Disputatio Formulae:Convertimus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Not working yet[fontem recensere]

... ? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It works without <ref></ref> in articles ;) --Aylin 12:56, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silly of me! Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Haec appellatio . . . converta est."[fontem recensere]

Nonne recte conversa est ? IacobusAmor 13:20, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grrr. --Robert.Baruch 14:38, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De formula[fontem recensere]

Noli putare eam testificari ut videtur Anglice 'Don't suppose that it bears witness' significat—et hunc patrium sermonem meum non intellego! Quid non testificatur ea? IacobusAmor 11:34, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess it was intended to mean "Don't suppose that it bears witness [to the existence of earlier citations for this Latin term]"! Would you care to suggest a better phrasing? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:08, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mea culpa. I thought it was testificare, so my intent was 'Don't suppose that it is attested'. Perhaps Noli putare eam esse testatam? --Robert.Baruch 16:34, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, I see it now. A possible alternative: "Haec appellatio, nusquam alibi reperta, a Vicipaediano ex lingua indigena in sermonem Latinum conversa est". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:10, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. If there aren't any objections, I'd like to change the text to what you suggested. --Robert.Baruch 22:06, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this formula is meant for placenames, then perhaps "Haec loci appellatio, . . ." Neander 23:15, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that for place names we should not use this one, and use {{fontes desiderati}} instead. In my opinion, unless a place name has a reasonable source for a Latin name, it should not be changed.--Xaverius 00:45, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I agree with you. I think when we make a name such as Saeptum Collegii (Terra Mariae) (as we did recently) or Lutetia (Texas) (as we might do) we are misunderstanding the function of place names and the nature of translation. It is true that other writers of modern Latin sometimes make such names; in which case, our rules allow us to follow them (though we also mention the everyday name). But we shouldn't be the inventors.
I wonder whether there would be consensus for a tightening of our rules on place names? If others want to discuss it, we should perhaps move this discussion to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Translatio nominum propriorum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd go for it. I feel that this formula is adequate for the latinisation and translation of common things which will difficulty have been translated into Latin (like foods), as opposed to person/place (proper) names. Book titles, institutions, videogames and films... well. I belive these need further discussion.--Xaverius 09:31, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took the specification "loci apellatio" from Robert's recent note (under "Problems?"). I have been against "Saeptum collegii" and the kind all the time but sordinoed myself because I believed that the official consensus is for it. Personally, I agree with Andrew's statement "we are misunderstanding the function of place names and the nature of translation". Neander 10:46, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If (as historians assume) Paris, Texas, was named after Paris, France (i.e., Lutetia), what's wrong with Lutetia (Texia)? IacobusAmor 12:09, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notice that my words „"Saeptum collegii" and the kind‟ weren't supposed to include "Lutetia (Texia)" but rather Fons Argenteus and the kind. Neander 17:31, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the appropriate discussion section under Disputatio Vicipaediae:Translatio nominum propriorum. --Robert.Baruch 15:53, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. I have repeated there the "Lutetia (Texas)" remarks (copied from above) and added a brief response. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:40, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somehow I've been unable to get the gist of all those signals that have been thrown in various discussions about neologisms. I'm all for translating common things like culinary terms and tagging them with {{Convertimus}}, provided that one is well-versed enough in Latin (I still remember the discussion on "Ringum"). I have myself smuggled in a few neologisms in order to be able to write about modern linguistics in Latin. As to titles of books, films etc not released in Latin, I believe that a reasonable consensus has already been reached. Neander 10:46, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(How much fun is it to read "ringum" and "sumpa" now...) Being serious now. Considering this, should we add a note about the {{convertimus}} formula at VP:TNP and VP:NF?--Xaverius 10:55, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I once made a rule for myself that I would introduce one newly-invented word into any article I published. But that was in English (and I soon forgot about it). If I do it in Latin, it's more likely to be unconscious and regrettable.
I think neologisms are fine in their place: in text, carefully introduced with sufficient signals to ensure a reader will be able to understand them easily. I don't think their place is in the lemma of an encyclopedia article.
Is "sordinoed" a neologism, Neander? I have my suspicions ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I thought "sordino" might work as a verb, too. A few years ago, in a paper that I wrote on a linguistic subject, I tried to use "banner" neologistically as a verb: "to banner for sthing" = "to advertise aggressively for sthing", but my referee didn't accept it in the text. But the paper was accepted, nevertheless. :-) Andrew, I couldn't agree more with what you said about the use and introduction of Latin neologisms. Neander 12:39, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems?[fontem recensere]

How does this formula relate to {{Fontes desiderati}} and "Noli fingere"? Doesn't this formula smuggle in some licence to translate into Latin nearly everything that can be translated. That, it seems to me, was the principle our Vicipaedian forefathers once started out from. For fun, cf. Disputatio:Corcagia. If we "convertimus" names of games not released in Latin, the next step (backwards) would be to translate names of films, books, etc. not released in Latin. Maybe I'm missing something (as it tends to happen in bureaucratic matters). Neander 14:39, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. After frustrating discussion at Disputatio:Pteridophytum nidularium, I suggested introducing this formula in hopes that it would at least identify cases that might, in future days, be challenged and moved. And I may have been ill-advised: I too now sense a slippery slope underfoot. For a list of the cases that it has identified, go to the formula page and click "Nexus ad paginam". If we have consensus, I will probably support the move of any or all of them to an untranslated (non-Latin) name.
Our current rule (which we might, of course, agree to change) allows the translating of names of works of art "if there is nothing verbal about them except the name", e.g. paintings, sculptures, instrumental music. I guess that might also include works of Spanish gastronomy, of which you will see many if you click the above-recommended link :) I don't know that we have ever stated (in so many words) a rule about the names of computer games. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Added later:] I have a feeling it's easy for us to like our own Latinised terminology while disliking that of others. Iacobus (I think it was) added the formula to Vuott's "Rosetum"; Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it was translating what's probably a trademarked name. IacobusAmor 12:09, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disapproved of Iacobus's "Pteridophytum nidularium"; Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which was merely translating a vulgar (English, French, German, &c.) phrase commonly applied to a set of certain ferns but having no taxonomical standing. An article about a similarly unofficial name will treat Azalea, a set that includes the subgenera Pentanthera and Tsutsuji, but excludes the six other subgenera of genus Rhododendron. Fortunately for that collocation of plants, the name is already Latin, but the concept has a cultural (and perhaps commercial) significance similar to that of bird's-nest fern (fougère nid d'oiseau, Nestfarn). IacobusAmor 12:09, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mucius disapproved of my Latin names for new universities etc.; ... and it might no doubt continue round the circle. Thank goodness for consensus, and I suspect consensus will tend to be conservative (i.e. "invent less"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been making some translations into Latin of common things (largely in categoria:Gastronomia Hispanica, as mentioned by Andrew), because I thought that it would be reasonable to translate them (as opposed to book/film/song titles despite our rule, names of institutions and the sort - and above all, geographical features). Thus I added this formula to them, but I'm more than ready to revert all and write them in Spanish, if we decide that these translations violate the "noli fingere".--Xaverius 17:12, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I promised to mark some of my pages with this formula and haven't yet done it. Maybe today. They are not gastronomic but institutional (bureaucratic in some cases!)
On mature (?) reflexion I think there really is a valid reason for distinguishing the cases marked by this formula from the ones marked by {{Fontes desiderati}} (whatever wording we may agree on for the two formulae):
  • "Fontes desiderati" is for cases where our current guidelines definitely don't allow us to invent a translation. So, if no source is cited, after a certain period of grace, the page is going to get renamed.
  • "Convertimus" can be used for cases where our current guidelines do allow us to invent a translation. (In general this will be where VP:TNP currently allows a derogation from the general law "Noli fingere".)
If we maintain this distinction, we are assisting future Vicipaedians (I think). If they decide that the rules of VP:TNP are too liberal, they will know that they need to reconsider pages that are marked with the "Convertimus" formula.
The future begins now, so discussion of whether VP:TNP is too liberal could flare up today if anyone wants to set light to it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that as oultined by Andrew, both formulae make sense.--Xaverius 09:30, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This formula was originally meant for placenames with no Latin source which our rules allow to be translated into Latin. Certainly, if a name were attested, it would have a source. But in the case of a name with no source, the casual reader who just wants a placename in Latin may not be aware that there is no official Latin name, and that the name was constructed by us. Hence, this formula. --Robert.Baruch 16:42, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]