Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Instrumentum computatorium verbum correctum in lingua latina recentis est! Vide: Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis (Nexus externi) Computatrum aut computatorium non in lingua latina esse videtur.

Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis non est solus fons linguae Latinae recentis - et mea quidem sententia ne quidem optimus. W. B. 10 Kal. Febr. 2006 20.01 UTC

Computatrum[fontem recensere]

Computatrum? Computatorium? Instrumentum computatorium? ...

  1. Isn't this just like the English word computer? Taken from the verb computare?
  2. Doesn't it look silly to have such long words for something of such common usage?

My point is, I think it looks rather silly to "import" most Latin words from English, which can (like in this case) make them waaay too long. Like in Icelandic- when the computer first came, it was called tölva (tala (number) + völva (seeing stone)) and now everybody uses that word, it's short and rather original. I've noticed a myriad of similarities between Latin and Icelandic such as; declensions, word order; sentence-forming and simular words (e.g. Icelandic: Mús = Latin: Mus; Icelandic: penni (pen) = Latin: penna (feather, wing); Icelandic: Múr = Latin: Murus) so it might make sense to 'combine' words to make neologisms in Latin, instead of stealing them from English. I know Wikipedia's job is NOT to make neologisms, but most of these words (Instrumentum computatorium?? Wtf?) are not words any sane person would use in an every day conversation (well, what sane person learns latin? ;]). Maybe even calling it an abacus? --BiT 16:14, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English & Icelandic are Germanic languages, similarly related to Latin (and other Italic languages), except that English has more borrowed Latin-derived words, both from Latin itself and from Latin's descendants, especially French. Like Icelandic, we retain a Germanic word for your mús (i.e., the word mouse), but we also have the adjective murine 'of or relating to mice', taken from Latin in the seventeenth century. ¶ I too deplore the long word(s) for 'computer' ; but if we don't have a better suggestion, we have to accept it. One trusts that, if we write & speak Latin enough, a short form will emerge. IacobusAmor 17:43, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I grant your point on instrumentum computatorium, but isn't computatrum just one more syllable than the english? What's so unwieldly about that?--Usor:Ioscius (disp) 17:44, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it's even briefer than that: since the "u" is short, rapid pronunciation approximates three syllables: comp'tātrum ! and if we nasalize the "m," it feels even briefer! IacobusAmor 18:18, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright! I get your point- it's not that long =] --BiT 18:39, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is indeed the English word Computer. Also, the Danish, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese etc. word. Some prefer to use the French-like ordinatrum (actually most people who use that word use it interchangeably with computatrum.)
  • Computatrum or even Computatorium are not that long. As for instrumentum computatorium, well that comes from the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis of the Vatican. Vatican Latinists have a reputation for expressing things by lengthy circumlocutions, in order to avoid non-classical words. But note that you woudn't have to say instrumentum computatorium everytime you mentioend the thing: if the context was clear you could presumably say just computatorium, or possibly even just instrumentum.
  • Tölva is a famous example, at least among the linguistically minded, but portmanteaux are not really a very Latin way to coin words (though it could be argued tölva is not a portmanteau, but a new adaptation of a very rare morphological fomration--but I guess so is computatrum: see my last point, below.)
  • I like that you find parallels between Icelandic and Latin, as these are useful for learners, and both languages are incredibly awesome. However, I would not call these similarities shocking or decisive:
    • Declensions are also found in German, Gothic, Sanskrit, Greek, Hittite, Lithuanian , and hell, Finnish, Esthonian, etc. etc. etc.
    • The *mus root is found in practically every Indo-European language family: Latin mus, Greek μῦς, Sanskrit muṣ, Farsi موش mūš, and a dozen others.
    • If I'm am not mistaken, Múr will be a loanword directly from Latin. Compare the German Mauer, and the obsolete English word mure, bot of which definitely are.
  • I sometimes use abacus to mean "cash register", actually, but I don't think anyone else does. The problem with abacus is that it doesn't only mean a machine that counts, but also a "counter" in the other sense. Besides, of course, abaci are more like calculators than computers, in that they are not programable.
  • I resisted computatrum for a long time, because words in -trum are not actually overwhelmingly common, and the only one of them I can find that represents a machine not known since the dawn of Italic history is haustrum "bilge pump." But SO many people now say computatrum that it seems pointless to try to fight it. The shortness compared to computatorium is an advantage, but to my mind not in the simplex form (computatorium isn't that much longer), so much as in the adjective: I find it very convenient to be able to say computatralis. In any case, if I can get over my dislike of computatrum then so can you :P

--Iustinus 17:50, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, point taken. :P I was just thinking, that one of the biggest part of "live" languages is that there are words that are "correct" and then words that people colloquially use (and I do realize that "computatrum" isn't such a long word). Like telephone and phone and... it really is hard to find examples when you need them isn't it? Ofcourse the word "tölva" could be used in Latin couldn't it =]
Mea tolva habet magna memoria. 
Sounds horrible, never mind that.. ^_^; --BiT 18:26, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heheh, actually that could be cute in some situations. And in fact there are definitely "registers" as far as modern spoken Latin is concerned: there are some words people use when in conversation, which they woudln't consider appropriate for writing. This is especially true when speaking on the fly, without a dictionary ;) --Iustinus 18:30, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only hard part, if one were to find a more colloquial version of computatrum (compus?), is how to "get it out there". I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed on Vikipaedia, because it's an un-sourced neologism? --BiT 18:35, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could try the Grex Latine Loquentium (currently a red link, but a much needed article), but I don't think compus would fly. Honestly, when I'm at a Conventiculum and I need a shorter word for "computer" "car" "GPS" or just about any device, I say machina, and context usually makes it clear which machine I mean ;) --Iustinus 18:53, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aww, you don't like copus? --BiT 19:03, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added an alternative term "computator". This is attested to Seneca in F.P. Leverett's Lexicon of the Latin Language, 1850. The definition given is a computist. While this refers to a person and not a machine, the English word computer also originally refered to a person. The first definition given in The American Heritage Dictionary (Second Edition) for computer is 1. A person who computes. In the Army artillery the officer charged with computing the fire for the guns is called the Computer. I therefore would submit that an attested classical word should be used for the modern electronic machine. I have not taken the liberty but I would also suggest that this become the primary Latin word used.

--Fortis 04:27, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi placet nomen 'computator' (is qui computat) additum esse. Vide Ricardum Feynman, qui, instrumento electronico carens, computatra humana administravit.Montivagus 04:43, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This goes against all latin norms. Instruments are rendered by a neuter noun. --Rafaelgarcia 04:50, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haud recte dicis, amice. Culter? Pala? Securis?Montivagus 05:03, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. The difference arises only when the nonneuter noun refers to a profession.--Rafaelgarcia 05:21, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is attested only in the meaning of a computing man not as a computing machine. In all latin literature it is either attested as computatrum or computatorium. NEVER as computator.--Rafaelgarcia 04:52, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the usage of arator and aratrum, I stand humbly corrected and withdraw my suggestion. --Fortis 05:15, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cur? Mihi videtur computator, vel computatrum humanum, unum genus et primum esse computatrorum. Arator, ut omnes intellegimus, non est genus aratrorum. Sed noniam pugno. Montivagus 05:39, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In modern english usage human computer does not mean the same as a person who computes. It means a person who computes as quickly as a computer or a person with amazing computing skills. I suggest the same meaning is attached to the latin phase computatrum humanum. THus not all computatores are computatra humana; the two terms meaning different things slightly.--Rafaelgarcia 22:00, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Vincis. :) Montivagus 23:12, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about computatore? That in my mind is the best word for computer in Latin. It comes from the same form as the English word comes (meaning "one who computes"), but the neuter ending designates it as a machine rather than a human and also serves to distinguish it from "computator"- a human being who does calculatons. As Iustinius said, we should not base new Latin words on forms that stopped being used 2200 years ago. Latin is a continuously evolving language (at least it was until a couple hundred years ago) and we shouldn't be going back to the way Romans used the language if it has evolved since then, especially not back to before the Punic Wars! -Kedemus 07:27, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe using any neuter form of '-tor' is the answer, chiefly because -trum is already the regular neuter of the agent series—i.e. computator m., computatrix f., computatrum n. (This is why people want to use -trum so often, regardless of whether there is any merit in doing so). Your use of -e as a neuter presupposes the term being formed from an adjective in -is (*computatoris, -is, -e), which it isn't. —Mucius Tever 14:58, 22 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noli fingere! Computatrum - as it may be - is still used in most places today. (At least I think). Computatore firstly is fictus, whereas computatrum, ordinatrum etc. aren't (i.e. we can definitely find sources) and secondly, it doesn't even look latin! I think that a -trum is better than any -tore even if -trum stopped being used once! Also Iustinus has obviously wanted to try and stop this (tedious) debate about the name of computers, so we should just let it be how it is. Also also, saying things like that we must make latin 'evolve' erm... it has already happened. Harrissimo 10:59, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

OK, there is a chance that someone might come here having read [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119103413731143589-lMyQjAxMDE3OTIxODAyMzg0Wj.html "Veni, Vidi, Wiki: Latin Isn't Dead On 'Vicipaedia'"], wishing to read the log of the discussion in which I was "outvoted." Let it be known that there was a miscommunication between Mr. Gomes and myself. I didn't mean I had argued on wikipedia and been voted down, but rather that I had argued about it a decade ago on the (still red, currently) Grex Latine Loquentium. Siquis huc venerit disputationem in commentatione "Veni, Vidi, Wiki: Latin Isn't Dead On 'Vicipaedia' commemoratam lectum, sciat augustum D. Gomes perperam me intellexisse: non enim hic orationes meas habui, sed potius inter Gregem Latine Loquentium, abhinc 10 annos. --Iustinus 06:13, 29 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computator[fontem recensere]

Please don't add computator as a synonym for computer. It is incorrect. If you feel it is incorrect please find an attested latin source per Vicipaedia norm.--Rafaelgarcia 04:40, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordinatrum[fontem recensere]

Ordinatrum isn't french, but latin, so that it doesn't make sense to say: "...secundum linguam Francogallicam ordinatrum ..."; rather it is just that the french people would have use believe this ia a better neolatin term, no?--Rafaelgarcia 01:16, 6 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordinateur is French, and producing the term "ordinatrum, after the French" seems neither unusual to do nor to say on this end, but go ahead and reword it if you don't feel it conveys the idea that the term is intended to be formed following the French language's use of the root. —Mucius Tever 03:21, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't Castilian Spanish use a similar form, "ordenador" ? 08:52, 17 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computatrulum vs Computatellum [1][fontem recensere]

'Computatrulum' is really not better. But if it's all we have a source for, oh well. The one google hit for computatellum is from the Nuntii Latini forum where they discuss using it for 'calculator'. (I wouldn't have given a laptop a diminutive name myself; but then, my first desktop computers were not big towers like those you get nowadays...) —Mucius Tever 02:06, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traupman uses machinula calculatoria for calculator. However, I wouldn't want to insist on computatrulum or anything else if we feel strongly that it violates our good sense. I guess there are two questions you have raised. What is the proper diminutive for computatrum? Should we use a diminutive for a laptop or for a calculator? --Rafaelgarcia 07:02, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the proper diminutive for nouns in -trum should be in -tellum (the examples of rostellum, plostellum, and canistellum already given, and others, suggest this). As for what it should be used for, well, even if one discounts calculators, one still has subnotebooks and handheld computers to deal with... —Mucius Tever 21:35, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the pattern of classical Latin, the diminutive of computatrum should be computatellum as Mucius says. But the diminutive isn't needed; the adjective portabile does the job. --Neander 01:33, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Diminutivum (Latinum) I have conducted an extensive search after diminutive forms in classical Latin. It appears, as Mucius and Neander say, that nouns (and adjectives) whose stem ends in consonant + r have their diminituves ending in consonant + ell. This pattern is even applied to words of non-Latin origin like mitra > mitella. The only exception I have found is fenestrula from fenestra which Apuleius uses instead of the more common fenestella. So the diminutive of computatrum should be computatellum. --Fabullus 10:49, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De aliis tabulis expansionis[fontem recensere]

In pagina deficit tabula ad sonos gerendos et elaborandos. Quale nomen huic tabulae erit ? "Audiotabula" ? "Tabula audio" ? "Tabula sonorum" ? "Tabula auditoria" ? Aut aliud ? - Vuott 11:21, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secundum forma in usu ib linguis Romanicis, fortasse sit melior forma tabula soni (ca:Targeta de so, es:Tarjeta de sonido, eu:Soinu-txartel, fr:Carte son, gl:Tarxeta de son, pt:Placa de som)--Xaverius 08:47, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tabula sonica?-- 10:17, 9 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The composite image[fontem recensere]

I don't see the point of this. Since the images are unlabelled, the reader doesn't know what these things are. Isn't an encyclopaedia supposed to give that kind of information? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 13 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It's important that the reader must know what it is. I have added now descriptions. They show up when you move the cursor to the picture. If you add the descriptions under all pictures, the text will only be centred. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:42, 13 Octobris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Computatralis vs. computatorius[fontem recensere]

I have some doubts about the adjective computatralis. Is it attested any other adjective in -tralis derived from an agent noun in -trum? In my opinion the adjective "of the computatrum" should be computatorius, -a, -um: when we have to express "of the amator / of the amatrix", we say amatorius, -a, -um; and -trix and -trum share the same relationship with the stem. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:07, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

computer s ordinatrum -i n
computer adj ordinatralis -is -e IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:25, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't care so much about what Traupman said, he could be just wrong as anyone else and we have the instruments for knowing it (i.e., science). I want just to look back at the golden latin spoken by Romans. My question is: Is it attested any other adjective in -tralis derived from an agent noun in -trum? About -torius we really have a lot of good and working examples (we even have computatorius itself attested in late latin, for it comes from a productive and regular adjective formation). --Grufo (disputatio) 18:44, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vicipaedia, as a tertiary enterprise, has no choice but to accommodate primary & secondary sources where they provide relevant information. The Traupman whom you don't care so much about earned his Ph.D. in Classics at Princeton University and went on to become chairman of the Department of Classics at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. He authored three instruction books of conversational Latin. As a lexicographer, he edited a German-English dictionary and is an associate editor of the Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary. The dictionary that you don't care so much about was first published in 1966 and updated in 1995, and is now in print in its third edition (2007), having had about forty years to respond to suggestions from critics, friendly & unfriendly. It shouldn't be surprising if the compilers of two other Latin dictionaries often cited here, Vilborg and Pekkanen & Pitkäranta, have had similarly pertinent careers: Vilborg is said to be particularly adept at Esperanto, Interlingua, and Volapük; and Pekkanen & Pitkäranta have been particularly involved with radiophonic Latin. All these compilers have shown longstanding professional interest in Latin as it is spoken & written today. Of course, on a given point, they "could be just wrong as anyone else," but that's not the way to bet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:24, 17 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet it's the wrong formation pattern - every single such adjective attested in L&S is formed from the o-stem suffix -ter/-tra/-trum, or its variant -ter/-tris/-tre, whether in Latin or latinised Greek words. There are no adjectives in -trālis formed from the suffix -tōr/-trīx/-trum. This is a simple confusion of two similar suffixes. The correct analogy should be computātōrius/ōrdinātōrius. Brutal Russian (disputatio) 09:48, 19 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe "computatralis" has been formed on surface analogy of theatrum : theatralis = computatrum : computatralis. But Grufo and Brutal Russian, who go deeper into the morphology of agent nouns, make a point that can't be dismissed by argumentum ad auctoritatem. Still, I guess we have to accept computatralis as an idiosyncracy of "computerese", because it's being used outside Vicipaedia, although computatorius is better Latin. Neander (disputatio) 15:08, 19 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Computor" it is not a synonym? PEDCPR (disputatio) 17:16, 6 Iulii 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is not. Please check the grammar of your choice to see how word formation works in Latin. Greetings Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 17:31, 6 Iulii 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]