Disputatio:Scriptura

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copied from : Categoria:Paginae desideratae:

Writing: Ars scribendi? --Fabullus 08:26, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be more natural than Scriptura.--Ceylon 10:21, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
However the english page is specifically about scriptura, go figure.--Rafaelgarcia 16:54, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
right now scriptura redirects to abecedarium so we need a new page, specifically about writing as distinguished from illustration and audio recording: Basically the history of written communcation.--Rafaelgarcia 16:56, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Where linked?[fontem recensere]

Which of the 1000 articles in Simple English does this represent? Unless it's linked on the appropriate Simple English page, it won't get into the statistics. Is it simple:Writing? [Later:] Perhaps I'm out of date. What I say above used to be true, but there are so many lists and instructions now that I no longer know. So long as someone does ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the list of 1000 pages is continuously being changed! (I'm keeping my eye on it.) For example, they're threatening to replace Zhu Xi, which we have, with Mencius, which we don't, but should. ¶ Nevertheless, our statistics will improve in the next cycle (presumably the first weekend of June) because (1) about fifteen articles that I added during the first few days of May were too late to count in that cycle but will count in the next one, and (2) I've boosted about four articles above the 10,000 octeti cutoff, giving us extra points. The way the program is set up, adding a new article of, say, 8,000 octeti gets us 1 point, but boosting that article above 10,000 gets us 3 additional points. We currently have one article, Gravedo, that tragically stands at 29,590 octeti; just a few more sentences will push it above the next barrier, 30,000, and thereby bring Vicipaedia the biggest prize of all: 4 additional points. Anyone who'd like to compare the English and add such sentences, please feel free to do so! (The English version has been transmogrified & enlarged since I translated it.) ¶ Bear in mind that the statistical program excludes octeti in interwiki links—so to be sure of exceeding 10,000 octeti, an article needs more than about 11,000, or (for the next barrier) more than about 31,500. IacobusAmor 14:25, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)

My summarium[fontem recensere]

Because of an edit conflict my "summarium" wasn't relevant. What I meant to say was that the brief paragraph that formerly headed this page was somewhere on the way to Latin. The present introduction has hardly set out on the journey. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:15, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I'm not honestly sure what's going on here. Pantocrator and anonymus seem to be progressively making the other's contribution worse.--Ioscius 21:46, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Well it's been made much better now, at least. But I shouldn't say any more, because you guys are in a conspiracy against me. 23:54, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

protection[fontem recensere]

Ok kids play nice. Please discuss changes on the talk page until you've both cooled off a little. --Ioscius 21:47, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked both briefly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:49, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
For the best. Should we leave it as it is for the next two hours, do you think? --Ioscius 21:50, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, unlock it whenever you think best. It is already much improved ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:03, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

A few problems remain[fontem recensere]

  • Is loquela really the appropriate word for 'speech' in the abstract sense? I had the infinitive loqui.
  • This uses papyrus to mean paper. That's rather confusing in a historical discussion since papyrus also means papyrus. How do we distinguish the two? Pantocrator 00:54, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

loquela is good. Pairing loqui would be with scribere rather than loquela. How would you suggest a syntax to work in loqui?

The link we have is charta. papyrus is a discretiva.

--Ioscius 01:01, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

The word used in the text of this article is papyrus, twice, meaning paper (compare the English it was translated from).
Ante papyrum repertum - Iacobus's recent summarium glossed this 'before the invention of papyrus', showing the confusion.
Inventio papyri a Sinensibus - It wasn't papyrus that came from China
Clearly, we need some way of distinguishing, in Latin, papyrus from paper. Pantocrator 01:06, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
_Right._ Charta=paper papyrus=papyrus. Cool? --Ioscius 01:13, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Then the text needs to be changed accordingly as I just did. Pantocrator 01:14, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Now we're cookin' with gas! --Ioscius 01:20, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)