Disputatio:Pampanga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Emendatio[fontem recensere]

condita

IF THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE GRAMMAR PLS ALLOW IT. Why should condita est be better than condidit? They mean the same. --Jondel 13:40, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't "mean the same." What you wrote was Pampanga est provincia. . . . Hanc provinciam condidit = 'Pampanga is a province. . . . It [i.e., Pampanga] founded this province'—which makes no sense. IacobusAmor 16:51, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hanc

Is there a reason why we should remove hanc? Please allow it to stay. In all the languages I know, I normaly place either a 'this' or a 'the' about the main subject. Hanc corresponds best and it is not wrong latin. --Jondel 13:40, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's grammatically OK but stylistically otiose. Only one province is in question; a this–that contrast is therefore misleading. Any responsible editor, in any language, would cut a word for 'this' there. IacobusAmor 16:48, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quam

Why should this be removed?!!! This makes the subject clearer. Comon!!--Jondel 13:40, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "Propriam linguam loquintur, quam appelit," every word is wrong (ungrammatical or misspelled). IacobusAmor 16:48, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mendum quod non morietur

Defects so that it won't die (?)--Jondel 13:40, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The error that will not die'—a common tongue-in-cheek reference to misspellings of appellare—one of the most reliably misspelled words in the lexicon. IacobusAmor 16:57, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are inappropriate. "Hanc provinciam condidit anno 1571" means "He founded this province in the year 1571": that can't be what you intended, because you have not named any founder. The correction produced good sense, where there was none before.
If you're a tiro, Jondel, other Wikipedians will improve your Latin. And that's good, because you can learn from it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see Iacobus only corrected grammatical and spelling errors. Each language has its own rules, which its writers should follow. "quam appelit y-nominative" contains not only a misspelling but a two serious grammatical errors--a missing subject and the wrong case for y.--Rafaelgarcia 16:24, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jondel, by all means feel free to question changes, as experienced editors may indeed make unintended new errors (and from time to time I've done so myself), though that's not usually the best way to bet. IacobusAmor 16:57, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]