency[fontem recensere]

Pro en:Money, habemus commentarium Pecuniam; pro en:Coin, habemus Nummum; nunc pro en:Currency (una ex 1000 gravissimis paginis), habemus stipulam Nummos quia Cassell's nobis dicit verbum Anglicum currency esse Latinum nummos (pl.). OK? vel est melius nomen? Fortasse moneta ? IacobusAmor 03:16, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that other articles already use moneta for 'currency', so I'm changing the title to Moneta (pecunia) and appropriately adjusting the disambiguation page, Moneta. IacobusAmor 03:44, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually doing some research on this, and neither OLD nor L&S give nummi as such. I think your move is for the best.--Ioscius (disp)
Reading that warms the cockles of my heart, not least because I'd already gone back to en: and changed the link. IacobusAmor 03:58, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into this before, I am confident that the Latin for currency is indeed moneta.--Rafaelgarcia 04:46, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio:Industria (discretiva)[fontem recensere]

Help! Could someone clean up the little mess I made over there? IacobusAmor 14:27, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amphitrite was quicker than anyone else to help. --UV 15:49, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for being alert! As I'm creating the missing 1000 articles way too quickly, I'm undoubtedly making messes that will need cleaning up. IacobusAmor 16:16, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking of the wikis[fontem recensere]

If the prior chronological pattern is any indication, the next ranking of the wikis is imminent (and perhaps even in progress). Last month, Vicipaedia ranked forty-eighth. This month, I've been scribbling furiously, creating necessary articles that have been missing from Vicipaedia. (Some are undeservedly short, but at least they're a start.) As one goes through the list, problems arise from the fact that languages don't map the world the same. For one of them, I'm currently creating Gnaritas = en:Knowledge—a possibly unsatisfactory solution, but there it is. If somebody would like to solve the problem of en:Child (see the discussion above) and create a Latin article for it, that would help. IacobusAmor 13:21, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Rafael has done it! ¶ In the ranking, we get four times as many points for articles larger than 10,000 octeti, and nine times as many points for articles larger than 30,000 (nexibus inverviciis exclusis). Yesterday, having noticed that our Neptunus (planeta) had 27,848, not far under 30,000, I added enough text to boost it to 31,561 (and in the process, observed that the original author, while translating directly from en:, had suppressed dozens of footnotes, which someone might wish to restore). Anyone who notices among the 1000 requisite articles any that are just below one of these critical cutoff points may wish to augment them so as to raise Vicipaedia's interwiki rank. IacobusAmor 16:04, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an Academy Awards section to Stephanus Spielberg which brings it to 10,196 octeti. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 07:26, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Macte, amici! You brought it within range of the goal; however, since the program doesn't count the (500 or so?) characters that produce the interwiki links, it was probably a tiny bit short, so I've added 2448 octeti, mostly in the section on his family, and that will guarantee the desired result. ¶ When Rolandus comes back (say, where is he, anyway?), maybe he can rank the 1000 pages in order of length and tell us how many octeti each one has, so we can see at a glance where we stand. IacobusAmor 11:00, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laboribus imprimis Iacobi nostri Vicipaedia Latina in meta:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles a loco 48 ad locum 44 promota est! --Fabullus 07:15, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And we might have reached 43rd place if the fourteen most recently created articles had been counted! One had an erroneous link (my fault, which I've fixed), and the others were created too late to count in this cycle, but of course they'll be there to keep our momentum going into the next cycle. I won't have so much time this month, and hope others can help, as Fabullus & Rafael did in this cycle. My practice has been to work downward from the top of the list of missing articles. In one month, we cut the number of missing articles from 192 to 133 (in reality, 119). ¶ The biggest jump in the rankings was that of Catalan: it must have had several people working virtually full-time! IacobusAmor 13:08, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried expanding pellicula but I'm having trouble thinking of what other content ought to be included. I added a "format" section and a "genre" section. Can you think of any other topics that would be relevant to pellicula rather than to cinematographia? Or is there a way that the Wiki ranking system can look at cinematographia instead of pellicula? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 04:51, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't expand for the sake of expansion and better ranking. If an article appears to be finished and yet falls short of the 30000 limit, so be it. No language, not even English, has a score of 100. --Fabullus 05:13, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely true; however, the larger wikis, especially the English one, usually have paragraphs or larger sections that can be translated whole and imported into Vicipaedia. ¶ On pellicula vs. cinematographia, maybe the current structures of the articles should be rethought. According to the English wiki, en:film is "individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry," and en:cinematography is "the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema." Vicipaedia may not agree. IacobusAmor 12:57, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've had this discussion before, and came to the consensus that the Latin words' meanings do not fit very well with the English meanings. "Pellicula" means movie and "Cinematographia" means film (i.e. the art of film). We don't have a Latin word for "cinematography" as far as I know. Maybe I could talk to the folks over at wikipedia and request that en:film be split into "film" and "movie"? They are two differet concepts and I don't know why they are together. For example, there are seperate articles for "photography" and "photography", you know? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:34, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More organists and composers coming up. BTW Vicipaedia is the ONLY wiki so far that has an article on rubbish composer Geoffrey Beaumont. Tergum violinae 15:42, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, unique is good! IacobusAmor 13:08, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Anglica: racism[fontem recensere]

What's the best Latin word for this concept? We've been freely making the modern-language -ism words into Latin nouns in -ismus, but that licence may seem a little weird with racismus. Or not. Is it OK with people here? IacobusAmor 18:20, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan gives odium phyleticum as the LRL expression for racism.--Rafaelgarcia 18:37, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm on the case. We can't know whether the list of 1000 pages has been closed for this cycle or not, so it's best to continue. IacobusAmor 18:40, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. We already have Racismus occultus. I'll have to change its title too. ¶ Cassell's term for this sense of 'race' would seem to be genus. IacobusAmor 18:42, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ephemeris offers rasismus. --Neander 19:19, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that should be reserved for 'beardlessness' ("shave-ism")? IacobusAmor 19:39, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid you're right.   :–)   Which means that the ancient Romans were rasists. Surely such a semiotically important cultural feature would deserve an article of its own ... --Neander 20:19, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most ancient Romans were rasists only on market day. Some of my neighbours seem to follow the same custom. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new example of an amazingly postponed est[fontem recensere]

Where do these things come from? This one appeared today: "Locus altissimus in natione Culmen Christophori Columbi (Hispanice; Pico Cristóbal Colón), 5 775 metrorum ad libram maris editum, in Iugo Niveo Sanctae Marthae (Hispanice; Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta) est." IacobusAmor 11:19, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record!--Rafaelgarcia 13:14, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a longer one: "Petrus I Magnus (Russice: Пётр I Великий; natus 9 Iunii 1672 Moscuae, mortuus 8 Februarii 1725 Petropoli), tzaris Alexii filius, Tzar et Magnus Dux Totius Russiae ab anno 1682 (annis 1682 - 1696 cum fratre suo Ioanne V) et primus imperator Imperii Russici ("Russorum Imperator") ab anno 1721, reformator erat." IacobusAmor 12:02, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ille notatio...quamvis, I have always wondered why...since I read a poem in English class called "Dulce et Decorum est, ( pro patria mori)...I was not too fond of the poem, but the placement of the words confused me, ( this was a few weeks before I decided to learn Latin, before visiting Rome), now I know why, with the verbs at the end, but it always looked wierd reading a whole sentence and then the est...but I usually look for verbs first anyway...so it doesn't matter...Bandit V. 20:56, 6 Iunii anno 2009 (CST)
Here's another one: "Lingua Legionica (Llingua Llïonesa) Dominii Linguistici Asturo-Legionicus lingua aut linguistica modalitas, a lingua Latina directe derivata, in Regione Legionensi fabulata, est." IacobusAmor 11:29, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another (and what's that English doing in there?): "Notabiles Bosnicos cinematographistae Mirza Idrizović, Alexander Jevđević, Ioannes Matić, Danis Tanović (known for the Academy Award- and Golden Globe-winning No Man's Land), Ademir Kenović, Benjamin Filipović, Jasmin Dizdar, Pjer Žalica, Jasmila Žbanić, Dino Mustafić, Srđan Vuletić, sunt." IacobusAmor 21:48, 28 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another: ""Regio Capitalis Nationalis Philippinarum" (NCR) sive "Manila Metropolitanis" sive "Metro Manila(vulgo)" regio genticae metropolitanae urbis Manilae et caput genticae Philippinarum et proclamatus ut sedes gubernaculi est." IacobusAmor 10:19, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobus. Hi. Your edits of putting 'habens' are very good. It's like a good substitute for 'while' although the dictionaries would indicate dum and others. Why are you surprised that 'est' is the last word(postponed )? Why can't we place est as the last word? I know it doesn't follow the word order of English and some other European languages. However, Wheelock's textbook twice mentions that the normal word order is S-O-V. 'Est' is a verb of 'to be'.Thanks--Jondel 00:22, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see: Vicipaedia:A_est_B. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:35, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secundus, thank you very much for taking time out and clarifying this out with me. anyway
  • OK I will comply with this as I value being a member of this community.
  • Still, no one should be surprised if latin was written per exemplia gratia specially in the word order. A lot of misunderstanding would be created, specially for people who are late in the discussion.
  • Please understand ut Anglice 'It is recommended'. This means it really should'nt be strictly enforced. Ussually, if you want to enforce one rule, you need to enforce all of the same type. eg It seems classical latin is enforced over new/medieval latin. If so, then the classical word order (S-O-V)too should be followed. It is misleading to say that this is 'correct latin'. We are only being clear and avoiding ambiguity thus we prefer est after the subject. This should be made clear just as we avoid using 'V' or 'J'.
  • For other verbs, can we still follow S-V-O ? e.g. is 'Ego silvam specto'. instead of 'Ego specto silvam ?' We shouldn't or appear to be misleading. It must be understood that S-O-V is mentioned in many latin books as well obvious in recommended classical readings. I am not saying that we 'strictly enforce' S-O-V or that this is correct latin.
uh maybe I should read or there should be a guide of the latin style convention in wiki.--Jondel 02:13, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Latin is an SOV language; but no, esse is not an ordinary verb: it's a special kind of word, with special rules all its own. (For example, Sunt qui is an idiomatic way of beginning a certain kind of syntax.) English is an SVO language, but that doesn't prevent native speakers from using sentences like "Him I wonder about" (OSV) and "'Moo,' said the cow" (OVS) and "Now thank we all our God, with heart, and hands, and voices" (VSO). Just because a language is "basically" an SOV language, or an SVO language, or whatever, doesn't mean that numerous alternate syntactical patterns don't occur, both spontaneously, and in repetition of famous passages, as in the third example quoted in the previous sentence. IacobusAmor 02:33, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaudeo tuam dicere 'esse' is a special verb!(That means I can use S-O-V the rest of the time? :) ) I know that 'sunt qui ' means 'there are those(types) that/who(or something like that). I recognize that at times when speaking, natives don't follow the grammar of their very own languages(specially the French!). I know that Japanese and Hindi have a a SOV order. Tagalog (Filipino, as well all lang. in the Philippines) has a V-S-O order(just like Yoda in Star Wars!).
Eventually, from experience to avoid confusion, trouble , as things expand, whatever, new rules and norms like avoiding postponed est, need to be created, well I guess the community needs to clarify those to newbies. Some of just want to write good Latin !(ergo the conflict with avoiding postponed est).But clarification may be needed that 'While this is good latin it creates problems with...etc..' .
Please also understand that consistent with the principle of avoidance of the postponed est, it would be very good to use simple concise language with out sacrificing quality, eg. using the most appropriate word or grammar rule. vis-a-vis using overly sophisticated, extremely old unknown words, and patterns of expression, etc. We are an encyclopedia after all. I used to work by the way in a newspaper company. --Jondel 03:40, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tituli[fontem recensere]

Do we have (especially one-word) titles available to correspond with en:Literacy? and en:Writing? IacobusAmor 13:31, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For writing I suggest Scriptura. This is currently a redirect to Abecedarium, but could and should be turned into a self-standing article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, give me a few minutes. IacobusAmor 13:43, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now, under the title Scriptura-1, because the title Scriptura was unavailable; one trusts that somebody will know how to make it right. IacobusAmor 14:10, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. The usual best way to do this is: type scriptura, click on the redirect eg. "scriptura>" at the top of the page, change the content of the page.--Rafaelgarcia 14:18, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now is there a suitable Latin word for en:Literacy? ¶ And what do we say for 'magnetic tape sound recording'? IacobusAmor 14:25, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think litteratura is the closest word. Words defines litteratura as "alphabet, system of letters; writing, use of letters; grammar/instruction in; writing, literature; scholarship, what is learned from books, book-learning;" The "use of letters" meaning matches. I wasn't, however, able to find an attestation with this sense ahem "spelled out". The neolatin words for illiterate are analphabetus and illiteratus. Our friend at the Cuba page called litteracy alphabetizatio. So in the end I would just use litteratura. Right now it is a link to litterae. To edit the litteratura page, click on litteratura and click again on the link litteratura> at the top of the litterae page you can edit the litteratura page.--Rafaelgarcia 14:45, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that suggestion may be problematic because litteratura already means, as you say, 'a writing composed of letters, the alphabet' and 'grammar'. Literacy is something else, a state of being. Regularly, back-formations from -cy get us -tia ('democracy', democratia), but I'd hesitate with litteratia. More suggestions? I may pause, as lunchtime is coming up. ¶ Perhaps litteratus is an appropriate adjective ('lettered'), and even an appropriate noun ('a lettered person'), but what then would be the noun for the state of being lettered? IacobusAmor 14:54, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's too confusing maybe peritia scripturae or peritia scribendi? (="practical knowledge of writing") which would include languages whose writing systems don't include letters.--Rafaelgarcia 14:58, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cur non illa "alphabetizatio"? Cf. es:Alfabetización, fr:Alphabétisation, it:Alfabetizzazione. --Fabullus 15:06, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha haec fuit fons! Malo alphabetizatio ego quoque!--Rafaelgarcia 15:34, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm still not persuaded, for three reasons. (1) The Latin suffix -tio implies a process (and is often analogous to the English -ing), so alphabetizatio = 'a lettering, the process of becoming lettered', but we're after 'the state of having become lettered'—not the same thing. (2) My first guess at what alphabetizatio might mean would be 'the process of alphabetizing'. (3) The Romance terms may be too recent to offer dependable guidance. My Spanish–English dictionary (1968), which always gives synonyms when they're available, for English literacy offers Spanish "capacidad de leer y escribir"—which may imply that the editors felt that no suitable single Spanish term was then appropriate. From the OED, we know that literacy was first found in English in 1883 (and the earliest cited sources are American); in contrast, illiteracy dates from 1660 (and literary from the fifteenth century). ¶ Anyway, it's probably too late for the current wiki-ranking cycle, so we might as well keep looking, either for confirmation of alphabetizatio, or for something else. IacobusAmor 16:46, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about alphabetismus? --Neander 19:10, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Swedish, at least, the verb alfabetisera means, besides 'alphabetise', also 'teach a child to read and write'. --Neander 19:19, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to 'magnetic tape sound recording', there are a few words on the page Magnetoscopium, such as magnetophonum which seems to mean something about magnetic tape sound recording. But I'm not sure how reliable these words are because the page was written by an IP. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 16:38, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Exceptaculum magnetophonicum" ? Morgan dat "magnetophon(i)um" esse tape recorder/player et "instrumentum magnetoscopium" esse video recorder et taeniola = tape.--Rafaelgarcia 17:25, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28,000[fontem recensere]

Credo paginam Legio VII Gemina, a nostro Schulz-Hameln inceptam, numero 28,000 esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use[fontem recensere]

Regnum Atropatene inter diadochorum imperia

Tabula geographica, quam e Communibus mutuatus eram ut in pagina de Atropate agente situm Atropatenes regni indicarem, aliā mutata est, ubi Atropatene non memoratur, quod sit imago "Fair use". Tabula tamen qua usus eram provenit ex Historical Atlas anno 1911 a William R. Shepherd edito, cuius tabulae creberrime per Vicipaedias omnis linguis conscriptas adhibentur. Quomodo tabulam "meam" recipiam? --Fabullus 18:32, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nostra regula est nullam imaginem usquam imponere apud Vicipaediam. Vide Vicipaedia:Imagines_imponere. Impone eam in Communia.--Rafaelgarcia 18:59, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse dicis hanc imaginem? [12]--Rafaelgarcia 19:08, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Itavero! --Fabullus 19:11, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quia Shepherd periit anno 1934 (abhinc 70 annos plus) credo hanc imaginem esse dominium publicum secundum regulas, et potes feciliter eam reimponere apud Commnia Wikimedia sub licentia dominii publici:
"Please only upload files that either:
  • are in the public domain in the source country (author died more than 70 years ago) and in the U.S., or that
  • are explicitly covered by a license which grants the Four Freedoms:
1. The freedom to use and perform the work.
2. The freedom to study the work and apply information.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies.
4. The freedom to create and distribute derivative works.
Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. In addition, claims of fair use are explicitly NOT and will NEVER be permitted on Commons."--Rafaelgarcia 19:21, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cave ne imaginem praesentem deleas: muta nomen cum imaginem veterem iterum imponas--Rafaelgarcia 19:30, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago, Rafael! Imaginem novo nomine reimposui in Communia Wikimedia. --Fabullus 19:50, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Libenter--Rafaelgarcia 20:17, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it alright to use words from botanical or zoological taxonomy in Latin?[fontem recensere]

I got this bit ethymological plant name dictionary. Many names in it derive from places. There is a plant called 'Prunus nipponica' meaning something like japanese plum tree. So can we say 'nipponicus' too instead of 'iaponensis'? There is also a 'Athyrium noponicum' with only one 'p'. Still I don't know is there is a latin word like '*Nipponia' for Japan.

I found a plant called 'Saxifraga porophylla var. montenegrina'. I would use 'montenegrinus' much because I don't know how to say this in Latin else. It is similar to 'sangallensis' meaning from 'Sancti Galli' which is in regular use.

Another plant is called 'Coffea arabica var. mokka' after the german name for turkish coffee. 'Mokka' is a bit shorter than 'potio cafaearia Mocana' from the Lexicon recentis latinitatis but one could also just use 'moca'.

There are also very obscure words in plant names like 'mume', a japanese word meaning 'tasteless'. Colour names are often of greek origine like 'melanoleucus' what means 'black and white' also used with animals. Capsicaciolum 14:12, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only all right, but quite acceptable, since such terms are genuinely Latin! Nipponensis should be OK, and it implies a noun Nippon or Nipponia. Montenegrinus = 'of Black Mountain' = perhaps 'of Montenegro'. This moca looks fine to me, but there might be confusion with the mixture of coffee & chocolate known, at least in English, as mocha. The names of some variants (e.g., mume) might be regarded as indeclinable. IacobusAmor 14:26, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I too would say "mume" is indeclinable for there is a tree called "Prunus mume", not "mumis". I won't be shy and use those words. Capsicaciolum 08:33, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question[fontem recensere]

What is the past form of "discere", at plural (we have learned)? I want to adapt the following motto: "Non scholae, sed vitae discimus". Thank you! --Alex:D 15:24, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didicimus 'we have learned'. IacobusAmor 16:00, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imago--->Fasciculus?[fontem recensere]

Is there a reason that the illustration-making instruction "Imago" is occasionally by bots being changed to "Fasciculus"? Should we humans do the same by hand when we get the chance? In situations where parsimony is a goal, substituting ten units for five is an unwanted inelegance, but someone must have a reason for inspiring this change, right? IacobusAmor 14:33, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why it's being done to files that are images. We don't have many files that are not images on Vicipaedia, and if anything in an abstract sense sound files can as readily be called imagines (likeness,echos,ghosts).--Rafaelgarcia 14:59, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no necessity to do this change by hand. Some bots (including UVbot) perform this change while they are working on the page anyway, for the sake of uniformity, because "Fasciculus" is the word that fits all media types (including e. g. sound) while "Imago" primarily has a visual connotation. Still, "Imago" works and will continue to work in exactly the same way as "Fasciculus". See Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 10#De imaginibus. --UV 20:52, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Auctores Latini recentiores[fontem recensere]

Qui auctores hac in categoria nominandi sunt? Omnesne qui paululum tantum Latine scripserunt sicut Hegelius qui disputationem Latine scripsit sed nihil aliud? Vel Carolus Marx cuius ex operibus unum vel duo Latine scripta sunt? Vel solummodo auctores quorum operum magna pars Latine scripta est? --Alex1011 19:40, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liber es! Sed si Marx ipse Latine scripsit (id nescivi), ita, est auctor Latinus. Si ea disputatio Hegeliana Latine scripta est (et si notabilis est) ergo Hegel est auctor Latinus.
Si categoriam selegimus, oportet titulum operis Latini in commentationem ponere, ut credo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dicta Latine reddenda[fontem recensere]

Salvete lectores,

Aliquis mihi maxima parte ignotus me poscit ut tria dicta Anglica Latine reddam, quem laborem suscipere mihi non cordi est. Quis est qui auxilium offerat?

1. "God's Gonna Cut You Down" 2. "Family is the only absolute" 3. " It's easy to go to Hell, but hard to come back"

1. Deus te occidet. 2. 3. Facile est ad inferos descendere, redire difficile.

Gratias ago, 67.40.133.239 00:51, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Familia est unicus constans.--Rafaelgarcia 01:13, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago, 71.212.211.115 03:58, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:1000 paginae[fontem recensere]

Est haec categoria fracta? In infimis paginis non iam apparet. IacobusAmor 12:30, 9 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iam diu est categoria caeca, quae tantum in recensione apparet. --Fabullus 19:12, 9 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In "Praeferentiae meae" - "Misc." potes revelare omnes categorias celatas. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:00, 9 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hues: Translation of Latin texts[fontem recensere]

Hi! "en:Robert Hues" is currently undergoing Featured Article review. We could really do with some help translating Latin texts into English. If you can assist, please respond at the article's talk page. Thanks very much. — Ave, JackLee –disputatio– 18:22, 11 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circuitus Italiae 2009, a statione 1 ad statione 11[fontem recensere]

I'd like to import & translate this article from en:2009 Giro d'Italia, Stage 1 to Stage 11, but the formulas—the bulk of this kind of article—don't work here. E.g., for yesterday's result:

Stage 4 Result
Rider Team Time
1 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct 4h 15' 04"
2 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
3 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
4 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
5 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
6 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
7 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
8 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
9 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
10 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct s.t.
General Classification after Stage 4
Rider Team Time
1 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct 13h 05' 28"
2 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 2"
3 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 6"
4 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 26"
5 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 26"
6 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 28"
7 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 32"
8 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 42"
9 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 42"
10 Formula:Flagathlete Formula:Ct + 49"

Is there any way of fixing this kind of table? IacobusAmor 13:57, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinae[fontem recensere]

Volo categorias idoneas constituere pro regione politico-geographica Sinarum. Habemus (barbarismum?) Categoria:Sina et (neologismum) insulam Categoria:Taivania. Abstineo a verbo plurali Sinae -arum quia populum, minime regionem, indicat. Propono igitur mutare ad Categoria:Serica et Categoria:Formosa. Placetne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ut credo, Sinae recte dicit regionem, et serici vel gentes sericae dicuntur populus.--Rafaelgarcia 19:23, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racing driver[fontem recensere]

A nice, neat term for this, please? See e.g. Graham Hill. Massimo's "autocinetorum ductor" seems OK but doesn't include the racing bit. I am an autocinetorum ductor but, unlike G. Hill, I am not supposed to race them.

For charioteer, I find "auriga", but when a race is involved "agitator". So I could suggest "autocinetorum agitator". Any advance on that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your "auticinetorum agitator" is simultaneously both the most precise and the most conservative translation.Quadrigarius would be my pick, since quadriga is a four-horse chariot, closer to a car. Or if fingere would be allowed, following the pattern: autocinetigarius. However, for "driver" should it be gubernator (helmsman, one who guides/controls), rather than ductor (leader)?--Rafaelgarcia 09:08, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
Cassells: "driver, of a vehicle, raedarius, auriga ; of animals, agitator." IacobusAmor 12:18, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Words translates "raedarius" as "coachman", which is indeed not too far off from "driver". Especially if we remember the synonym autoraeda for autocinetum--Rafaelgarcia 19:15, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the racing context, the appropriate word is auriga; see, e.g., this caption: "Auriga stabuli Ferrari, Brasilianus Felipe Massa, artem bolidem Formulae Primae gubernandi exercet ante cursuram Bahrainianam." There are further examples. --Neander 01:41, 16 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of those useful pointers, Neander's is the one that seems certainly to be used in a racing context (in modern Latin). Raedarius seems a good word for a driver or a coachman but maybe not for a racing driver.
Thanks to all. I could, at any rate, create Categoria:Aurigae and use it generally, whether the motive power is equine or petroleic. Or I could try Categoria:Autocinetorum aurigae, so as to be more explicit in this case. How does that seem? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:42, 16 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse melius forma adiectiva "auriga autocineticus"?--Rafaelgarcia 23:31, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MauritsBot[fontem recensere]

usor:MauritsBot is working well, and making imposible to track new edits in the nuper mutata page. Should we ask Adam to flag it?--Xaverius 06:27, 16 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now asked Adam. --UV 23:59, 16 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital cities[fontem recensere]

Since the word by which Vicipaedia regularly specifies capital cities is caput, why is the category for such things Categoria:Capitales, rather than Categoria:Capita ? IacobusAmor 10:36, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ita. Vide et Disputatio:Brasilia (urbs) et Disputatio Categoriae:Capitales (disputatio nunc mota est ad Disputatio Categoriae:Capita --UV 22:53, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:18, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vidi. UV rogat: "Should we move this category to a better title?" + Rafael inquit: "Oportet nos categoria:Capitales ad catergoria:capita movere." Et ita prorsus censeo! IacobusAmor 11:24, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sed huius verbi "caput" significatio primaria est anatomica.
In paginis dicimus "Caput civitatis est Vasingtonia"; nemo de significatione dubitat. Sed si accipimus titulum nudum Categoria:Capita, contextum amittimus. Ergo, quid? Fortasse Categoria:Capita civitatum vel Categoria:Capita (urbes)? Nescio ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Capita fore proposui nomen categoriae, nec paginae. Pagina illa de capite civitatis, certe appellanda est caput civitatis, sed discrepo de nomine categoriae: non video quo modo problema surgit cum categoria appellemus capita. Quot enim paginarum habemus de capitis humanis? Et nescio quomodo problema ullum surgat cum pagina de capite humano in categoria capita includamus. Paginam capitis quidem fortasse oportet sententiam quandam includere de usibus nominis ad alias res per similitudinem nominandas. --Rafaelgarcia 14:36, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sit. Oportet igitur in pagina Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests proponere. UVbot solet categorias renominare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Censeo. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:36, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Factumst. --UV 22:53, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina mensis in anno 2009[fontem recensere]

Mea sententia nobis opus est hoc in anno etiam pagina de cladibus Varianis quia hoc proelium ad punctum temporis MM annis ante fuit. --Alex1011 08:44, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recte dicis. Mense Septembri faciendumst, si possumus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etiam Ianum valde commendo! --Neander 11:54, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Sunt Proletaria Dominus Orbis'[fontem recensere]

'Sunt Proletaria Dominus Orbis' is this a classical latin phrase? and what does it mean? (the poor controled a round dominator?)
And, is this phrase correct in grammer? proletaria seems to be pl. while the dominus is single...
210.192.100.179 06:37, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sententiam nusquam inveni. --Alex1011 08:06, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proletariat is (could be? shall be? is going to be?) the (true) dominator of the world?65.49.2.158 08:25, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'There are lowest-class things, master of the land'. Putting esse first usually makes it existential (in English, 'there is/are'); proletaria (neuter) are obviously things belonging to proletarii, people of the lowest class. The Latin seems odd to me, but then lots of things do, so that may not be a useful criterion. IacobusAmor 14:07, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are trying to translate "Proletarians are the master of the world", then in latin use plebs (usually meaning lower class, common people, and attested in the sense of proletarians in Morgan's gloss): so that we would have "Plebes mundum regunt" = "The proletarians rule the world"--Rafaelgarcia 22:33, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that is should be Sunt Proletarii Dominus Orbis?
This odd inscription is found on a wood board in an old photo, and not very clear. Thus, I chech it again and feel it may be Proletarii instead of Proletaria. One way or another, it seems impossible that is reads as Proletarius.
So it comes odd to me that why a pl. noun can be modified by an 'esse+single' structure?
If somebody let me to 'correct' the grammer confidently here, I may suggest Est Proletariatus Dominus Orbis.Gesalbte 17:17, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the structure "A = B," A can be singular and B can be plural. Your woodcarving may be trying to say "Proletarians are the master of the world," Proletarii sunt dominus mundi/orbis (with sunt oddly placed). The examples in Cassell's imply that plebs, meaning 'the common people', is ordinarily used in the singular. IacobusAmor 17:33, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salve. Well, in Latin, if we're saying that A(pl.) = B(sing.), shouldn't we use the 'est' form of sum(esse)?
E.g. Discipli classis V est globus bonus. / Discipli classis V sunt lusoris boni.?
Are above sentences correct in grammer? If the answer is affirmative, why not Est Proletarii Dominus Orbis?Gesalbte 17:57, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm wrong. The form of esse should be according to former one, not the latter.
Thus, Discipli classis V est globus bonus. should be fixed as Discipli classis V sunt globus bonus., and your Proletarii sunt dominus mundi/orbis is reasonable.Gesalbte 18:06, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In English & Latin, the verb agrees with the subject, which tends to be the first noun heard or seen. IacobusAmor 18:11, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Orbis(Gen) or Orbisis(is this non-exist?)?Gesalbte 18:09, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orbis is both nominative & genitive; the form orbisis is a surprise! IacobusAmor 18:12, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's both nom and gen... I had a blurred vision on the topic, faint!Gesalbte 18:14, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Est Proletarii Dominus Orbis" makes utterly no sense: ="There is a lord of the proletarius's circle."--Rafaelgarcia 18:21, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute me.. I've confessed that the form 'est' is incorrect...
My suggestion was Sunt Proletarii Dominus Orbis..Gesalbte 05:24, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: "Proletarii sunt domini orbis terrarum". --Neander 09:58, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, it seems that the questioner doesn't will to have an translation of such an imagined english meaning at all. I've given the conclusion that the carving may be Sunt Proletarii Dominus Orbis. However, if you want to translate something as "Proletarians are the Master of the World", Proletarii sunt domini orbis terrarum could be a dremendous entity. But what does it mean exactly at all? Obviewsly that the proletarians are not ruling the world since ever and may not be able to do so in the foreseeable future. Could your suggestion latin phrase indicates that the proletarians create the world, thus they should be able to rule this world, otherwise, blablabla..
It sounds like some marxism mottos this way. Anyway, such an expression comes odd to me...Gesalbte 15:51, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your meaning because your english is not quite good enough. However, putting the verb first in such a latin sentence creates a very different meaning "Sunt proletarii dominus orbis (terrarum)" says "there are proletarians, the lord of the circle (of lands)"--Rafaelgarcia 16:17, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh...
Forgive me. In this case (if you want to translate 'proletariat is the master of the world'), I will suggest Proletarii Erunt Domini Orbis/Orbis Terrarum/MundiGesalbte 16:21, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've just taken Neander's suggestion and inserted a different tense in it (erunt for sunt). So what you've said is Proletarians will be masters of the world, which is OK (with me), but different! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:30, 25 Maii 2009 (UTC) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 25 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nihilism[fontem recensere]

fortasse 'nihilismus'? video paginam de Nietzsche nos habere, nondum philosophia cuius pars fuit. Nooj 09:04, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilismus=nihlism, sed non intellego "nondum philosophia cuius pars fuit"?--Rafaelgarcia 22:35, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah iam intellego. -->"nondum de illa philosophia quam Nietsche disputabat"--Rafaelgarcia 23:28, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gratias tibi ago! Nooj

De imaginum explanationibus[fontem recensere]

Since the Chicago Manual of Style sets the standard for most American academic publishers, its remarks on textual material that should accompany illustrations may be worth reading:

Most text figures and plates require some sort of explanatory material to make them understandable to the reader. This is supplied by the caption and legend—two terms often confused or considered synonymous, but at the University of Chicago Press distinguished elegantly the [sic] one from the other. A caption is a title or headline, traditionally placed above the illustration but now generally below. A legend is an explanation, sometimes (like a caption) in title form but more commonly in the form of a statement and consisting of one or more sentences. (On a map, of course, the legend is the key to the symbols used—something quite different from what we are describing here.) The following is an example of a traditional caption and legend. . . .
COLINTON PARISH CHURCH AS IT APPEARED IN WALKER'S TIME
This photograph shows the church as it appeared before 1908, when it was extensively enlarged and reconstructed. It had changed little from the time of Walker's ministry until then. The coffin-shaped object in the foreground is an eighteenth-century mortsafe, a block of cast iron placed over a newly made grave to discourage "resurrectionists" from digging up the body for sale to anatomists. (Courtesy of the Reverend W. B. Johnston, B.D., minister of Colinton.)
Less traditionally, caption and legend may be run on. Note the period after the caption:
PLATE 1
A GROUP OF ARTIFACTS FROM SITE 3. In all these objects the high degree of finish and the aesthetic appeal are notable. A, C, E, flint points, and B, obsidian bird point, all approximately natural size; D, grain-storage jar of grayish clay decorated in black (× 1/20); F, votive figure of red clay, undecorated (× 1/5). . . .
Text figures nowadays frequently carry legends only, captions being omitted, especially in scientific writing, where such figures are used in profusion:
Fig. 1. Clearly visible here are the giant transparent vacuole V and its septa S wrapped around the end of the resorbing bone.
An identifying tag, functionally a caption, is often used but set as if it were part of the legend:
Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of mouse-radius rudiments. A, left radius cultivated for 3 days in PTE; B, right radius similarly cultivated; C, left radius cultivated for 2 days in PTE.
Fig. 3. Idealized random distribution curve

In my experience, the form of the previous two examples is typical in modern academic reference works. A similar form is seen in modern popular works, as in these examples from Newsweek (25 May 2009):

Rubble fills the inside of a 13th-century basilica in L'Aquila.
The Chinese Navy, off to fight pirates.
A bridge in France, money well spent.
Laurence Duggan, who committed suicide after an FBI interview.

(Note that redundancy is fine: the explanatory matter found in the four previous examples is also found in the main text.) Some examples follow the tradition of having both a caption and a legend (all-caps here reduced to uc/lc):

Power couple
Then-Senator Obama holds a highly public 2007 meeting with Mayor Bloomberg.
Common ground
The mayor and the Democratic nominee visiting the World Trade Center site on the seventh anniversary of 9/11.
The simple life
W at his Dallas home.
No child left behind
Bush works his new base.

Note that the popular examples are in the form (though not always the grammar) of a sentence, with a period at the end. If the caption (e.g. "Power couple") had been on the same line as the legend, it would have ended in a period. IacobusAmor 17:15, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Romae adversarii[fontem recensere]

Haec categoria solummodo individuas personas continere debet an etiam gentes? --Alex1011 09:34, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Olim creavi ego, sed nescio cur. Si utile esse credis, utere quo modo vis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:15, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled cheese sandwich[fontem recensere]

Quid est Latinum pro Anglico "grilled cheese sandwich" (Exemplaritas)? IacobusAmor 14:11, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse pastillum assum caseo fartum vel caseus inter panes assos? Gabriel Svoboda 16:31, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroportus Internationalis Tochianus[fontem recensere]

2nd Terminal of AIT.

In this page, Tocio, the author use Aeroportus Internationalis Tochianus(東京国際空港) as a nomenclature for Tokyo International Airport. I'm wandering why it is not Aeroportus Internationalis Tocionis, in which we use the genitive case of Tocio, instead of an adjective, just like the the phrase Portus Tocionis? Gesalbte 14:06, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Latin it is often better to use an adjective rather than a genitive in such phrases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of adjectives vs. genitives for such things is an ancient & unresolved issue among some of us. by IacobusAmor. So what the difference between adj. and gen.? In addtion, I haven't found anything about this topic in Wheelock's..Gesalbte 14:28, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To see the preference look at how latin names things in literature. Imperium Romanum not Imperium Romae or Imperium Romanorum. This is the case expecially with regard to naming things associated with towns, cities and persons. It's the difference between "Tokyo Airport" and "Tokyo's airport"; In english it is also more common to say the first adiectival phrase rather than use the genetive. Do you really want to emphasize in the name that the city of tokyo owns the airport? In fact, is that even true? On the other hand, if comparing airports between different cities that it would make more sense to use the genetive."Tokyo's airport is nice than Newyork's."--Rafaelgarcia 14:39, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Written before Rafael's contribution above, and I kept trying to post it, but it kept getting obliterated by further changes.]—As you intuitively know, adjectives & genitives convey similar information, so your question really concerns idiom. Compare, noting the (standard) order of the words:
Internationalis Aeroportus Tocianus = 'Tokyo International Airport'
internationalis Tocii aeroportus = 'Tokyo's international airport'
Both phrases are fine, but I think most of us would hear the first one as a proper name and the second one as a common noun. As for Aeroportus Internationalis Tochianus, I can't explain it: if I'm remembering Bradley's Arnold right, Classical Latin doesn't ordinarily accept two adjectives in a row (without an intervening et or other connector). ¶ Then there's the question of whether Cicero would have accepted the newfangled word internationalis at all; its meaning is obvious, and that's a point in its favor, but one wonders whether he wouldn't have been happier with inter civitates or some such construction. IacobusAmor 14:43, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do with Bradley's Arnold is to commit it to amnesia. It nearly killed Latin in the English speaking world. Dreadful book.
Sorry, I didn't mean mess you up.--Rafaelgarcia 14:51, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; on this issue, we seem to be on the same wavelength anyway. IacobusAmor 15:16, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By refering Classical Latin doesn't ordinarily accept two adjectives in a row, you mean that Aeroportus Internationalis Tochianus should be rectify as Internationalis Aeroportus Tochianus or something else?
I mean, in most of the occations, we treat multiple adjective modified nominal phrases into a from-small-to-large sequence, just like in French. With the way it is, isn't Aeroportus Internationalis Tochianus a classical expression? Gesalbte 23:23, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The order of adjectives can be much more complex than a size-based sequence. In English, for example, the obligatory order (known intuitively by competent native speakers) is widely taken to be: determiner(s), number, intensifier, opinion, size, length, shape, width, participle, age, color, origin, material. For example, these six big new red Spanish tables is acceptable, but these six big red Spanish new tables and these big six new red Spanish tables and these big six red Spanish new tables are ungrammatical. Latin doesn't pile up adjectives like this. IacobusAmor 00:53, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that rule refers to two adjectives used attributively, whereas here it is a "proper name" and with proper names, perhaps a different standard applies. Even when it is used attributively, I think it depends on the precise idea expressed. "The tall red cup" = "calix ruber altusque" -"the cup which is tall and red" whereas "calix altus ruber" = "The tall cup which is red" or "the tall cup, the one which is red".--Rafaelgarcia 23:36, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then what if an adj. or a gen. is set before the noun it modifies? E.g. "ruber calix altus"?
And, if I want to say an angels' donkeys' society (a society formed by a few donkeys who belong to the angels), can I use "societas asellorum angelorum"? This phrase mean a society that formed by donkeys who belong to the angels or both the donkeys and angels(误)?Gesalbte 23:50, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, perhaps you can absolute me if I'm asking moronly. What's the difference between "et" and "que"? Gesalbte 00:01, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Et, and, simply connects words or clauses; -que combines more closely into one connected whole" (Allen & Greenough 324a). IacobusAmor 00:32, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-Que is the same as and but added as a suffix. Just like of is the same as 's in english. That's a good example: societas asellorum angelorum = angels' donkeys' society but societas asellorum angelorumque = society of angels and donkeys--Rafaelgarcia 00:13, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
societas asellorum angelorum?societas asellorum angelorum? what's the difference?Gesalbte 00:15, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None methinks.--Rafaelgarcia 01:17, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, here, societas asellorum angelorum = angels' donkeys' society but societas asellorum angelorum = society of angels and donkeys, you mean the two same clauses have different meanings?Gesalbte 03:18, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the two clauses societas ansellorum angelorum and societas agelorum ansellorum in latin have the same meaning but are utterly ambiguous as to what each gentitive is modifying. Perhaps the context can decide which is meant, but given only this phrase the two phrases are equivalent.Word order is not as determining a factor in latin as in english or other languages. The two phrases societas ansellorum angelorum (society of asses of angels)and societas angelorum ansellorumque (society of angles and asses) are different. By mistake I left out the -que above, which causes the confusion. Sorry.--Rafaelgarcia 03:43, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see..Thus:
A(nom)+B(gen)+C(gen) means A belongs to B which belongs to C or A belongs to C which belongs to B ; while:
A(nom)+B(gen)+Cque(gen) means A belongs both to B and C....
So, Senatus Populusque Romanus means both the senate and people belongs to Rome..--Gesalbte 14:31, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinatio Consociatas Shanghainum or Consociatas Ordinatio Shanghainum?Gesalbte 23:43, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are ungrammatical. Ordinatio (ordering/arrangement) is in the nominative singular, Consociatas (united) is in the accusative plural, and Shanghainum I don't recognize but may be accusative or nominative singular.--Rafaelgarcia 23:54, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faint. I thought that "Consociatas" is an adjective... I mean in such casus (translation of Shanghai Cooperation Organization), obviewsly that this organization is not in the City of Shanghai, then I should use adj. instead of gen. of "Shanghai"(Am I right?). Then should the second adj.("Consociata"? "Consocia"? "Consociatio"?) be put before this "Ordinatio" or after it?Gesalbte 23:59, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually for cities adjectives are created using -ensis, for organization latin has lots of similar sounding synonyms (see Organizatio). In this case I would put Shanghai Organizaition = Consociatio Shanghaiensis. But I am not sure what cooperation means--cooperative, corporation??--Rafaelgarcia 00:18, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wandering which kind of word order for heavy-modified nominal phrase is the most acceptable in classical latin..
That is, the translation of en:Shanghai Cooperation Organization in latin should be Consona/Commune Organizatio Shanghaiensis or Organizatio Consona/Commune Shanghaiensis?--Gesalbte 14:57, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a voluntary organization for mutual cooperation to which states are members, I would render it as Consociatio Cooperationis Shanghaiensis (A genetive wedged between a noun and an adjective)--Rafaelgarcia 15:59, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The translation Consociatio Cooperationis Shanghaiensis is magnificent. Anyway, may I ask that why adjective "Cooperationis" is placed after the noun "consociatio" instead of before it?--Gesalbte 10:18, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such genitives usually follow nouns; however, if the name is to be an instance of hyperbaton, the adjective should be the first item, not the last, and the phrase should therefore be Shanghaiensis Cooperationis Consociatio. Whether proper names & titles should be in hyperbaton is a question that only a more experienced student than I can answer. ¶ If Cassell's is right, cooperatio isn't Classical Latin, whose best words for English 'cooperation' are (according to Cassell's) opera and auxilium. White's dictionary offers the same terms, but adds that Cicero used consociatio [!] to mean 'cooperation'.IacobusAmor 10:37, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, that Cooperationis Consociatio Shanghaiensis is not acceptable?--Gesalbte 16:51, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobus is right about the perferred word order, although I don't know how important to strictly follow the preferred order, especially for proper names of organizations. Your word order is not "wrong" but "wierd", emphasizing Shanghaiensis and Cooperationis, implying either that there is another such organization perhaps Cooperationis Consociatio Londoniensis that the writer is working to distinguish clearly or that there is another Cosociatio Shanghaiensis that you are trying to distinguish.
Cooperatio is late latin for cooperation (a working together). Opera and auxilium are close synonyms but imply more of a one-sided help. Perhaps consociatio is also possible but it specifically means the coming together of friends in some alliance, without implying necessarily what the alliance is for. Perhaps it's a typo? Cooperation for Corporation?--Rafaelgarcia 17:06, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praemium propositum[fontem recensere]

Videte, s.v.p., Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia Vicipaedianis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Christ and his followers" in Latin?[fontem recensere]

Christ and his followers as shown in the drawing of Leonardo da Vinci.

Recently I came across a problem which is to translate the phrase above into latin.
Can I say "Sanctus Christus Disciplique"? I'm not confident about this because it seems that adj. "sanctus" may have also modified the word "discipli"(while confidently that christ's followers are not saints everyone.). In addtion, do I need use "eius" before "discipli"?--65.49.2.153 10:27, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eius is unnecessary where it's understood. Sanctus is masculine singular and therefore doesn't apply to discipli [sic] 'foll'wers', which is masculine plural. So your Sanctus Christus Disciplique means 'Holy Christ and his foll'wers', which seems like a rather odd thing to say. IacobusAmor 10:43, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But eius is OK: if you Google "Christus et discipuli" you find that most examples are in fact of "Christus et discipuli eius". An approximate synonym (with more Google hits, actually) is "Christus cum discipulis". "Sanctus" seems out of place: I never heard the phrase "Saint Christ". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:58, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, are you, JacobusAmor, agree this "Sanctus Christus Discipulique"(I'm sorry for the spelling error) is correct?
In the mean time, if I want to express "Saint Paul and his followers", can I say "Sanctus Paulus Discipulique" too?--65.49.14.155 16:58, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, Mr.JacobusAmor, why this Sanctus Christus Discipulique seems like a rather odd thing to say?--65.49.2.189 17:02, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non solemus Christum 'sanctum' dici quia, ut suppono, non necesse videtur. Non dicimus "Holy Christ" Anglice. Sanctus Salvator vero, minime Sanctus Christus. Qui Sanctum Paulum sequebantur, sicut, gratia exempli, Timotheus et Lucas, quoque discipulos vocare possumus, aut comites, aut forte melius, satellites. Tergum violinae 17:47, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tergum violinae probe dicit. ¶ Pro (ad)sectatores Sancti Pauli, fortasse sit nomen unius verbi, fortasse Paulini vel Paulistae ; followers of Socrates were, for example, Socratici, and the pattern of making an adjective for followers of various teachers was a common one. IacobusAmor 19:02, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then is "Christus Discipulique"(Christ and his followers) does express the meaning fluently? BTW, my lingua latina classica really sucks...65.49.2.153 13:50, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK; but as Andrew points out, eius is often used: so Christus et eius discipuli and Christus et discipuli eius are OK too. ¶ Note that discipuli are rightly 'pupils, students, apprentices'—a concept that has a rather limited biblical sense, perhaps not quite the same as 'followers', which seems more usually to be (ad)sectatores. So in English do you mean 'followers'? or 'disciples'? IacobusAmor 14:01, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poincaré disk model (geometry) ... quare vertendum sit[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes. Ego scire cupiebam quare hoc "model" Latine vertendum sit. Putabam "paradigma" vel "systema" sed valde insecurus sum. [Usor ignotus.]

'Model' in Latina Aetatis Aureae, secundum Cassell's, est exemplar vel exemplum, et in Plinio proplasma. IacobusAmor 16:48, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked up the concept on the english wiki, perhaps "exemplum" would fit, since really it is a specific example illustrating how hyperbolic coordinates arise.--Rafaelgarcia 17:25, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fatiha[fontem recensere]

I can't read the Arabic, but I was wondering how accurate the translation we have on the fatiha [13] page is. We have:

ذين أنعمت عليهم غير المغضوب عليهم و لا الضالين7

Viam illorum quos beneficavisti super eis, non iratus super eis, neque errones.

I've got an English translation from here[14].

The path of those upon whom you have bestowed Your blessings; Not the path of those on whom is anger; nor of those who stumble astray.

I was wondering if this might be better. The brackets are just my attempts to grasp the grammar of the line.

Viam illorum super quos beneficavisti, non iratus [es], neque [viam illorum qui] errones [sunt].

Also line 5, we currently have: Te servimus et per Te iuvamur.

I was wondering if this might be better: Te servimus; Te supplicamus.

Neither translates the english, but I don't know arabic: The english would translate to: 'Viam illorum quos beneficavisti, nec quibus iratus es, neque qui deerrant.--Rafaelgarcia 15:23, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A literal word-by-word translation would be: صراط ṣirāṭa viam الذين 'llaḏīna eorum qui انعمت anʿamta beneficasti عليهم ʿalayhim super eos, غير ġayri non المغضوب 'l-maġḍūbi iratus عليهم ʿalayhim super eos ولا wa-lā et non الضالين 'ḍ-ḍāllīn errantium. The translation quoted above is trying to - somewhat awkwardly - mirror this Arabic syntax. A smoother version might read: ... viam eorum quos beneficavisti, quibus non irasceris, qui non errant.--Ceylon 19:55, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking of the wikis, June[fontem recensere]

Woohoo! We gained more than most wikis in May and advanced two places, leaping over Latviešu and squeaking by or tying Nynorsk. For June, two more places should be attainable: those of Simple English and Bosanski. After that, advancement will be harder. IacobusAmor 11:07, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosanski?--Xaverius 22:29, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the rankings? I can never find it... --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:47, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He had already provided up top: ranking of the wikis. I remember there was another list that ranked the individual pages and users that worked on them, but I don't remember where that was.--Rafaelgarcia 01:51, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ago gratias tibi! I'll bookmark it. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:55, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Libenter. Et nunc inveni ubi paginae usoresque comparuntur: TablesWikipediaLA.htm Fruere!--Rafaelgarcia 02:01, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just "added" three Categoria:1000 paginae articles (Equus caballus, Bos et Constantinopolis) just by correcting the interwiki links to and from the corresponding English pages. I think there are more "missing links" out there waiting to be dug up. --Fabullus 12:53, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Extremadura aut Extrematura[fontem recensere]

Salve, Amice. Videte disputationem nostram de nomine regionis Hispanicae hic et hic. Auxilium vobis peto!--Xaverius 22:29, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbum “Extrematura” non recte secui. Suffixum latinum "*tura" rebar, sed non. Extrematura a extremata provenit, novum verbum a extrema. Dein -ur- suffixum adictum, id est, sectio verbi est “extrem|at-ur-a”. Extremata suffixum participii habet et serius adictum -ur-, ut in calentura vel coopertura vel cultura a calente (calere), a cooperto (cooperire) et a culto (colere), creando abstractum nomen. Fortasse “Extremadura” romanice modo latino crearetur et proterea in antiquis documentis cum d haut t adesset. Terminatio autem latina est.--Frater Carmona Valviensis 14:21, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Universitas Extrematurensis - 83.35.208.29 12:18, 5 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives[fontem recensere]

If one adjective is modifying two nouns, is it used in the plural? Take for example this ablative absolute I was just trying to write: after his mother and father died—should it be written matre patreque mortuo or matre patreque mortuis? Vobis gratias ago! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 23:05, 5 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an absolute answer: it depends on how you think of the two things being described, what aspect you want to emphasize, or especially have in mind. The singular adjective is non-emphatic, "matre patreque mortuo", since, in general Latin has the adjective agree with the closest noun being described. In this case, however, I think "-que" implies the mother and father are thought of as a unit, so the adjective can also correctly be plural, if you want to express this unity or want to emphasize it.--Rafaelgarcia 00:38, 6 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bradley's Arnold, however, states that in general an adjective predicated of a compund subject is generally given in the plural, but the adjective especially agrees with only the substantive closest to itself when it precedes the subject, i.e. when it is used attributively.--Rafaelgarcia 01:06, 6 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Menge § 11, an attributive adjective relating to two nouns generally agrees with the noun it stands next to, e. g. Volusenus consilii magni et virtutis est. This would yield matre patreque mortuo. However, if you would rather avoid all ambiguity, a simple parentibus mortuis or parentibus orbatus might be just as appropriate.--Ceylon 21:49, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity[fontem recensere]

How long have most of you been studying Latin? et are any of you self taught? I am, due to a lack of classes to take until college. Bandit V. 21:08, 6 Iunii anno 2009 (CST)

4 years in high school, and 1 term in college (unfortunately, my university only offers one Latin course) --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 16:42, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The high school I currently attend only has Spanish, they used to offer French, the teacher is also the AP English teacher I have. I plan on taking Classics in college. I do wonder if they require Latin or Greek in High School though, I have only used Wheelocks so far. Bandit V. 12:28 7 Iunii 2009 (CST)
Two terms at a university as for now, two more are ahead of me. Gabriel Svoboda 17:35, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7 years in middle and high school but when three years ago I began to collaborate with la.wiki I had already forgotten the most of My Latin--Massimo Macconi 18:25, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these is making my self taught status looks horrible, it does explain my crappy translation, but I can read Latin just fine...does it seem to anyone else that Self Taught Latinists are usually worse at it than anyone else? Bandit V. 22:54, 7 Iunii 2009 (CST)
Not necessarily. Don't worry, you're not the only one. Keep on reading Latin, it's good for you. If you want to improve your English-to-Latin, most of all you need to practice. Yes, write on Vicipaedia! Also use a textbook, write the English-to-Latin exercises, check your answers against the correct ones and work out what went wrong.
For full disclosure, I started Latin at school 52 years ago ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:37, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can tell from my lame Latin, I just did a year in uni and a summer course, which is enough to go throigh texts and inscriptions... however, practicing and writting here helps a lot!--Xaverius 07:55, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had two years of Latin in school when I was 14-16 years old, decades ago, but haven't studied it since, except via Vicipaedia. One can learn both ways: from watching one's contributions being improved by experts, and from watching them being disimproved by others. Reading discussions and thinking about their arguments can be useful. For example, in view of Buddhismus, Communismus, Socialismus, and the like, why do we have an article whose lemma is Placita Marxiana instead of Marxismus? IacobusAmor 12:25, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never come across any of the articles about anything like that every time I browse here, that's extremely interesting. I need to go look at that disputatio...Bandit V. 09:20, 8 Iunii 2009 (CST)
I bought a little Latin dictionary when I was about 10 or so, but never took an actual class until university. We used Wheelock but the class was divided into two years, and I only took the first year before heading off to grad school, so I never learned about participles and the subjunctive and all that. Since I study medieval history, the summer before I started grad school I took a medieval Latin reading class, and crammed the rest of Wheelock into my head. That was good enough to pass the MA-level Latin exam, so I was in the PhD-level class as an MA student, and for the rest of the year Latin was so brutally beaten into my brain that I passed the PhD-level exam and I don't think I will ever forget it. Unfortunately, this is medieval Latin, which, while awesome on its own, is distinct from classical Latin. I can read the densest papal bulls with no problem, but I have a hard time with Cicero. (And now, only 5 years later, they somehow trust me to teach other students!) Adam Episcopus 13:47, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm self-taught from Wheelock's, Moreland & Fleisher, and Lingua Latina. I'm mainly interested in translation. I'm okay at it, but still learning! Autophile 17:13, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is" in Latin[fontem recensere]

id est? or is it a different term, I looked on WORD, and through two dictionaries and I have yet to find the proper word for this...it's for an essay I'm writing off of vicipaedia. ..is it one of the forms of esse? Bandit V.

Depends on the context. If you connect it with a predicative, such as in It is true, it is usually rendered est without any demonstrative pronoun, in this case: Verum est.--84.190.0.25 06:22, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if it's part of an idiom like 'it is raining', id est would be flat-out wrong. IacobusAmor 13:05, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, it was for a literal quote and I wasn't sure how much I could get in there exactly as the guy said it or not, but oh well. Bandit V. 09:12, 9 Iunii 2009 (CST)
Definitely an almost uncurable problem for me and my 101 students this semester. I would dance on a chair, sing, throw water balloons, and I would still get sentences like Ioannes est stat sub arbore. The other idiom, which I think must have been my fault for stressing the use of the genitive so early, was the desire to write things like mei pater and tui soror, which, while "possible" I suppose, sounds as bad as the equally possible "father of me" and "sister of you" in English... --Ioscius (disp) 04:00, 10 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101 students is the average number for you? Even if I was good at Latin, I would die under that. You could always paint some spots on each when they mess up...I am just kidding, but it would be funny. Bandit V. 09:29, 10 Iunii 2009 (CST)
Forget the "It" just use 'est'. Don't think in English. Nice to see you around Ioscius.--Jondel 07:53, 10 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a problem with learning Russian as well as Latin...Bandit V.
Good to be around, Jondel, thanks for your kind words. Well Russian is a completely different problem, actually, Bandit. Where in normal discourse in the present tense, the verb to be бить is completely omitted, and when it is used for emphasis, it's what we call a frozen form есть. So in normal discourse you would just say, for instance, у меня машина, but if there was some confusion, or someone didn't know you had a car, or there is some confusion about it, you would say у меня есть машина.
And good lord, no I didn't have 101 students. 101 is a common term in American University numbering systems. So the introduction class is Latin101, the second semester is Latin102, etc.
I misunderstood that too. I was thinking there must be a sudden mass movement towards Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utinam, mi Andrea ;] --Ioscius (disp) 12:18, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep asking questions, Bandit. Like Iacobus said above, the way to get better is to make mistakes and ask questions. Cheers.--Ioscius (disp) 01:52, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be an idiot, I didn't even think about college intro numbers. I am American but I am still in high school. I should have guessed a few people on here spoke Russian...just to surprise myself, I can finally read Russian now too, I had to use transliteration for a while. Cyrillic letters just killed me at first. Bandit V. 20:59, Iunii 10 2009 (CST)
А ты гороришь и читаешь по руский? Молодец!
How old are you if you are in high school? College won't be far off... --Ioscius (disp) 02:18, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am 17 right now. I plan on going to the Universisty of Oklahoma for either meteorology or music or classics/linguistics or Law...I think it would be hard to do music or linguistics in college as I am slower at reading music, (but I can), and have never had a language class in HS, I took the html classes, I dislike our Spanish classes. Bandit V. 22:37, 10 Iunii 2009 (CST)

"Vicipedia" (Titel)[fontem recensere]

de: Hallo,

mir ist aufgefallen, dass man sich für die lateinische Wikipedia für den Namen "Vicipedia" entschieden hat. Warum? Vici heiß immer noch "Ich siegte", aber das verfälscht doch dann irgendwie den Namen, oder?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

en: Hello,

i recogniced, that the latin wikipedia is called "Vicipedia". Why? Vici means "I won". In my opinion for this reason the name is transalted in a wrong way.

Yours fathfully

--PhilJay 14:49, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Ich würde mich über eine Aufklärung sehr freuen.[reply]

Hi PhilJay, Vici in Vicpaedia is just a respelling of Wiki according to the norms of classical latin. We could have spelled it Wikipedia too, but the founders were trying to cultivate the classical ethos.--Rafaelgarcia 15:22, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing Translitteratio as we speak... --Ioscius (disp) 15:23, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vici also means villages (pl. of vicus). They are all homonyms, but they are different. It is simply the transliteration (not translation) of wiki into classicising Latin (w>v and k>c). Transliterating wiki is common amongst other wikis, so why not our own vici?--Xaverius 15:25, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm too slow in my replies - Ioscius and Rafael have already replied...
PPS, also the dative of vicis, vicis, f. --Ioscius (disp) 16:09, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Week[fontem recensere]

Hey, I just stumbled upon this page: Translation of the Week on the wikimedia site. Does Vicipaedia participate in this? It seems like an interesting, systematic way to increase the diversity in our articles. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 20:47, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already do. Look at our pagina prima.--Rafaelgarcia 21:01, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's how I got started here... --Ioscius (disp) 21:09, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I've always seen that link but never clicked on it! Now I shall! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 23:50, 11 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praemia Vicipaedianis[fontem recensere]

Videte, s.v.p., paginam Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia Vicipaedianis. Fasces censorias ab amico nostro UV gerendas propono. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 14 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuper mutata[fontem recensere]

Is it just my computer or is the Nuper mutata page blank (and not only in our vici, but in the others I've seen too)--Xaverius 08:36, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specialis:RecentChanges is not working, because there seem to be some problems with the servers. But the developers are trying to fix it ;) --Amphitrite 08:59, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's working over here. IacobusAmor 12:55, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lifetime" template[fontem recensere]

When making a "quick & dirty" stipula for Haroldus Norse, I noticed that en: has come up with a way of combining the defaultsort, nati, and mortui entries into one:

{{Lifetime|1916|2009|Norse, Harold}} = Lifetime|1916|2009|Norse, Harold

As this is much more efficient than our present method, can it be adopted here? IacobusAmor 17:07, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to ask UV, he knows best when templates are concerned--Xaverius 10:02, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: {{Lifetime}}. Greetings, --UV 12:14, 20 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magistrum requiro[fontem recensere]

Ave! Requiro magistrum quod agnosco et lego latinam at nescio scripere in ea. Mea lingua mater hispanicem est. Gratias. --Bellum: En español/In Latina/In English/No Português 23:31, 18 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambo te, Bellum, explica istam rem quam quaeris.--Rafaelgarcia 03:41, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, iam intellego. Bellum quaerit magistrum qui eum linguam Latinam doceat--Rafaelgarcia 11:43, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declensions of "Professor"[fontem recensere]

Professor.

Should I take Second Declension for latin phrase "Professor", which is

SINGULAR PLURAL

Nom professor professories
Voc professor professories
Acc professorumem professoroses
Gen professoriis professororum
Dat professoroi professorisibus
Abl professoroe professorisibus?
P.S.:We have neither pagina for Professor in Vicipaedia nor in Vicidictionarium T T. Gesalbte 08:41, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professor is third declension (Professor, -ris). And starting a pagina is very easy Professor--Xaverius 09:53, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quid est Anglice "Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle" in Lingua Latina?[fontem recensere]

Test of US Peacekeeper's MIRV.

The introduce of MIRV is in this page: en:MIRV.
I'm wondering the latin translation of this topic. I don't know how to translate the phrase independently(independenter) nor reentry(introiticus?). Gratias. Gesalbte 09:19, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicia Vehicula Singulariter Introientia = manifold vehicles singly entering--Rafaelgarcia 21:45, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M V S Introeuntia ! --Neander 22:30, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiplicia Vehicula Singulariter Introeuntia, MVSI? That's extraordinary work, I'll remember it. Thanks for everything.--Gesalbte 06:51, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Request[fontem recensere]

Hi! Could you translate and add this article into your wonderful wikipedia? You can reach me here. Thanks. With Kind Regards --Warayupay 18 jen 2009 à 09:49 (UTC)

Tacloban

Tacloban is a port city in the Philippines. It is approximately 360 miles southeast of Manila. It is the capital of the province of Leyte. It is also the regional center of Eastern Visayas.

Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Taberna/Tabularium 11 spectant.

en:Tacloban

Systema taxinomicum Animalis[fontem recensere]

(copied from Taberna) Hendrice, quid significant haec verba? Ut videtur, Anglice: 'taxonomic system of an animal' vel 'an animal's taxonomic system'. IacobusAmor 13:00, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must mean "Systema taxiconicum regni Animalis"?
But could you also explain your classification system. It doesn't seem to coincide with the standard one used on en.wikipedia. For example Metazoa and Animalia are synonyms for the kingdom of the animals. What is a grade? Also several sources point on the en: and es: wikis out that Bilateria isn't a subkingdom, but an unranked grouping (branch or infrakingdom) within the subkingdom Eumetazoa. I fixed the Animalia page to better reflect this consensus ranking (used on en:, es: and ca:), What you are doing however is inconsistent and I have no way of understanding why you are diverging from the standard one. Is the en: wrong or are you wrong? Why?--Rafaelgarcia 16:40, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subtitle was a discussion a long time ago, when i just started working here, i think with gastropods. The system i have been dealing with is to be found after the external link given on all the pages: "Systema Natura", the classification used at the english and the vicispecies is crapp, most of it there is not even given the source of wich classificationsystem has been used, the rest of the wiki's just copieing from the en.Hendricus 06:53, 20 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It being "crap" is of course an opinion, not a reason or reasoned argument. In fact, that system you are using cannot be the modern consensus one used by biologists, for it puts the protozoa under animalia instead of protista. Certainly there should be an article explaining this very different, somewhat backward or idiosyncratic looking classification scheme. I wonder if it should be "the system".
In any case, "Systema taxinomicum animalis" = "the taxinomic system of the animal" doesn't seem right, because the system is apparently not unique ("the consensus system among biologists"); also the system does not "belong" to the animal. I would suggest in the entries you name the system distinctly "Taxinomia secundum The Taxonomicon" since like that readers can see this is just one of several systems of classification.--Rafaelgarcia 13:10, 20 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse noster amicus vellet dicere "Taxinomicum animalium systema"? IacobusAmor 13:32, 20 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the recently best complete taxonomic overvieuw: Systema naturae, what about the subtitle Systema taxinomicum Animalis , when i started i used some other title, it was not good and i got another one from someone, i've changed about 200 articles, i worked further, there was a discussion and the name was not good, so i got another one out of that discussion, i've changed about 400 articles, now you come that the name is not correct, there are more then 2500 articles about the subject, the name given now - right or wrong, i'm not going to change. Hendricus 18:53, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Some Latinist should really have objected before now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They did, starting on 30 October 2007; see H's disputation page, s.v. "Headings." IacobusAmor 19:50, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Da veniam, Iacobe. Non vidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if maybe, once we've agreed what the heading should be, a bot (maybe even UVbot?) could search and replace them all. Is that possible? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 31 October 2007, H. said he'd use the form Systema taxinomicum Animalium. It may not be the best word-order & capitalization, but at least it's pertinently grammatical. IacobusAmor 19:50, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that better than naming the source in every heading, as Rafael suggests, would be naming the source, with a footnote, in a line of text immediately after the heading. These taxonomy pages would be all the better for a bit of text. Possibly a bot could do all that for us at the same time. Or am I fantasising here? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case i like to see the title: "Systema Naturae", it's the name of the source, and it's the name of Linnaeus Masterpice, it also can be used for plants and minerals. Hendricus 19:23, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heading "Systema taxinomicum Animalis" seems to occur in at least 600 articles, possibly more. UVbot could change that to a better heading and UVbot could also, at the same time, add a sentence right below that heading.
It appears that relatively few of the articles in question already contain footnotes. If the sentence to be added is to contain a footnote, then that is no problem either: UVbot could, while working at these articles, change the current heading "Notae" in these articles to "Bibliographia" (secundum mores Vicipaediae) and add a "Notae" section containing the footnotes right before the "Bibliographia" section. The few articles that contained footnotes already beforehand would then show up as containing two "references" tags on Vicipaedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and could easily be edited by hand in order to merge the two footnote sections into one. --UV 19:45, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound great to me, Hendricus 19:52, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the appropriate heading in english would be "==Classification of the Animal==" with a subtitle "===Systema Naturae 2000===". In Latin that would be "==Classificatio animalis==" and "===Systema Naturae 2000===" The UVbot could just simply replace ==Systema Taxinomicum Animalis== with the above.--Rafaelgarcia 20:14, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that the concept whose taxonomy is being given isn't usually an animal: it's a genus, or a subfamily, or a family, or whatever! and it sometimes contains or implies many different animals, if by "animal" we mean (as we often do) "species." IacobusAmor 21:27, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Good point. How about just the headings "==Taxinomia==" and "===Systema Naturae 2000==="?; that should be general enough to cover all types of groups.--Rafaelgarcia 21:34, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it also be possible to replace the misused (in most, I think, of these articles) "binomen" by "nomen". --Neander 22:38, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother! Most of them are just one word, so how does any notion of bi- apply? IacobusAmor 22:40, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Binomen only applies to species names consisting of a genus and species, e.g. Homo sapiens is a binomen, Homindae (the hominids) is just a nomen.--Rafaelgarcia 23:06, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion for the point Neander raises is to replace the link binomen (which is indeed only suited to species pages) with a link nomen zoologicum. In this way one gets to the same information and external links as one would with binomen.
I'll leave you others to decide what the best form for the heading (and following text) may be. But let's make sure we have a clear citation and link for the exact source that Hendricus is using. I don't know what "Systema Naturae 2000" is; others may have the same problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no consensus yet as to which words should be replaced by which other words … --UV 19:39, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29,000[fontem recensere]

Si recte numeravi, pagina Acdestinae anonyma (sed fortasse ab Hendrico creata?) copiam paginarum 29,000 complevit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemeris Attack Site?[fontem recensere]

I just got this message when I went to the ephemeris site: "This web site at ephemeris.alcuinus.net has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners." Someone may want to let know the ephemeris publishers about this.--Rafaelgarcia 12:47, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ephemeris was trying to give you a cookie, but your security settings are overly excitable. IacobusAmor 13:53, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I have pretty lax settings, accepting everyone's cookies. On the other hand, I have linux so probably whatever it is trying to install wouldn't be able to install on my computer.--Rafaelgarcia 14:47, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a long time already, my avast! antivirus also doesn't allow me to access Ephemeris, the reason being a Trojan horse. Gabriel Svoboda 17:56, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up my system just in case and put a warning on my user page. If someone has a contact on the ephemeris people, I hope you can tell them about their site being compromised!--Rafaelgarcia 18:30, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an update I just got from Google:
"What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 3 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-07-14, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-06-23. Malicious software includes 5 scripting exploit(s).

Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including tosecuredpc.com/, nowsecuredscan.com/, thetrueshiledsecurity.com/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS31178 (CELEONET).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, ephemeris.alcuinus.net did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

Next steps:

Return to the previous page.

If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center."

--Rafaelgarcia 14:57, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"exstinctum marsupialium subfamilia"[fontem recensere]

Hendrice, exstinctum marsupialium subfamilia is as ungrammatical today as it was yesterday and the day before, yet still it constitutes a nonnegligible proportion of the text of your newest articles! IacobusAmor 03:12, 23 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is better put on his disputatio. I don't know if there may be two people or just one. He seems hard to communicate with, perhaps because both his english and latin skills are not very good.--Rafaelgarcia 07:59, 23 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hard to communicate ? Read my disputatio and you will see i communicate with everyone who visit it, bad latin- and english grammatica, you are right - i'm from Holland. I don't know how to call it, when you'r coming with these kind of critics after me adding more than 2500 pages in about three years - what ever, i like to work here, always have - always will be - and learning new things about latin and even english. Just tell me in simple english what i do wrong and i will correct it. Is it (binomen a name anno year); binomen or nomen, a / ab / ad? - est genus marsupialia exstincta or marsupialium exstinctum genus and what with familia, subfamilia, tribus, ordo, classis, etc. Is it notae or bibliographia, (if i remember it correctly i was using bibliographia in the beginning and it was not correct). I think that not me is lacking communication.Hendricus 08:40, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: this is not me, i would have given source and external link: 189.162.133.145, Hendricus 08:54, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are enriching Vicipaedia. Keep on doing it.
For the subheadings on pages, our current good practice, and the best order to follow, is set out at Vicipaedia:Structura paginae. "Notae" is used as the subheading for footnotes (keyed from the text); "Bibliographia" is used as the subheading for a bibliography i.e. a booklist on the subject of the article. If you want a heading for a list of the writings of an author (there's no example of that at Vicipaedia:Structura paginae) a simple word to use is "Opera" (works).
As explained above (yes, we were all communicating not long ago!)
  • binomen is suitable only for species names, because it means, literally, "two-part scientific name". The phrase I used on my new species pages (a long time ago now) was "binomen a Darwin anno 2000 inventum" but -- this is the a/ab difference -- if the author's last name begins with a vowel it has to be "ab", so "binomen ab Owen anno 3000 inventum". The meaning is two-part name first applied by Darwin/Owen in the year 2000/3000.
  • if it isn't a two-part species name but a single word (e.g. a family), use this form instead: "nomen zoologicum a Darwin anno 2000 inventum" or "nomen zoologicum ab Owen anno 3000 inventum". The meaning is zoological name first applied by Darwin/Owen in the year 2000/3000.
Does someone else want to answer about the extinction question? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected there was more than one editor at work! The anonymous one doesn't answer any questions evidently. Re "Is it ...- est genus marsupialia exstincta or marsupialium exstinctum genus and what with familia, subfamilia, tribus, ordo, classis, etc. " : The adjective needs to be in the same case and gender as the noun described. Genus is neutral; ordo is masculine; classis, familia, subfamilia are all feminine. Exstinctum is neutral, exstinctus is masculine, exstincta is feminine; so we have genus exstinctum, ordo exstinctus and familia exstincta. Marsupialium is genetive (of the marsupials); because the adjective exstinctum describes the noun genus not the marsupials in the phrase "of the marsupials" the adjective agrees in gender and case with genus.So we have exstinctum marsupialium genus, exstinctus marsupialium ordo, and exstincta marsupialium familia, etc.--Rafaelgarcia 11:34, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the flood of edits continuing, people been complaining that:
  1. The latin produced by the anonymous user 189.162.133.145 is atrocious and he/it doesn't ever reply to any questions, seems to be some kind of bot.
  2. It's quite true that Hendricus nor anyone else hasn't answered my question about *why* the Systema Naturae 2000 is more correct that the one on en:; In any case, the differences with en: seem limited to the upper levels of classification only, the lower levels I think are all the same.
Since it would be impossible for us to keep up with them, other than blocking the bot, the only thing I can think of doing is asking UV to use his bot to
  1. put a latinitas-5 on all of them,
  2. change the "binomen" to "nomen biologicum"
  3. "==Systema Taxinomicum Animalis==" to simply "==Taxinomia==",
  4. and beneath this automatically add the text
"Ecce arbor taxinomica quae secundum [[Systema Naturae 2000]] ad hanc categoriam spectat.<ref>http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/Default.aspx</ref>
  1. and at the bottom of the page add
==Notae== ::<references />
--Rafaelgarcia 17:40, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaedia[fontem recensere]

J'aurais aimais savoir si je pourrais aider vicipaedia. J'étudie le atin depuis 2 ans et lis des bd en latin

Naturellement--Massimo Macconi 08:02, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mense Iunii aut Mense Iunio, ad mensem Iunium etc.[fontem recensere]

according to my grammar the names of the months must be declined and therefore there is a lot of pages I have to correct because I wrote mense Iunii, Mense Aprilis etc. Is it right?--Massimo Macconi 08:05, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Names of Months are properly adjectives, the masculine noun mēnsis, month, being understood" (Allen & Greenough #31). IacobusAmor 12:07, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then it should be mense Iunio, mense Aprili, etc..--Rafaelgarcia 13:06, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oh my God there's a a lot of pages I have to correct...--Massimo Macconi 19:09, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I wouldn't act hastily, because UV maybe able to use his bot to fix it. All that needs to be done is convert all mense Iulii to mense Iulio, all mense Ianuarii to mense Ianuario, etc. It would seem an easy thing for a bot to do.--Rafaelgarcia 19:12, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks because I believe I am not the only one to have done the same misstake, see the "Russian" pages I have just corrected. Who will say UV to change?--Massimo Macconi 19:27, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone think of any case where it is not safe to automatically change "mense Iunii" to "mense Iunio", i. e. is there any case where "mense Iunii" would be correct? If there is no such case, then it should be no problem to change most instances of "mense Iunii" etc. by bot.
Can you please check the table below as well, before UVbot "does damage"?
wrong correct
mense Ianuarii mense Ianuario
mense Februarii mense Februario
mense Martii mense Martio
mense Aprilis mense Aprili
mense Maii mense Maio
mense Iunii mense Iunio
mense Iulii mense Iulio
mense Augusti mense Augusto
mense Septembris mense Septembri
mense Octobris mense Octobri
mense Novembris mense Novembri
mense Decembris mense Decembri

--UV 20:51, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suppose
wrong correct
mensem Ianuarii mensem Ianuarium
mensem Februarii mensem Februarium
mensem Martii mensem Martium
mensem Aprilis mensem Aprilem
mensem Maii mensem Maium
mensem Iunii mensem Iunium
mensem Iulii mensem Iulium
mensem Augusti mensem Augustum
mensem Septembris mensem Septembrem
mensem Octobris mensem Octobrem
mensem Novembris mensem Novembrem
mensem Decembris mensem Decembrem
--Rafaelgarcia 20:59, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those tables look fine to me. Yes, I see I have sometimes made this mistake. Seems it's easy to slip into using a genitive in such phrases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an original mistake, since there are plenty of google hits for mensem Ianuarii that are not Vicipaedia related from Late medieval times.[15]--Rafaelgarcia 21:43, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
when will the bot do the change?--Massimo Macconi 18:55, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unless someone objects - within the next few days. --UV 22:17, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be done now! It is possibly that UVbot missed some occurrences, but most occurrences should be changed now. --UV 21:23, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tibi ¨gratia ago--Massimo Macconi 21:45, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transportatio ~ Vectura[fontem recensere]

Rafael, if you want to change Transportatio to Vectura, that's fine with me, as the latter is a classical term and the former apparently isn't, but I was trying to integrate the title into the rest of Vicipaedia, and you may be wanting to go to Categoria:Transportatio and make appropriate changes to the articles that show up there! IacobusAmor 02:04, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transportatio does turn up in Lewis and short, but there it means transportatio:"transportātĭo, ōnis, f. transporto, I a removing, transmigration (post-Aug.): populorum transportationes, Sen. Cons. ad Helv. 6, § 12."; and transporto shows up in Caesar in the sense "carry over or across, from one place to another", but the emphasis is in carrying and bringing something other than oneself or one's own. So transportatio would never include driving one's own car to get to work, but would include using one's car to carry something to the supermarket.--Rafaelgarcia 03:13, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

So how about for July, we decide what the page is going to be before it's July. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't a consensus yet for July's page. Iacobus suggested Civitates Foederatae Americae, and also mentioned that Independence Day is in July. I think the article has a good base, but still needs work on a few sections. But it's still better than some other suggestions in their current states (Interrete, Circuitus Franciae, &c.) --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 07:13, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Civitates Foederatae Americae covers the field yet. Maybe next year. Meanwhile Columbia, suggested by Secundus Zephyrus and backed by others, seems a good possibility now. I am moving the discussion to a relevant point at Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis -- please continue there! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De paginis mensium[fontem recensere]

Vide, s.v.p., id quod dixi apud Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis#To avoid too-hasty discussions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with adjectives (and flumen/fluvius, too)[fontem recensere]

I'm having difficulty with adjectives. Can someone help translate these terms, and explain the reasoning, specifically whenever a genitive is NOT used, and why that particular ordering of genitives?

Last one: globi atri cerae rubrae stulti fratris mei, but the words could probably be more stylishly ordered. [Scripsit 82.36.94.228, homo ignotus.]

Flumen vs. fluvius[fontem recensere]

Auxilliary question: What is the difference between flumen and fluvius (aside from gender): why would one use one over the other? This will really help me. Thanks! --Autophile 15:32, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add 'amnis' as well to make 3 synonyms. Not aware of any difference in meaning - I think some authors prefer one or another. 82.36.94.228 21:00, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CalRis25: The 1809-book 'Latin Synonyms with their different signs' by M.J.B. Gardin Dumesnil has the following to say about the synonyms Fluvis, Flumen, Fluentum, Amnis, and Torrens:
  • Although "fluvius" and "flumen" be often indifferently used, they ought nevertheless to be distinguished. FLUVIUS is the proper word to express a river, a body of running waters, habitually keeping within their channel. "Fluvius Eurotas". Cic. -- FLUMEN, in its proper sense, is only a very abundant flowing, either of waters, or of anything else. "Flumen Nilus." Cic. Therefore we say very properly "flumen ingenii, orationis, verborum". Cic. -- FLUENTUM, a running water, is only used in poetry. "Xanthi fluenta" Virg. "Anicus fluenta" Id. "Tyberina fluenta" Id. -- AMNIS conveys the idea of a large river. "Spumosus amnis". Virg. "Vorticoso amni delatus in hostos". Liv. -- TORRENS, (from "torrere") a torrent, a stream coming down a hill, caused by heavy rains, or thawing of snow, and which be dried up in summer. "Ecce velut torrens undis pluvialibus auctus, aut nive, quae Zephyro victa repente fluit, per sata perque vias fertur." Ovid.
So, 'fluvius' seems to mean a run-of-the-mill type of river, while AMNIS and FLUMEN seem to denote "streams".
Gardin Dumesnil may be right, although what "ought to be distinguished" in 1809 may not be what actually is distinguished in modern or classical Latin. The word normally used in place names ("River Thames", "Hudson River") is X Flumen. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:16, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both flu-men and flu-vi-us basically (in their heart of hearts) appear to be 'flow-things, flowings', and the concrete senses derive from that idea. ¶ Also, don't forget rivus 'stream, rivulet'. IacobusAmor 12:24, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the quotes in Dumesnil show that the synonyms were being differentiated by class of watery flow-thing in classical times? --Autophile 13:43, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of the above, it seems, that flumen is the general term or "genus", of which the others are "species": fluvius a flumen that keeps within its banks hardly ever flooding, amnis a very wide flumen, rivus a small or tiny but habitual flumen, torrens a temporary rivus as produced by melting snow or heavy rain. Which distinction explains why most rivers are called flumen but only some are fluvius.--Rafaelgarcia 15:20, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why, but "amnis" suggests a big fat slow sort of river - Congo, Mississippi, Ganges come to mind. An Amnis would make a nice big muddy delta. A flumen suggests a bit more movement and steeper banks - Rhine for example. Fluvius just sounds a bit smaller, like most English rivers. This is not based on any research, but just what the words sound like (flumen / fluere, amnis/amplus, I suppose).Tergum violinae 11:17, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking of the wikis, July[fontem recensere]

In the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles we have advanced one place: we are now 41st. Only 103 of the 1000 articles are still missing. --Fabullus 06:31, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the list of absent articles we don't have a page to correspond to en:Panama Canal, but actually we do: Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium/Canalis Panamae. I would like to move this to Fossa Panamensis in the normal namespace (because the bots that take care of intervici-links do not respond well to unusual namespaces), but this is already a redirect. Could someone delete this page, in order that the article can be moved here? --Fabullus 07:04, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pagina deleta est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias, paginam movi: Fossa Panamensis nunc est pagina regularis, quae inter 1000 paginas numeretur. --Fabullus 12:54, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Macte, Fabulle! IacobusAmor 13:15, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. Commentarium Fossam Panamensem iam inspexi. It should have been marked -6; I've corrected many grammatical errors and raised its quality to maybe -3, but it still has some grammatical curiosities and (maybe more importantly) still reads like an excerpt from an encyclopedia aimed at ten-year-olds. IacobusAmor 13:39, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following have been covered in the meantime: Caecitas, Clavus cochleatus, Fossa Panamensis, Lapis (geologia), Megacyma, Necropolis Gizensis, Pandemia, Penicillinum. Any more? --Fabullus 05:29, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paginae de obesitate (56) et machina vaporaria (76) confectae sunt. Tergum violinae 11:09, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clavus cochleatus nexu ad :en: iam caret. Quid est nomen Anglicum? IacobusAmor 11:17, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addidi. Vide infra ==cochleae== de nexu.--Rafaelgarcia 11:26, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sceletus has put us within 99 pages of the target. I will tend to drum tonight. Rafael, perhaps you are best equipped to deal with en:Speed?
Let's keep in mind how the game is played: each new stub adds one point to the raw score; but a 10,000-character text is worth four points, and a 30,000-character text is worth nine. So the fastest way of boosting the score may be to take medium-sized articles (>10,000, <30,000) and make them big ones (>30,000). A sample of articles in this group, as measured a few weeks ago: Sexus, 28,883; Polytheismus, 27,683; Katsushika Hokusai, 22,818; Tellus, 22,730; Igor Stravinski, 20,860; Iulius Caesar, 19,644; Pulchritudo, 19,130; Siva, 18,448; Foedus Arabicum, 17,879; Iura humana, 17,661; Ecclesia Catholica Romana, 17,624; Thomas Aquinas, 16,219; Alexander Pushkin, 16,006; Ibn Battuta, 15,526; Alexander Magnus, 13,988. Some of these totals include commented-out English text, which won't count in the actual tabulations. A few articles that can be boosted without much effort beyond the 10,000 level include Yoga, 7277; Unio Africana, 7264; Colonialismus, 7177; Educatio, 7077. So while it'll be great to have articles for all 1001 [sic] items, Vicipaedia's score will improve more if at least some writers concentrate on building up long texts. (I've begun doing that for Bellum Civile Americanum and plan to proceed at the rate of a paragraph or two a day.) A small catch is that interwiki links don't count, and they can add up to 1000 characters or more. IacobusAmor 03:59, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest rankings, for the record[fontem recensere]

The most astonishing change this month was Catalan's jump to become the third-ranking wiki, well-positioned to challenge Deutsch for second place next month!

1 English 82.63 +0.23
2 Deutsch 65.24 +0.62
3 Català 64.03 +15.36
4 Français 59.93 +0.31
5 Español 57.82 +0.33
6 Русский 53.28 +1.02
7 Italiano 52.59 +0.45
8 中文 48.07 +0.88
9 Português 40.93 +0.53
10 日本語 40.58 +0.26
11 Polski 34.86 +0.15
12 Magyar 34.60 +0.29
13 Svenska 33.50 +0.27
14 Suomi 32.89 +0.49
15 Čeština 32.54 +0.18
16 Українська 31.67 +1.48
17 Tiếng Việt 31.44 +0.18
18 Nederlands 30.87 +0.48
19 [Hebrew] 30.14 +0.04
20 Norsk (Bokmål) 28.57 +0.13
21 Türkçe 27.57 +0.11
22 Српски/Srpski 26.91 +0.27
23 한국어 25.74 +0.72
24 Română 24.28 +0.40
25 Hrvatski 23.71 +0.12
26 Slovenčina 23.27 +0.44
27 Ελληνικά 62 22.42 +0.40
28 Dansk 22.11 +0.19
29 Български 21.14 +0.35
30 Bahasa Indonesia 19.80 +0.08
31 [Arabic] 19.47 -0.06
32 [fa] 19.08 +0.24
33 Galego 18.91 +0.29
34 Slovenščina 18.60 +0.29
35 ไทย 18.43 +0.13
36 Srpskohrvatski/Српскохрватски 17.82 +0.52
37 Esperanto 16.94 +0.11
38 Bahasa Melayu 16.53 +0.07
39 Lietuvių 16.18 +0.29
40 Bosanski 14.81 +0.32
41 Latina 14.63 +0.29
42 Nynorsk 14.58 +0.24
43 Simple English 14.58 +0.14
44 Latviešu 14.33 +0.26

You can see the lot—all 266 approved wikis—at [16]. IacobusAmor 14:27, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etiam mirabile nos Wikipediam Anglicam Simplicem superare.--Rafaelgarcia 01:00, 5 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard citation style[fontem recensere]

Salvete! I'm currently attempting to translate the en:Artificial intelligence page from English. The problem is that the page uses the Harvard citations templates extensively, but there is no equivalent on la:. Is there any admin who can port the templates over? I'd try it, but I would most likely botch the job... ---Autophile 00:32, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to copy bibliography text from the reading screen of the English article to the edit screen of the Latin article: that's an easy way to get the bibliography into our article without doing templates at all.
There are several citation templates on en:wiki. I don't know why, I've never seen any discussion comparing them, and therefore I have no opinion (yet) which if any we should prefer here. No doubt it would be a good idea to have a template here, but only if it's simple enough for people to be able to use it quickly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Although I'm sure the original authors and custodians of the English article would vehemently disagree, I will attempt to convert the notes I have so far into "standard" wiki references. --Autophile 15:09, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After fiddling around with the citations for a while, I've come to the conclusion that the "Harvard style" is essentially syntactic sugar for a dual-level reference system. Notes are verbose, and have links to sources. The sources come after the notes. This typically works when an average source is referenced in more than one note. In the case of en:Artificial intelligence, we have about 160 notes, pointing to around 50 sources. Each note furthermore contains, on average, more than one pointer to a source, meaning that the average number of references to a source is in the range of four to five.
I could use ref, cite, #, and so on, but I would just be doing manually what the Harvard templates do automatically. So I'm going to try to port the Harvard styles, and we'll see what happens. Call it an experiment. --Autophile 17:01, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING. Screw it: Please delete all Formulas I created. :( --Autophile 17:24, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now you know why no one here has done it already. It's a mess of templates inside templates inside templates ad infinitum.The code is so difficult to figure out with all the brackets everywhere that are hard to distinguish or make out in terms of logic.--Rafaelgarcia 20:06, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vicipaedia[fontem recensere]

Salvete!

I am interested in Learning Latin and while searching for information I found Vicipaedia. It seems to me a very interesting project so I wonder how Vicipaedia started, how were the first pages, first users, how magistratus tasks developed over the time, etc. I was searching for this kind of information but was unable to found it, so if anyone could be so kind to tell me any bit of information about that I will appreciate it very much.

Sorry for not writing in Latin but I need to learn still a lot more, right now I can only understand simple sentences but hope to improve a lot. Even with a lot of mistakes I can do better in English, so help with Latin or English will be really appreciated.

I did a few edits here and there, all philosophy related, so I apologize for any mistakes or by upsetting anyone, that was not my intention. If you want to know anything about me just ask.

Gratias ago, Valete! Jose --Vallatum 16:09, 12 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not here when it started, but you can look here and here--Rafaelgarcia 00:40, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you enjoy your stay here and stick it out with this wiki and with Latin. Latinam tuam mihi bene est! But then again I'm a tiro. --Jondel 00:52, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "Melius quam ego scribis Latine." Some sentences still are very difficult for me too. I'm what one would call "a middle class learner". But I'm much better than I used to be. And perhaps one day I can claim to be completely at ease. On the other hand, i think most beginners might find my latin easier to read than some better latin, which is perhaps an advantage in a sense.--Rafaelgarcia 01:10, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rafael, hi! You use the dative for things like 'in my opinion' --mihi-- or 'in his eyes' --sibi--, etc. :) --- --Jondel 01:26, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say was, 'Based on your article of History of W, your latin, in my opinion, is good!'--Jondel 02:23, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rafael, thanks for the links, they are very interesting, it is nice to have the taberna's history. By the way, nice picture at the head of this taberna, are they Vicipaedinans?. --Vallatum 14:17, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jondel, I am afraid that I just searched for sentences with the meaning I wanted and changed a few words only, then the page "Ioannes Duns Scotus" was corrected but I don't know for whom it was. I studied Latin in high school but I didn't put too much effort in it, so right now my level of Latin is from page 46 "LESSON XVI THE NINE IRREGULAR ADJECTIVES" from "LATIN FOR BEGINNERS" by Benjamin L. D’Ooge. LOL --Vallatum 14:17, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. uhh Latin for Beginners or not, you're way ahead. I got hooked although I didn't mean to. I have about 3 TYL books,2 beginner's latin(I forgot the author), 1 Oxford Latin book,1 Wheelock's, 1 Cassell's dictionary, 1 Terenberg(wrong spelling?) Conversational Latin and the dictionary, 1 Schaum's outline. I travelled a lot to Japan and I just kept buying Latin books at the bookstores (Kinokuniya) and 3 Japanese books on Latin. The wall and some cats, with whom I practise my latin in conversation, must be very proficient now although I am still way behind. Nunc, I'm trying to master indirect statements, and idioms of dative.Enjoy :D--Jondel 23:26, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cur aliorum iura et non ius describendi?[fontem recensere]

Alii enim iura multa habent plus quam ipsius opera copiandi describendi. Num ius romanum de copyright locutus est hoc nomine? 208.85.242.212 21:11, 13 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iura aliorum = rights of others; ius copiandi = the right of furnishing oneself with supplies. Obviously the second makes no sense whatsoever.--Rafaelgarcia 00:34, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about ius describendi? 208.85.242.212 13:16, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has the right to describe things! I think you are trying to express ius auctoris = "the right of the author", which the LRL calls ius proprietatis librariae = "the right of book property"; however, iura aliorum covers this and more, such as libel.--Rafaelgarcia 15:05, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about this. The dictionary says the first meaning is to copy/transcribe. As a more specific, closer to the original ("copyright") translation, I think it's more accurate. Again, other people (those alii whose iura we're protecting) have plenty of rights one can (but shouldn't) violate, but the message "ne aliorum iura violes" is clearly intended to translate "don't violate copyright". About the ambiguity copy/describe, I think it explains itself, since it's difficult to think of a way of violating someone's right to describe: in the context of 'ne [aliorum] iura describendi violes' it's clear that we aren't talking about describo as to describe, but as to copy.
A problem of restricting the sense to a "right of the author" is that authors may assign their practical rights to publishers. Also, bear in mind what copyright is: 'the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form of a literary, musical, or artistic work' (MWCD). IacobusAmor 17:16, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any contradiction. We routinely assign or delegate our rights to things to others in exchange for money or other benefits. But it is still the author's right that the publishing house is exercising, even after they bought it. Another example is that we delegate our right of self defense to the government, but it is still our right to self defense that the government is acting upon when it defends us. --Rafaelgarcia 20:12, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, usually roman right terms, such as ius solis do not give full descriptions of the concepts themselves, but rather give an approach to them.208.85.242.212 17:32, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not taking any actions, then at least wiktionary has to be corrected. But I still think we're in the field of opinion, and I still prefer wiktionary's view.208.85.242.212 17:32, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quid censetis de "iure (di)vulgandi"? --Fabullus 17:37, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, too. Roman right is full of ius -andi examples. 208.85.242.212 17:49, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ius divulgandi solum est tertia pars omnium iurum quae in "copyright" inhaerent; plenus notionis sensus videtur ius transcribendi, divulgandi, et vendendi. IacobusAmor 18:19, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to either: 1) leave it as it is now ("aliorum iura") and fix wiktionari, 2) change it to follow wiktionary, or 3) select the best translation from the ones offered (none will be perfect!) and change it on both locations. 208.85.242.212 21:51, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why we need to expect that our "ius aliorum be specifically translating "copyright"; what the sentence itself is saying as a whole is really what matters. The wiktionary entry apparently at some point incorporated ius auctoris, but someone superposed this barbarism "ius copiandi", creating a terrible mess.--Rafaelgarcia 00:12, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have another one from the "Auxiliar dictionary spanish-latin for the modern use of Latin.": copyright: ius proprietatis libráriae. --Vallatum 23:55, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which obviously is the vatican LRL entry already quoted above. I don't know why the LRL came up this this mouthful when a briefer, perfectly apt term "ius auctoris" already existed. --Rafaelgarcia 00:12, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Rafael. Our phrase makes much better sense either than the English message, or than what Victionarium has. So "we" (in the sense of Vicipaedians) don't have to do anything (except to restore our message if someone has removed it ... I don't seem to see it any more ... ?)
We don't decide what Victionarium does. If anyone wants to go there and propose a change, fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On our front page, under "Tu quoque adiuvare potes" it says: "Cave: numquam aliorum iura (©) violaveris!" = "Care: never you will violate the rights of others (©)"--Rafaelgarcia 12:13, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I just couldn't remember where I'd seen it! Thanks, Rafael! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ius auctoris" is almost a direct translation of "Derechos de autor" which is the way copyright is called in Spanish, if I don't get it wrong. About vatican LRL, "Spanish-Latin dictionary for the modern use of Latin." has in the bibliography a reference to "Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis" so it is surely taken from there. --Vallatum 12:18, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper sticker to show your Vicipaedia pride :)[fontem recensere]

A bumper sticker I threw together. It's 3 in. x 10 in. at 300 dpi. There are online sites where you can upload this image and get it as a bumper sticker in the mail.

Nice--Rafaelgarcia 00:35, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ago! --Vallatum 14:16, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. It's on my truck. =] --Ioscius (disp) 05:01, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse melius esset in casu accusativo? In sensu "Veni. Vidi Vicipaediam, liberam ecnyclopaediam." ? Modo est cogitatio... originalis etiam adornat laophorum meum =] --Ioscius (disp) 05:03, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puto Vicipaediam ipsam loqui: "[Ego, Vicipaedia,] veni [et] vidi [quia sum] Vicipaedia." Ergo, fortasse punctuatio melior sit: VENI. VIDI. VICIPAEDIA! IacobusAmor 11:14, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't read too much into it. It's a pun! The way I see it is in hoc modo: "I came, I saw, I edited. Vicipaedia! Get it? Vicipaedia! The free encyclopedia!" I'm sure if the Romans had advertised, they'd have a good laugh at this! :D --Autophile 16:54, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great piece of work! That it allows for multiple interpretations is an asset, methinks. --Neander 17:53, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even Caeser would have liked it, I am sure Cicero would have. What stores has everyone else used, and how much would this be at the cheapest stores, that is so cool. Bandit V. 04:02, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cochleae[fontem recensere]

Videte et disputate cochlea (instrumentum) et clavus cochleatus! Estne bis in idem? --Alex1011 11:46, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina cochlea (instrumentum)=en:Screw (simple machine), sed male scripta videtur; quia cochleae sunt et clavus cochleatus=en:Screw et Cochlea Archimedea=en:Archimedes' screw--Rafaelgarcia 13:14, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Etiam pars torcularis!

Magistrates, you seem to have[fontem recensere]

Magistrates, you seem to have missed yesterday's vandalism in the article Compunctio. IacobusAmor 10:59, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Iacobe (Rafael's now reverted it) but anyone can deal with that kind of vandalism. It doesn't have to be a magistratus. The only other thing a magistratus could do is to block the user -- which is important and urgent if the vandalism is continuing, but a waste of time if it's a single little edit from an IP address. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a waste of time to block an IP address? Multiple vandalisms can be and have been perpetrated by a single IP address. IacobusAmor 12:06, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "if it's a single little edit". If no multiple vandalism has occurred (and that is the case here) blocking an IP address will be a waste of time and worse:
  1. because, if it's a domestic user, that user would almost certainly turn up on a different IP address next time, hence the block will only inconvenience some other innocuous user from the same internet provider;
  2. because, if it's a school or college user, many schools and colleges share a single IP address, hence the block will inconvenience the whole school or college, and they will not understand why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a blocked IP address tries to make an edit, doesn't Vicipaedia inform it about the blocking? If Vicipaedia doesn't, perhaps it should. IacobusAmor 13:21, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now know the answer because just now I pressed the wrong button and blocked myself!
Yes, the user or IP address is informed next time it tries to make an edit. It is invited to write to the blocking magistratus to appeal. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 17 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, Iacobe, we are not all in America. Here in the UK there is very often only one computer in a householder with several regular users (wife + four teenage daughters + their friends who happen to be hanging around in this case). I shouldn't think any of them have ventured onto Latin wikipedia yet, but they have certainly done their share of 'hilarious' edits on English wikipedia causing this IP address to get blocked a few times! 82.36.94.228 13:17, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that those vandals shouldn't have been blocked? Why are acts of vandalism "hilarious"? And what does this have to do with America? IacobusAmor 13:21, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, Americans just don't get it. All acts of vandalism are hilarious to the perpetrators. That's why they do it. If shared computers (of which there are many over here) get blocked, innocent users suffer because of the actions of others. Read this several times slowly, if its still not clear.82.36.94.228 21:29, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to what motivates vandals, your guess is as good as anyone else's. I would generally attribute it to mental disease of various levels, but that is just my opinion. As to innocents suffering because of vandals actions, it is the responsibility of the owner of the computer/IP address to make sure that it is not being used for criminal acts. If they are blocked due to vandalism committed, then it is the owner of the pc that is to blame, not us. Andrew's point, however, should be given a lot of weight, since IPs routinely change every so often and there is no way for computer owners to get their internet company to police their client's actions (at least not in the US).--Rafaelgarcia 22:03, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many idiots around my Oklahoman school that I can't do any constructive edits to anything in English anymore, and probably not any other wiki either, I don't edit the Latin wiki from school if I ever do at all anyway.Bandit V. 04:06, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course, that vandalism is the responsibility of the owner of the computer/internet connection concerned. Wikipedia history (US, British, French, German, etc., etc.) shows, unfortunately, that it isn't usually possible to bring this point home to them ... :(
Any vandalism from this computer is definitely my mother-in-law's fault. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some vandalism is amusing. Who wouldn't smirk at seeing (if only temporarily) lawyers in the list of reptiles and amphibians? There are levels. Replacing an entire section with "dicks!!1!!" is pointless. Adding "dicks!!1!!" to the list of penis euphemisms is mildly amusing but probably pointless. But some deserve a +5 Funny followed by a revert, and not a banning. --Autophile 16:34, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are IMHO better places for personal jokes, such as in one's user page. Unlike en.wiki, we don't have hoards of editors to deal with such campaigns, there's only about 10 of us here. Despite this, we have been very tolerant here and have never permanently banned anyone, except as a result of deliberate, egregious and sustained campaigns of vandalism.--Rafaelgarcia 17:07, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One might easily attribute to "mental disease" the urge to write an article in dead language about Ayn Rand. 216.67.186.160 06:46, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One might easily attribute to "lack of education" the urge to write a couple of "not too kind" comments in a site about a dead language and don't dare to give any identification aside an IP number. --Vallatum 16:29, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
et te et "istum" rafaelgarciam retardum irrumabo. 65.113.234.234 05:11, 21 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that you put so much effort in writing in Latin and so little in respect others, but sadly, there are people like you, unable to understand what means to behave with education and that the only way of communication they know is insulting. But don't worry, if that's the way you want to be remembered keep doing it. I am going to simply desire you good luck in life, you will need it. --Vallatum 11:32, 21 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domitianus in Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Hodie, commentarius en:Domitian est "Today's featured article" in Wikipedia. IacobusAmor 12:38, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a category tree for the American Civil War[fontem recensere]

Bellum Civile Americanum, some argue, is the foundational event of modern U.S. history, and therefore one of the most important events of modern world history. (It famously changed English grammar, from "the United States are" to "the United States is.") It accordingly deserves a huge amount of space in any encyclopedia, space that needs to be organized. Whatever the higher-order part of the system (perhaps the category "Bellum Civile Americanum" is a subcategory of "Historia CFA," which in turn is a subcategory of "Historia"?), here's how it's organized in :en: (with the numbers of subcategories—not articles—in square brackets):

American Civil War
American Civil War by location [4]
Cultural history of the American Civil War [2, e.g.:]
American Civil War medicine [4, e.g.:]
American Civil War hospitals [0] (33 articles)
American Civil War nurses [0] (22 articles)
American Civil War surgeons [0] (73 articles)
United States Sanitary Commission [0] (27 articles)
Songs of the American Civil War [0] (50 articles)
Economic history of the American Civil War [0]
Historiography of the American Civil War [8]
Military history of the American Civil War [12]
People of the American Civil War [7]
Political history of the American Civil War [7, e.g.:]
American Civil War political groups
Confederate States of America
Documents of the American Civil War
Foreign relations during the American Civil War
Government of the Confederate States
Political leaders of the American Civil War
United States government oversight of the American Civil War
Social history of the American Civil War
American Civil War stubs (283 articles in all) [2, e.g.:]
American Civil War battle stubs (87 articles)
American Civil War unit & formation stubs (505 articles)

How should these be organized & translated for Vicipaedia? A sample of articles that need to be accommodated includes Arx Sumter, Civitas finitima, Factio Republicana, Gulielmus Tecumseh Sherman, Manumissionis Edictum, "Oratio Domus Divisae," Unio, and of course battles, books, diaries, laws, military tactics, newspapers, poems, sermons, and many other topics, probably at least 10,000 articles in all. IacobusAmor 14:14, 21 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good start seemed to be to make Categoria:Bellum Civile Americanum, so I've done that. Beyond that, consider widely: whatever categories we make, we would eventually want similar ones for other wars too.
Start generally. I don't believe we have at present any categories for people, or for places, connected with particular wars or other historical incidents (except Categoria:Cruce signati). Those two general concepts would surely be worth starting with: perhaps
Categoria:Participantes Belli Civilis Americani and
Categoria:Situs Belli Civilis Americani and
Categoria:Proelia Belli Civilis Americani and also
Categoria:Documenta Belli Civilis Americani and a category for the Confederate States.
Those are my first suggestions. Others, and subcategories, would emerge as we actually write the articles, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 02:26, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oratio(nes)[fontem recensere]

Two problems: (1) Oratio redirects to Prex, but (at least in the Classical period) orationes aren't preces; (2) Categoria:Orationes, as it stands, consists mostly of prayers & hymns, so Cicero's In Catilinam oratio I and Lincoln's Oratio Domus Divisae are out of place there (though they're obviously orationes), while some preces appear both in this category and in Categoria:Hymni. The church needs disestablishing here. ~~ scripsit Usor:IacobusAmor --UV 21:17, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the first and primary sense is speech. The page oratio is easily fixed, the Category may make use of UV's bot.--Rafaelgarcia 23:56, 25 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original sense does not mean principal sense though. This is Latin Wikipedia not Roman Wikipedia, and, if in the greater part of Latin literature oro means I pray, then that should be its primary meaning. I can't think of any other wikipedia where earlier senses and earlier words should be thought to trump later ones!82.36.94.228 09:31, 31 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyres, pneus, Autoreifen[fontem recensere]

Could somebody please help me to find for the page Ioannes Baptista Pirelli the latin word for tyres, pneus, Autoreifen etc. Thank you --Massimo Macconi 05:58, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Trochus gummeus" (Rubber hoop) maybe? There must be a technical term for the rim of a wheel though - I just can't find it.82.36.94.228 09:27, 31 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
canthus = tire.--Rafaelgarcia 14:30, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

189.108.42.49[fontem recensere]

Has made maybe a dozen changes in lemmata without making corresponding changes in titles. Is that OK? IacobusAmor 23:10, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them according to whether a source of the name was cited.--Rafaelgarcia 00:37, 31 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it wasn't vandalism. Some were good Latin names. But it's a nuisance when no source is cited. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:29, 31 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_11&oldid=3670237"