Disputatio:Phonologia Linguae Romanae Priscae

I confess this one is quite stubby. --Iustinus 07:25, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitione absente, commentarius nondum est stipula? IacobusAmor 10:48, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I undertsand this, Iacobe. Are you saying it's *more* stubby with the definition? I had originally thought Villelmus was going to upload this as a section to Sermo vulgaris, but since he did it as a separate article, I asked him to add at least one sentence of definition, thinking that would be required. Do you disagree? --Iustinus 17:42, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're saying it's {{non stipula}}, I get it. Well, the definition he wrote is "Haec est explicatio Phonologiae Linguae Romanae Priscae." I admit that's not much, but I'm honestly not certain how to write a good introduction in a case like this. Suggestions? --Iustinus 19:18, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sed "in progressu". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:27, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicor eum nihil additurum praeter quae iamiam scripsit. Certe nihil quod commentiationem in descriptionem "comprehensivam" conficiat. --Iustinus 17:43, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villelmo dixi Latine scribentes pro Romance languages uti "linguis Latinis," "Romanis," "Romanicis"ve, qua de causa titulum ita scripsit, nempe "Phonologia Linguae Romanae Priscae." Sed hoc in contextu procul dubio melius erit "Phonologia Linguae Romanicae Priscae," quo melius pateat sensum esse Proto-Romance neque the original language of the Romans --Iustinus 07:32, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ob ambiguitatem tibi consentio. Fortasse melius etiam "Phonologia Linguae Protoromanicae". Alibi accepimus hoc morphema "proto-" quando de linguis reconstructis disserere oportuit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:20, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Item, optionem Villelmo dedi, item fortasse remutandum erit. --Iustinus 09:29, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about I put it under Sermo Vulgaris?--Villelmus 20:49, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, judging from the contents of the article, "Sermo vulgaris" seems preferable to "Lingua Protoromanica". Technically, Proto-Romance is a hypothetical language fragment resulting from applying the comparative method to linguistic data provided by the Romance languages/dialects. Neander 22:58, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a) I think "Proto-Romance" is what Villelmus had in mind when he was writing this, but you're right it covers more of the sorts of things we would term "Vulgar Latin." b) Note that Sermo vulgaris is linked by interwiki from en:Proto-Romance --Iustinus 23:30, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly moving this to Sermo vulgaris#phonologia or the like would make its incompleteness less of a problem. --Iustinus 23:45, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ¶ Ad (b): It may be understandable for a layman to equate vulgar Latin with Proto-Romance, but theoretically, it's a category mistake. Neander 00:24, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I had simply been assuming that Sermo vulgaris was about Proto-Romance anyway, despite its inappropriate title, just because of the interwiki link. But now I see it is linked to both en:Proto-Romance and en:Vulgar Latin. We probably should delete that first link. --Iustinus 00:47, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for now I just marked this page as {{contribuenda}}, so that any corrections suggested here can be made first. That way I don't need to put up ~~{{in progressu}}~~_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} {{in usu}} on a preëxisting page—Iacobus objected to that in the case of cuniculus, and even if I don't entirely agree with him, I see his point. So please suggest away! --Iustinus 00:50, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what comes naturally, but as to the use of "In progressu", I consider it perfectly natural and normal to place that template on a pre-existing page if someone is, for a few days, doing some serious work in it. I do this myself occasionally, and I do similar things occasionally when editing on en:wiki and fr:wiki (though in the case of en:wiki one is allowed hours, not days!) No one objects. That's exactly what those templates are for. Meanwhile we all have lots and lots of other pages to work on.

The reason why they apply to the whole page is that edit conflicts, wherever on the page the editing occurs, waste both editors' time just the same. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neander's right, of course, that Vulgar Latin and Proto-Romance are conceptually different and need different pages (and interwiki links). The phonological sections of each page would, a priori, always reach the same conclusions ... The fact that they don't always reach quite the same conclusions is one of those things that make historical linguistics so interesting. Thank goodness we live in interesting times. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]