Disputatio Usoris:Allixpeeke

Hi, Allixpeeke. Thanks for trying to contribute. I think you need to understand that it isn't possible to write a foreign language successfully without having studied it. There are people who work on Vicipaedia without knowing Latin, maybe by adding images, making interwiki links, making templates, but not by adding Latin text or by translating other-language material into Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 4 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I suggest you might say "Liberi Mercatus" (free markets) or "Liberum Commercium" (free trade). "Forum" is a big city square and open-air meeting place: such places are often used for trade and markets, but "forum" in itself does not necessarily imply trade or markets. "Mercatus" is a 4th-declension word, so the plural is "mercatus" (long u), not "mercati"; but the plural of "liber" (free) is "liberi". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 17 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! allixpeeke (disputatio) 07:34, 28 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Hantonia[fontem recensere]

Hi, Allixpeeke. You may think it better to avoid correcting Latin text if you don't know about the six cases of Latin nouns. "Reipublicae Neo-Hantoniensis" is in the genetive (the full inscription means "the seal of the republic of New Hampshire"), but dictionaries and encyclopedias would use the nominative case in the title of articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby, thanks for the response. So "Reipublice" becomes "Respublica" when you remove "seal of"? I see. Apologies. I thought it was a safe bet to transcribe the text in the seal directly, but clearly I was wrong. Thank you for changing it back to Respublica.

But, there is still a space in the seal between Neo and Hantoniensis. Wouldn't that still make it Respublica Neo Hantoniensis as opposed to Respublica Neohantoniensis? Or, is that another erroneous assumption on my part?

Also, please take a look at my edit on Rhodensis Insula. The full name of the state is "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," just as the full names of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas (just to name the As) are "State of Alabama," "State of Alaska," "State of Arizona," and "State of Arkansas." Seeing as how Alabama, Alasca, Arizona, and Arcansia lists the names as "Civitas Alabama," "Civitas Alasca," "Civitas Arizona," and "Civitas Arcansiae," I figured it was a safe bet to add Civitas to "Rhodensis Insula et Deductiones Providentiae". Was that a safe bet? Or, does an e have to be added to Insula, rendering the name Civitas Rhodensis Insulae et Deductiones Providentiae? Or, does Civitas not work at all for this state, in which case some other term would be needed? I hope I did not err in this edit, too, but just in case I did, I wanted to ask you. Thanks in advance.

Yours,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 20:15, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civitas Rhodensis Insula et Deductiones Providentiae is grammatically OK (civitas X is an appositive). Deductiones should be supported by an attestation; one can well imagine 18th-century Latinizing New Englanders writing Plantationes instead. The convention in linguistics is to italicize words cited as words, not to quote them (John is my friend, but John is the name of my friend). Civitas should be OK for all the U.S. states that aren't commonwealths. Vicipaedia has a pertinent article: Civitatum Foederatarum civitas. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:47, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of "deductiones" is discussed on the talk page. Of course, if there were a Latin source, we should use it and cite it. But for now this is just a translation in quotes, not a lemma in bold. It's an interesting name, and useful to offer a translation of it.

Speaking generally there's no justification for inventing longer Latin names that have no source. Vicipaedia, like Wikipedia, is not for things made up one day. So although English Wikipedians sometimes think they have to fill up their initial sentences with full official names and variants, Vicipaedians usually can't (because the equivalent forms can't be sourced) and don't need to; there are more interesting things to write. We try to limit strictly the number of versions of a name (in whatever language) in our first sentences. If you come across an article with more than two, consider if it's necessary; if with more than three, decide which one you can most safely remove ... That's what I do, anyway!

Seals and copies of seals are not good sources on punctuation. To write this name correctly in Latin, a choice has to be made (unless there's another source) between Neohantoniensis and Neo-Hantoniensis. Either is acceptable, but Neo Hantoniensis is not, because Neo alone is not a Latin word. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dears Andrew Dalby, IacobusAmor, and Lesgles,

I'll tell you what I've been up to.

Here, in a subpage of my userpage over at the English Wikipedia, I have been trying to compile a list of places with official names translated into various languages. (This is a work in progress, as you will see if you visit the page.) Regarding the Latin, I hope the names I have so far compiled are correct; but, if any are not, please let me know. I'm looking for straightforward translations, but not knowing much (anything) about Latin cases, I may (probably) have screwed up somewhere. Naturally, any suggestions for improvement will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 23:28, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought[fontem recensere]

You're free to make edits, but I don't feel sure that all the redirects you're currently creating will survive. We haven't usually made redirects from non-nominative cases of words, because if people can read Latin at all, they already know about them. (You could do the same thing in Russian or Finnish, but, again, I can't quite see why you would.) As for a phrase like "urbem Baltimorae", accusative plus genitive, to me it doesn't seem likely that anyone would search for it, so is the redirect any use? But this is only a thought; others may disagree. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the theory of "wikipedian quality" over at Meta, *all* redirects improve a wikipedia's quality—but why would anybody, ever, search for "urbem Baltimorae"? More useful, I should think, might be a redirect from a plausible error, like "Batlimora," but note that searching even for that already produces a helpful response: "Ostenduntur, quae per "baltimora" inveniuntur. Profecto scrutinari, ubi "batlimora" contineatur!" IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:09, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit with the German (and widely considered wrong) comma. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:53, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dears Andrew Dalby and IacobusAmor,

(I must admit to not knowing what non-nominative, accusative, and genitive mean.)

On the English Wikipedia, the following are among the many redirects to Baltimore:

Baltimore City
Baltimore City, MD
Baltimore City, Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Baltimore, MD, United States
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
Baltimore, USA
City of Baltimore
City of Baltimore, Maryland

I created Urbem Baltimoræ as a redirect to Baltimora (Terra Mariae) as I was under the impression that Urbem Baltimoræ is the proper way to translate "City of Baltimore" into Latin. Over at Formula:Comitatus Terrae Mariae, Baltimoræ Urbs is listed, which I can only guess is the proper way to translate "Baltimore City" into Latin.

Why might a person wish to search for Baltimore City or City of Baltimore instead of simply searching for Baltimore? One reason is that Baltimore City and Baltimore County are two distinct places in Maryland. Before 1851, the city was part of Baltimore County, but ever since 1851, it's had a separate government. (Baltimore County borders Baltimore City (Maryland's only independent city) on three sides.)

Over at Formula:Comitatus Terrae Mariae, both Baltimoræ Urbs and Baltimore Comitatus are listed, the former being a bluelink and the latter being a redlink. (Hopefully, someday, someone will create a page for Baltimore Comitatus, my favourite county, but until then, it'll remain a redlink. I must admit to worrying, though, that, although the template claims the county to be called Baltimore Comitatus in Latin, the template may be deceiving me; after all, why would the city be called Baltimora and the county Baltimore? If the template is wrong to claim that the county is properly translated as Baltimore Comitatus, I urge one of you to edit said template.)

All that said, if there is a more-proper way to translate "City of Baltimore" and "Baltimore City" than Urbem Baltimoræ and Baltimoræ Urbs respectively, please let me know. I don't think the page requires quite as many redirects as the English page has, but I do believe that at least the proper translations of City of Baltimore and Baltimore City should redirect there.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 14:09, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are of meanings, not words. So far as I know, "city of Baltimore" and "Baltimore city" mean the same thing, so there need be only one translation. The obvious one is "urbs Baltimora". "Urbem Baltimorae" is meaningless, though it could possibly form part of a longer sentence such as "the people of Baltimore rebuilt their city".

Yes, the template may be deceiving you: Vicipaedia, like Wikipedia, is "not a reliable source" and is "a work in progress". We're working on it, and it's nice of you to join in.

The only reason for making redirects is so that those who type in a form of a name that wasn't chosen as pagename can still find the page. Since there are tens or hundreds of thousands of cities in the world, probably not many would type "urbs ..." when looking for a certain city: they'd start typing the distinctive name "Baltim ..." and see what the box suggested. Still, if people want to make redirects beginning with "urbs ..." for those cities, they can; only, as I said above -- my only reason for writing to you -- I don't feel sure this work will survive. I don't like to see people waste their time! But it's your choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andrew Dalby, for providing me with the optimal translation, Urbs Baltimora. In light of this, I would recommend that both Urbem Baltimorae and Urbem Baltimoræ be deleted, but that Urbs Baltimora (which I just created) not be deleted.

Since you say that the template is likely deceiving me, please, what would be the most proper translation of "Baltimore County"? (Once you tell me, I'll edit Formula:Comitatus Terrae Mariae to reflect this.)

(You write, "The only reason for making redirects is so that those who type in a form of a name that wasn't chosen as pagename can still find the page." I disagree. I'd say that that is one of two reasons for making a redirect. The second reason, I'd say, is so that pages can be more easily linked. If someone creates a page for Baltimore County, said person may wish to include a sentence to the effect of, "In 1851, Urbs Baltimora split from Baltimore County to become Maryland's only independent city." It is certainly much easier to write "In 1851, [[Urbs Baltimora]] split…" than "In 1851, [[Baltimora (Terra Mariae)|Urbs Baltimora]] split…".)

Thanks again,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 16:07, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many cities already had Latin names before Vicipaedia came along. Probably most US counties didn't. Naming them in Latin is not an exact science, which is one reason why the template isn't to be relied on. My suggestion would be "Comitatus Baltimorensis" (I've just checked that the Latin adjective "Baltimorensis" exists) but I would defer to a US Vicipaedian on such matters! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Andrew Dalby. I just edited Formula:Comitatus Terrae Mariae to reflect your recommendation.

Yours,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 17:11, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: As an aside, all this makes me wonder why https://translate.google.com/ is so off so often. (For example, it translated Comitatus Baltimorensis as Baltimore counties, not Baltimore County; it translated Comitatu Baltimorensis as Baltimore County.) Obviously, I trust your translation over Google's.

Google apparently doesn't know much about case. The first translation ('Baltimore counties') is false because the Latin adjective is singular, and Google doesn't know that; and the second translation ('Baltimore County') is working from the ungrammatical Latin that you fed it (the words don't agree in case with each other), and Google doesn't understand that using the ablative case (seen in comitatu) should have directed the translation in the direction of 'with regard to the county' (instead of the bare word 'county'), but it's unfair to blame Google for being confused by words already in error! ¶ Btw, if you're in Baltimore (city or county!), it's time to get prepared for the potentially "historic" snowstorm that several meteorological computer models are showing will be visiting you over the weekend! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:49, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, in running text, Vicipaedia doesn't use ligatures (Æ, æ, Œ, œ). If you want to see them on your screen, go to Gadgets under Praeferentiae and click the appropriate box; similarly for several other typographical styles you might prefer. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:54, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Iacobus has explained Google's errors perfectly (if I may say so, Iacobe!) The general reason why Google gets things wrong follows from my statement above: "Translations are of meanings, not words." Google, being a mere computer, doesn't mess with meanings, and can only attempt to render words. On that basis it may get simple sentences right, but it will never know why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the time, it may not get even simple sentences right. Is it smart enough to distinguish correctly between Canis felem venatur and Canem feles venatur ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:26, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate uses a statistical method, which relies on large bilingual corpora. Unfortunately, whatever corpora they used for Latin are evidently not large or accurate enough to translate more than short phrases at all accurately, and in general, it struggles with inflections (e.g. the English-Russian translation is much better but cannot handle complex word order). It can occasionally suggest good words, but these must be verified with traditional dictionaries and grammars. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:05, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IacobusAmor, I'm in the county, and yeah, I'm not looking forward to it. But historic? According to the local NBC affiliate, some areas could see twelve inches or more. That's bad, but I've seen worse. February of 2003 holds the current record with 28.2″. Yours, allixpeeke (disputatio) 23:01, 19 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "historic," if the projections pan out. For a couple of days, Wxrisk.com on Facebook has been showing simulations giving DC and Baltimore up to 24 inches. ¶ Also, this is fairly up to date. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:48, 20 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]