Disputatio Formulae:Grammatica

Replace?[fontem recensere]

This template is rather replicated in Formula:Lingua Latina. I created it without checking to see if there was one already. If Vicipaedia:Vicicollaboratio Lingua Latina goes ahead, I expect that it will cover more than just the grammar (see Usor:Dbmag9/Works-in-Progress/Hierarchia Lingua Latina). I've made a basic infobox (Arca Informationis?) for Historia Latinae which follows the same style as the first.

May I be terribly rude and change this to what is currently at Formula:Lingua Latina? I'm very sorry.

Daniel (☎) 19:37, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created that template. So, as far as I am concerned, feel free to change it. --Roland2 20:08, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed. Daniel (☎) 20:42, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typus[fontem recensere]

How does one edit the types of the grammatica template? For instance, on the declinatio template, I'd like to change odeclinatio, udeclinatio, and edeclinatio to secunda, quarta, and quinta respectively.--Ioscius 15:40, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just change them within the main template (find where it says [[O-declinatio]] and change to [[Declinatio secunda]] or whatever. Only worry about the type switching when you change the headings (Nomina, Verba etc) or add a new section. Daniel (☎) 17:47, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now done. Daniel (☎) 17:53, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude.--Ioscius 02:35, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this template[fontem recensere]

Now we use this template on our grammar pages...I don't see why. A nominative is a nominative, it is not grammatica latina but grammatica grammatica. Same with everything on there...nothing on the template is unique to latin grammar, and all the links are to non latin specific pages...I think if we keep it the way it is, we should have specific latin usage articles to which it links, and a side bar for the possibility of more cases, ergative, abessive, illative, instrumental, etc...and further moods, optative, volative, etc...further numbers, like duals...this template should not reflect a romanacentric POV but should include all types of grammar.--Ioscius 05:34, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my statement. What does anybody think? Maybe this should just be {{grammatica}}...?--Ioscius ^(disp) 23:11, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me! IacobusAmor 01:42, 28 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubi Praepositiones?[fontem recensere]

An praepositiones hic addendae sunt? --Alex1011 19:14, 27 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partes orationis[fontem recensere]

Nonne haec formula aptius dicatur "Partes orationis" vel "Partes sermonis"?

Quae secundum Donatum grammaticum, sunt: nomen, pronomen, verbum, adverbium, participium, coniunctio, praepositio, interiectio. Temporibus autem nostris vel etiam particulas et adiectiva (neutrius generis quaeso) admittamus.

Si nemo negat, paratus sum ad hanc formulam mutandam.

Laurentianus (disputatio) 16:37, 5 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

categoriae an addendae sint[fontem recensere]

Haec formula utilissima etiam maioris utilitatis erit (mea quidem coniectura), si e.g. casus non solum enumerantur, sed et singulis eorum categoria casus praeposita erit, similiter modus prae linea, quae incipit "indicativus, coniunctivus ...". Placetne? --Laurentianus (disputatio) 16:38, 8 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parcite quaeso impatientiae meae, collegae! Ad formulam supplendam quibusdam vocibus opus erat, quae licet tunc temporis inanes sint, aliquando complebuntur. In redigendo terminos technicos maxime Donatum secutus sum, quem et deinceps in novis vocibus creandis sequar, quia ille grammaticam Romanorum ipsorum docet. Ubi conveniet, et sententiae recentiorum addi possint. Mutata vero si minus placuerint, audacter restituite! --Laurentianus (disputatio) 17:13, 9 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]