Disputatio Usoris:Alexanderr/Arch

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sancta Monica[fontem recensere]

I made corrections as you requested. Note that most Modern Latinists seem to prefer to refer to cities by names like Monicopolis rather than Sancta Monica. I left the article under the "litteral" name, but listed the compound version as an alternate.

Another thing: please use the "Monstrare praevisum" button. All of us frequently save articles before we are actually done with them, but the number of times you changed the Santa Monica page this morning was quite shockingly high, and it clutters up the recent changes page. Surely a lot of these saves were unneccessary, especially with the option to do a preview.

Thanks, Iustinus 18:57, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dates[fontem recensere]

It is no more necessary in Latin to write "anno domini ____" every time a year comes up than it is in English. It can be assumed that a year is A.D.; if not 'a.C.n.'—or, heaven forfend, 'a.u.c.'—would be used. Cf. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (anglice)#Use of numbers. —Myces Tiberinus 23:09, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, Latin does use the construction "anno X" much more than English uses "in the year X." In fact I would recommend that you default to saying anno. You just don't need to specify what numbering system you're using every single time. --Iustinus 00:00, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but I don't... haven't you seen? In hewlett packard article I didn't, and it wasn't an "oversight", but when I do put it I don't see why there should be a campaign to change it. That's all. There are articles here that have 900 dates that would normally have the BC/AD but don't. Alexanderr 02:01, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I like to use the Roman Numerals, because they look more authentic. Alexanderr 02:09, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

taxoboxes[fontem recensere]

When you carry over taxoboxes from the English Wikipedia, please remember to translate the captions (and the links) out of English. —Myces Tiberinus 16:07, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maarbon[fontem recensere]

Hi, if you want others to proofread an article, as you have requested in Maarbon, you can simply tag the article with {{maxcorrigenda}}. Then the article will be automatically listed in Categoria:Latinitas corrigenda. Regards --Roland2 21:18, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also put it on my user page for the same reasons. ;-) --Roland2 21:35, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, of course. Copy from my page what is useful for you. --Roland2 21:47, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cases[fontem recensere]

Neither of those are right, but that's for complicated syntactic reasons beyond the scope of your question. The short answer is that in foro means "in the forum" and in forum means "into the forum." In foro ibat, then, would mean "He was walking around in the forum," whereas in forum ibat would be "he was going to the forum." --Iustinus 02:35, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Litterae & Nuntii[fontem recensere]

Alexanderr, do you even use any instant messenger programs? If you do, please email me. it's helpful to be able to get in touch with frequent contributors, especially in real time. And forgive me if I've already asked you this ;) --Iustinus 21:28, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

some helpful links[fontem recensere]

I've noticed a few of your posts asking for help with grammar/declension etc. Here is a great link, that I know of, William Whitaker's words, a page into which you insert a Latin form, and it tells you the part of speech, and what conjugation/declension. For example, you asked about -or words, so here is what this page displays for say arboribus:

arbor.ibus           N      3 1 LOC P F                 
arbor.ibus           N      3 1 DAT P F                 
arbor.ibus           N      3 1 ABL P F                 
arbor, arboris  N  F   [XAXBO]  
tree; tree trunk; mast; oar; ship; gallows; spearshaft; beam; squid?;

Or, for a verb, let's use a "tricky" one, like fieri, perhaps, with form fiat:

fi.at                V      3 3 PRES ACTIVE  SUB 3 S    
fio, fieri, factus sum  V  SEMIDEP   [XXXAX]  
be made, be done; become; happen, take place;

Run by the same server, a branch of the University of Notre Dame's classics department, is one of the best online translators I've found English-Latin. Sticking with arbor, let's see what it has to say for tree: (after typing that, I'm only going to display the first few results, as it returned almost three pages of results)

acer (1) -eris n. [the maple tree or maple wood]. 
amputo -are [to cut off] , esp. of trees, [to lop, prune]; of limbs, [to amputate]; hence, in gen., [to remove, diminish]; 'amputata loqui', [to speak disconnectedly]. 
arbor (arbos) -oris f. [a tree]; also any wooden object , such as an [oar, mast,  ship]; 'arbor  infelix', [the gallows]. 
arboreus -a -um [relating to trees; treelike]. 
arbustus -a -um [planted with trees]. N. as subst. arbustum -i , [a plantation, vineyard  planted with trees]. 
arbutum -i n. [the fruit , leaves, etc., of the wild strawberry or arbutus tree]. 
arbutus -i f. [the wild strawberry or arbutus tree]. 
balsamum -i n. [the balsam tree , or its gum]. 
bifer -fera -ferum of a tree , [bearing fruit twice a year]. 
buxifer -fera -ferum [producing the box tree]. 
buxus -i f. and buxum -i , n. [the evergreen box tree; box wood; an article made of box wood]. 
caelebs -libis [unmarried , single] (of men); of trees, [to which no vine is trained].

I hope any, or some of this is useful to you. Regards.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:19, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are misinterpreting... The form entered was arboribus, it returned the three possibilities: from arbor, arboris, f 3rd declension, locative, ablative, or dative plural. Play with it, you'll get the gist. I'm not sure what vocative you are seeing, btw.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:55, 24 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mail[fontem recensere]

I have sent an email to you. --Roland2 22:20, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jyllands-Posten[fontem recensere]

A few small things...illustratio is 3rd declension, and I would make incendere passive in this instance.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:30, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chin up, man. Latin is a rough beast. I'm sure there's a declinatio tertia page around here, declension itself being from de+clinare(to slope). It's just the way that nouns change ending depending on function in sentence, the different cases (from latine cassus(frome cadere to fall)). Tell me, though, if you don't know what the different declensions are, how do you expect to get composition correct? Where/what is your latin background? I have a BA in the language, and I still mess things up all the time.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:08, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And declinatio proper...--Ioshus Rocchio 03:09, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah...illustratio is the word i was using. It declines thus:


There is no such word as illustratios (unless illustratius is some some adjective, but doubtful, they would just use the participle illustratus (from in+lustrare(to light up))).--Ioshus Rocchio 17:33, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hic[fontem recensere]

hi, sorry i've corrected your talkpage, sorry for have done this but , to say in there, it is used ablative case of hic,haec hoc, the hic you have used would be like, this

The adverb "hic" means "here, in this place." It is a different word than the pronoun "hic, haec, hoc" (which it is originally a case form of). —Myces Tiberinus 18:01, 6 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lieutenant[fontem recensere]

Yeah...I would check North and Hillard's Latin Prose Composition book for every military term you ever wanted to know ever. Legatus is a good approximation of the French?English term Lieutenant.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:21, 27 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malum[fontem recensere]

I hope you don't mind my contribution to your "Malum" page. D Ambulans 00:40, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well, you write "In autumne arbores mala florent." As far as I know, time when for seasons is expressed by the ablative without preposition. Qv. [1]

Then, malum, -i (n.) is the apple, whereas malus, -i (f.) is the apple tree. Cf. apple under [2]

Now it makes no difference because you made the correction already. But I checked about apposition and because I made a mistake I decided to make the change here so that I don't teach you something wrong.

The rule for apposition is as follows

  • Apposition - common nouns use the genitive:

vox voluptatis (meaning "the word pleasure") nomen regis ("the name of king") ars scribendi ("the art of writing")

  • proper nouns (geographical, titles) use the nominative: urbs Roma the city of Rome.

Below I changed what I wrote before so you can still use it for future reference.

Your sentence should read, "Autumno mali florent" or "Autumno arbores malorum florent". This because when you refer to the apple tree you use the nominative for tree and the genitive for apple, which means that "apple tree" is simply malus, arbor mali or mali arbor. Therefore, in the plural, it can read simply mali, malorum arbores or arbores malorum.

D Ambulans 02:38, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell (and the example above attests), "florent" is OK. D Ambulans 01:08, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If you want to say "In autum the apples of the trees bloom". Then you should say, "Autumno mala in arboribus florent" (the apples in the trees, etc.) or "Autumno mala in arboribus malis florent" (the apples in the apple trees, etc.). Or you can use "pomorum" for "fruits". Cf. the Vulgate "pomorum in arboribus" (ablative with preposition in) for "the fruit of the trees". D Ambulans 01:34, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vinum[fontem recensere]

I'm sure anything is worth merging. Lt me take a look.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:10, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Berliner Journal[fontem recensere]

I am no expert but I recently heard a story about that dialect. Appearently these two pages describe the same language/dialect:

I have added a "Seh aa" ;-) section to both pages. --Roland2 21:07, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I have read the whole article, however, the first sentence Des '''Berliner Journal''' is een [[Pennsilfaanisch-Hochdeitsch|hochdeitsche]] Woche-Zeiding geweest, [...] makes me think, that for them, "hochdeitsch" is the same as "Pennsilfaanisch-Hochdeitsch". I am confused, too. --Roland2 21:22, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and ask them to merge those two pages. ;-) --Roland2 21:28, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking what to answer ... meanwhile you've got a response on Disputatio:Berliner Journal. Surely you have choosen a hard topic. ;-) --Roland2 21:46, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for information you gave me and I will try to help you with translation, but not now, because here is after midnight and I am becoming sleepy. So, see you tomorrow. Gratias tibi ago pro ea, quae ad me detulisti, et tibi interpretanti opem ferre conabor; sed non nunc, quia vigiliam ad plus quam mediam noctem produxi, qua re somniculosus fio. Ergo, in crastinum. --Georgius Laminarius 22:32, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Georgius Alexandro salutem. Nuperrime id, quod pollicitus eram, perfeci. Alexander, vor einem Augenblick ich habe gemacht, was ich dir gestern versprochen habe. --Georgius Laminarius 18:15, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nichts zu danken. Libenter feci. --Georgius Laminarius 20:31, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deitsch/Hochdeitsch[fontem recensere]

Interesting ... however there seem to be some inconsistencies:

  • Deitsch: ISO 639-2(B) gem / ISO/DIS 639-3 pdc
  • Hochdeitsch: ISO 639-2(B) gem / ISO/DIS 639-3 gem

--Roland2 19:18, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

conflere?[fontem recensere]

Explain the last clause to me.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:28, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See if that is what you mean. It wasn't too bad, just a couple of mistakes. Unus for instance has to take a genitive plural, plural masculine on conati, etc.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:33, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:36, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes the notre dame site...much better for latin-english they are than english to latin. Get the new college, lewis and short, or harper-collins (lewis and short you can find online somewhere...try Perseus). Rex, regis is king, regem accusative singular.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:46, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there are several verbs for "to kill" in latin, which gives you an idea of their psychology of language...cf the myriad Inuit words for snow. It's about like this (alphabetically):
  • caedere, usually involves blood and wounds, and nefariousness, slaughter...cf english suffix cide
  • conficere, kill thoroughly but with less overtone
  • deicere, to fell or slay
  • enicare, kill by exhausting, wearing down
  • interficere, most prosaic literal translation of kill without overtones
  • interimere, end or do away with (very rare)
  • letare, poetic verb formed after noun letus
  • necare, kill by cruel means (very strong)
  • occidere, lay low, occisio comes from this (slaughter)
  • perficere, thoroughly kill
  • perimo, annihilate (very rare)

I'm sure I'm missing something. I was basically translating your english, "who tried to kill." After being persecuted, I would call the catholics on even war terms with the protestants, and therefore something like necare would be too much, needless to say, i used it in the next clause, where it's a bit more apt. Certainly my own stylistic preferrences in account as well.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:30, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clavus[fontem recensere]

Yes, that much was clear to me, but I still can't figure out what exactly you were trying to say. --Iustinus 22:19, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I will admit that abietarius threw me a bit, but it didn't take much thought to figure out what it meant. It looks like it's a fairly uncommon word, though. The problem is that Latin expressions for carpenter are a bit tricky: really the closest word is faber but that also means "blacksmith" and so on. I guess in Cicero the expression "faber tignarius" is used. There are a number of other words that may work (e.g. lignarius, materarius), but I've run out of steam researching them at the moment. I'm leaning towards in operis [or operibus or opere] tignariis: "in wood works"
What really confused me, though, was "exercere est": it's a stretch to use exercere' to mean "employ" in this context, and downright wrong to use it for "employed": "are employed" is a passive verb form.
I (or some other experienced Latinist) can come fix it soon, but for the moment I'm too burned out with other things. --Iustinus 00:28, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

to teach about[fontem recensere]

It depends on the context, of course, but e.g.:

Parthenius Vergilium linguam Graecam docuit
Pater me de vita sua docuit (here, though, certiorem fecit might work better)

Does that help? --Iustinus 00:28, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

imagines[fontem recensere]

Please upload images to Commons: only. Images uploaded to commons can be used here on the Latin wikipedia in exactly the same way as if they were uploaded here. And: we need to be very careful about copyright here. See Vicipaedia:Imago. Thanks! --UV 22:11, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if this was about the pirates poster upload, but if it was about a previous picture, I'd just like to repeat UV's admonition. Feel free to ask either of us how to upload a picture into commons, but please do not upload here. Thanks!--Ioshus Rocchio 15:11, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For two reasons:
  1. If you upload them at commons, not here, everyone working in any wikimedia project in any of it's 160odd languages can use it. ie the klingon wikinews, the russian wikisource, the french wikispecies, the german wikipedia etc. This is over 1000 projects, whereas, if you upload here, only we can use it. Consider it a bit of positive socialism to upload to commons; you are not just improving Vicipaedia by uploading in commons, you are helping all of Wikimedia.
  2. Any licensing issues, if such should arrive, will be the responsibility of the folks at commons. We will not possibly be held accountable.
Do these make sense?--Ioshus Rocchio 17:16, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as the hassle goes, it only takes a second to create an account, and you can click "remember me" on your handle/password, so you will be automatically logged in when you go to upload an image.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:17, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, reupload at Commons, and then tell me and I will delete the image here. Thanks for complying.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:34, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, looks like it still works. It probably was already uploaded at commons (if you saw it on another wikipedia, surely).--Ioshus Rocchio 17:47, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

terminus[fontem recensere]

termin.us N 2 1 NOM S M
terminus, termini N M [XXXBX]
boundary, limit, end; terminus;

Think terminal, like "Meet me in the airport at terminal 3."--Ioshus Rocchio 13:24, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gryllus[fontem recensere]

While you were writing me that question, I was working on answering it on disputatio:gryllus. Go look at what I wrote there, and see if it helps. --Iustinus 18:33, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is OK that you don't know what a noun clause is. All that term means is "a group of words that act together as a noun" some English examples might be "The big red hen" or "Anyone who uses a noun clause." Either of those phrases can be plugged into a sentence as a subject or object. A verb clause is similarly structured around a verb: "explodes", "throws it out the window", "uses a noun clause" (without the "anyone who"!). Quia should be followed by a verb clause: quia hoc de finestra eiecit, quia membro nominali (="noun clause") utitur. In less technical terminology, if you mean just plain "because" you can use quia but never if you mean "because of." It's funny how much trouble English speakers have with this concept when learning other languages (same thin e.g. in French parce que vs. à cause de, German weil vs. wegen), even though we dohave the same distinction in our language, really (you couldn't say: "Male crickets can chirp because their wings.")
That said, the fact that you don't know what an "ablative absolute" is is a little more disturbing. That is a very important concept of Latin grammar, and you really shoudl make sure that you know it if you are going to be writing here. See en:Latin Grammar#Ablative absolute for a decent summary.
It might be useful to remember that an absolute construction is verbiage that has no grammatical connection with the sentence in which it occurs. Consider this sentence: "He cut the tree down, the birds looking on in contempt." The boldfaced matter is an absolute phrase. You're likelier to find absolute constructions in modern English poetry than in modern English prose. In Latin prose, they pop up all over the place. IacobusAmor 20:37, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Iustinus 19:06, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammatically speaking that is exactly right. Well done! But there are semantic problems (a lot of the words don't quite mean what you want them to). Still, we can work those out later, and I'm pleased that you are learning the Ablative Absolute. --Iustinus 18:13, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luganum[fontem recensere]

Puto vetam collocationem immaginum in pagina Lugani meliorem esse? et tu?--Massimo Macconi 20:46, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

latinum classicum[fontem recensere]

Sin ex duobus delectum habes, verbum classicum praeferendum verbo latino novissimo ut arbitror. Alex1011 21:00, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

canis[fontem recensere]

Wolfram Alexandro salutem dicit Quae monenda sint, quaeris ex me. Haec e. g.: televisio: nonne genetivo opus est?
series animata (?) (= quae animam habet)
super: dicere velle videris: de (+ ablativo)
fuschiem: Quid est hoc??
nomine: melius qui appellatur / qui vocatur
compulsi: Cur pluralis?
de monstris: a monstris / e periculis
et si est: etsi (sine spatio) / sit (etsi + coniunctivo)
programmae: verbum Graecum; genetivus est programmatis, genus neutrum
I hope I could help you a little. usor:Bohmhammel 21.03 12 Kal. Sept. 2006

images again[fontem recensere]

Hi, I am aware of the fact that your recent experiences relating to image uploading at Commons did not all go well, but nevertheless I would like to repeat my request that you upload images there and not to the Latin wikipedia. See commons:Commons:First steps for an introduction.

Imago:Muriel.JPG can be uploaded to commons without any problems (choose licence {{Copyrighted free use}} for this). For a list of available licenses, see commons:Commons:Copyright tags.

Concerning Imago:Columcille.jpeg, well, I think there is a problem (see the image page) …

Greetings, --UV 00:05, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. I added some information to the image description page (well, now I noticed that en.wikipedia does not really specify the source of this image either …)
Concerning deletions: I cannot delete anything, only the administrators can do that.
I think it is a good idea not to try uploading the other image to commons ;-) Greetings, --UV 00:30, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
commons:Image:2columb1.jpg is great! There should not be any problem with that (and in my personal view, it just looks MUCH better than the other one) --UV 00:47, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dryococelus australis[fontem recensere]

Sure, just as long as I don't have to look at that illustration (I confess that I have an unusually great loathing of most insects... well, of most arthropods even.) --Iustinus 07:40, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'll just take your word for that, thanks ;) For the time being I've commented out the image at Dryocelus australis. I'm warning you just in case I forget to put it back before I save. --Iustinus 07:53, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've finished it. BTW, Alexanderr, if you need to ask questions regarding Latin, I am often reachable by IM. Send me an email for details. --Iustinus 08:30, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dubcat etc.[fontem recensere]

Please, can you provide categories and interwiki links for new pages? I fear that some uncategorized pages will be never found again. ;-) If providing such information is not possible, we have {{dubcat}} and {{Nexus carentes}} to indicate this. Thanks. --Roland (disp.) 21:01, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. :-) --Roland (disp.) 21:11, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Persin[fontem recensere]

Honestly I don't even know what the English word for Persin is: it doesn't seem to be in the Oxford English Dictionary. But I gather that it's just persin in english too. Anyway, the word seems to be derived from persea, which in Classical Latin refers to the tree Mimuops schimperi, but in scientific Latin refers to the Avocado genus. So the Latin should be Perseinum or perhaps Persinum. Usually with the suffix -in or -ine it is safest to assume a Latin -inum, but occasionally the gender might not be neuter (what is the gender in German? Das Persin?) --Iustinus 04:41, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, the -idae suffix shoudl be treated as a 1st declension plural: acc. -idas, gen. -idarum, dat/abl -idis. If I'm not mistaken, however, the singular would actually be -ides and decline as a Greek 1st declension masculine (thus you would say Gaviidae sunt boni not bonae). But I'm not 100% sure about that part. --Iustinus 03:08, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And once again I forgot to answer one of the questions you asked. "Tunnel" is cuniculus, which also means "rabbit"--rabbits dig tunnels, see. --Iustinus 22:43, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum: see here for more info on this word. If it doesn't work at first, reload it until it does. Were you planning on writing an article on tunnels, or did you just want to mention them in passing? It seems to me that although cuniculus is the more common form, we might want to describe tunnels at cuniculum and let cuniculus describe the animal. --Iustinus 22:56, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

names[fontem recensere]


then go to


But above all, if you don't know something, ASK! Instead of erroneously titling something, just ask... Btw, the search for both of those websites, the input of Giuseppe, the finding out of Joseph, the output of Josephus, and the mutation of Josephus to Iosephus to adhere to our policy on J took roughly 45 seconds.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:20, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gweek[fontem recensere]

Oy. Given that Gweek is located in Cornwall, there is a very good chance that ther'es a preexisting Latin name for it, but damned if I know what it is. --Iustinus 02:57, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, Myces has found a lead. We'll let you know what comes of it. --Iustinus 06:07, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the lead we had found, but it is not sufficient information. Why? Because vicus means "village; neighbourhood; block." Therefore we cannot put it s.v. vicus! The thing is, given that it means village, it's also impossible that it didn't have some longer name (the village of such-and-such), and that's what Myces is hoping he can find. If not, then I guess we'll have to go with something like Vicus (Cornuviorum). But maybe you can hold off until Myces gets back to us. He's very good at searching for this sort of thing. --Iustinus 22:43, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

closing[fontem recensere]

I've answered on my talk page. --Roland (disp.) 10:30, 27 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homosexualitas[fontem recensere]

Maybe you have not read that discussion: Disputatio:Homosexualitas. Please, if you want to add a specific point of view (POV), like the Catholic church has, put this under a heading of it's own and not into the definition section of the article. --Roland (disp.) 21:42, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh ... you have read it. It's not that it is added, it is how it is added and where. --Roland (disp.) 21:46, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know either why the footnote appears a second time ... a sign? I think we should really split up definitions and opinions, even if it might be lame. Of course it would be cooler to have some more sentences about what the Catholic church has to say about the topic. But we should be correct even when we have just a half sentence. Especially when it is a disputed topic. And I think the other link should be added as well. --Roland (disp.) 22:00, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid the introduction will likely have to go: I'll probably even be moving the article to a different lemma. I'm sorry to destroy your work, but inasmuch as it is only one sentence, it will be difficult to salvage. As far as the POV is concerned, I agree that the religious stuff should stay, and I may even expand it, but I will be adding stuff from Greco-Roman culture as well that you might not like. --Iustinus 06:20, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You asked for a translation of my opening paragraph. Rereading it, I can see why you had trouble: a lot of the sentences don't translate cleanly into English (nor, I would imagine, to German). Here is a rough translation of the current version:

Homosexuality is love of ones own sex: the desire of a male for sex with males, of a female with females. Through history different people have diffined the thing differently, but in Modern Western society, it is not only a question of sex acts, but also of the affection of lovers towards one another.

--Iustinus 19:45, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

religion, homosexuality, etc[fontem recensere]

Hatred is a bit strong. I do not hate religion, and somewhere deep inside I think I actually think it's a beautiful and righteous thing. I would say it's more abject terror, not so much of religions themselves, but of the blindness they cast in the eyes of their followers. From muhadeens, to kamikazes, to crusaders, to aztec priests, to not being able to buy whiskey on sundays, religions have always seemed to me to do much more bad than good. As for catholicism in especial...I was baptised myself. I left the church because of this issue, or rather because of their inconsistency on this issue. Again, not hatred, but rather fear. Personally, i'm no fan of homosexuality. I think reasnoably that men and women ought probably go together rather than separate, what for the continuation of the species and all. But I'm much more against censorship and oppression than I am against homosexuality. The catholic doctrine actively tries to label a group of people (which most of modern science agrees has no decision in the makeup of their sexual orientation) as "bad", and seeks by means of continually raising the issue to publicly humiliate and scare them into heterosexuality. I should also add that your use of quotations around the "sex" of homosexual "sex" is strongly indicative of your egocentric/POVed perspective as well. Even if homosexuality were wrong, what would it bother you? Just say no, or whatever...--Ioshus Rocchio 05:31, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

having found[fontem recensere]

This is an impossible construction, as Latin (much to the lament of neolatin authors) has no past active participle. So they usually construct this with the passive voice and specifically in an ablative absolute, which I think Iustinus explained to you a few days back, ie "re inventa" (the thing having been found). So for instance, take the sentence "Having cooked dinner, the cook called the guests." => "Cena cocta, coquus hospites convocavit." or dinner having been cooked, the cook called the guests." So to summarize, put the thing found in the ablative case, and the corresponding gender and case perfect passive particle from invenire to find, which is inventus-a-um. If I knew your specific sentence I might be able to help a little better.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:08, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cricetus[fontem recensere]

  • qui > quod: it agrees with mamale and rodens, which are neuter.
  • roditor rodens: the traditional Latin equivalent of Nagetiere is rodens. Cf. English "rodent." As for roditor, well, agent nouns are formed off of the fourth principle part of verbs, so rodo rodere rosi rosum > rosor. Cf. rostrum. Presumably biologists went with rodens rather than rosor because rosor is masculine, and they wanted a neuter. I think -tor is pretty rare with non-humans of any gender though.
  • yes, custodire (note form) is a real Latin word, but it means "keep" in the sense of "guard." It is not the best equivalent for "keep" in the sense of "keep a pet."
  • quasi > sicut: quasi is really more like "as if," whereas sicut is closer to "just like." Hamsters are kept like dogs, not as dogs.

Remember, just because a word is in the dictionary, or the vulgate bible, doesn't necessarily mean it's the word you want. --Iustinus 05:33, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If what I already said about roditor didn't convince you, I'm not sure what else I should say. Just remember, the past participle of rodo is rosum, not *roditum, therefore *roditor is incorrect (though judging by google it is a real Romanian word). Furthermore, if the word is already rodens, why reinvent the wheel? Surely I would not get away with using Nahendetiere in German. --Iustinus 06:12, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
roditor is not a Latin word (well, wait, it is the 2nd and 3rd person future passive imperative of rodo, meaning something like "thou shalt be gnawed"... um, OK, I'm sure that's a word that came up a lot). In Romanian it apparently means "fertile." --Iustinus 06:48, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"rod" is a slavic root meaning birth. Parents are "roditeli" in russian, for instance.--Ioshus (disp) 14:49, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all the work[fontem recensere]

After (?) all that mess about that one article, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you have been doing here. I am sorry that the tone of so much of the debate was so low - it is easy for people to become defensive when their belief system seems to be threatened, and although I avoided following all of the details, it seemed that your edits had that effect. It is a difficult thing to come to an objective presentation of an issue with so many strong and differing viewpoints! I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future. God bless. --Tbook 16:21, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with names[fontem recensere]

  • Snail" is cochlea, but keep in mind that that means a number of other things too (screw, spiral staircase, Archimedes' screw, and so on), so it's probably a good idea to include an otheruses text, linking to Cochlea (discretiva).
  • Sanday... that's a tough one. The islands themselves are Ebudae or Ebudes in Latin, and it is probably possible to find names for the major islands, but Sanday is so tiny, my hopes are not high.

--Iustinus 18:36, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Roman Catholic"[fontem recensere]

Alexanderr, I asked a very intelligent and scholarly-minded Catholic friend if the term "Roman Catholic" should be considered offensive, and if it originated as a protestant attempt to undercut the universality of the church. He sent me a long reply, of which the two most relevant paragraphs I hereby quote:

Yes, this is a common complaint, but it's hard to square with the Catholic Church's own use of similar expressions. For example, from the First Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith" (24 April 1870), ch. 1:
The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses ...


There is actually a subtle point of ecclesiastical theology at work here. The Catholic Church is, as the Church herself says, the one true Church spread throughout the earth. As such, she is a communion of what are called "particular churches", each of which is a full expression of the Church on earth within the bounds of its own territory, and the Church of Rome is just one of those particular churches. Historically and theologically, however, Rome has always been viewed (at least since Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70) as the "Mother Church" of all the other particular churches, and all other churches are required to maintain communion with her if they wish to be considered part of the universal Church; in fact the definition of "Catholic" has historically been "in communion with the Church of Rome". In that sense, then, all Catholics are by definition "Roman Catholics", no matter what they may actually call themselves.

In case my introduction didn't make it clear, I have a very high opinion of this guy. So if he says "Roman Catholic" is not generally offensive, and in fact is usually quite appropriate, then I am inclined to think he is right. Just thought this might be of interest to you. --Iustinus 06:38, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genus species[fontem recensere]

Since you're writing about animals and such, I thought I'd try to save you some potential embarassment. I've noticed some inconsistencies in the taxonomic names you're using. Here's the rule:

Always capitalize the Genus name.

Never capitalize the species name.

Homo sapiens always. In the middle of the sentence we're still Homo sapiens. If you choose to abbreviate it is H. sapiens.

That is the rule for taxonomic names in Latin. I got an F on an assignment in college for forgetting this bit of trivia, which is kind of embarassing since my degree is Biology/Latin. Sinister Petrus 01:42, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thank you. I'll be sure to remember that. :) Alexanderr 01:48, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And since Vicipaedia is in Latin, these terms should presumably be set in roman type, not italicized; they would be italicized if the context were in a language other than Latin. IacobusAmor 02:41, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree. --Iustinus 11:34, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consentio Iustino.--Ioshus (disp) 20:07, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should presumably be however Linnaeus & Co. did it when they were deploying Latin genus-names in the middle of Latin text. It wouldn't surprise me if they italicized such terms (as the typographical distinction could give clarity to the argument), but has someone checked? IacobusAmor 20:12, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a PDF copy of a couple volumes of Systema Naturae (ed. 1766) and he doesn't italicize names (though he italicizes body parts very often). What he does is capitalize Nouns and decapitalize adjectives—thus ‘Dromedarius’ and ‘bactrianus’ are species of ‘Camelus,’ thus phrases like: "vide exempla de Cane domestico, Cervo Tarando, Mure Porcello, Sue Scrofa, Ove Ariete in Amoen. Academ. proposita." ("Never capitalize the species name" appears to be a later rule—Linnaeus doesn't use it, and I know even as late as 1913 in Webster's they are capitalized pretty frequently.) Image of text is [5], where the names are declined and capitalized; this is similar to the convention used on the English Wikipedia, where technical English names of creatures are capitalized, e.g. Red Wolf, and I suggest we do similar; for a long time I have maintained that these names are intended to be ordinary if technical Latin. —11:05, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
1.Hortus Third: A Concise* Dictionary of Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada (NY: Macmillan, 1976) says: "It is now recommended that all specific epithets commence with a lower case letter, but the practice of capitalizing the first letter of epithets derived from names of persons, former generic names, and common (non-Latin) names is still permitted and is followed in Hortus Third as a guide to those who wish to continue the practice" (p. xii).
2. In articles headed in Latin, Hortus Third sets common English names in small caps; in articles headed in English, it lowercases them (e.g., pineapple). It capitalizes all names of cultivars and puts them in single quotes (e.g., of the pineapples, 'Smooth Cayenne' and 'Red Spanish'). That seems appropriate, since the names of cultivars are brand names of sorts, used in marketing. Have red wolves been similarly patented, as it were? Is there a good reason to capitalize Latin terms for common species? The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary doesn't list red wolf, but it lowercases red fox, red salmon, red spruce, and similar terms.
3. Re: "these names are intended to be ordinary if technical Latin." That's why I suggested not italicizing them in Latin contexts, though a good counterargument is that italicizing them improves their readability.
4.*"Concise": ha! It has 1,290 big pages in small type, set in double columns with ubiquitous abbreviations! IacobusAmor 12:42, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys, this issue needs to be dealt with. But can we find a better place than poor Alexanderr's disputatio page to discuss it? ;) --Iustinus 17:06, 9 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry Iustinus. It's fine by me if someone wants to discuss on my talk page. Alexanderr 00:23, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

intervici nexus[fontem recensere]

Also, could you please add interwiki links to the latin page from the page you translate. I have noticed on several articles that the corresponding english/deutsch pages do not link to here. Of course, only do this after we iron out the correct title, but please remember to do it, don't trust it all to bots.--Ioshus (disp) 20:06, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear...[fontem recensere]

Generally when people write letters in Latin, they still use the Ancient Roman formulas, rather than translations of modern ones. The opening formula goes like this:

  1. The name of the letter writer in the nominative.
  2. The name of the addressee in the dative
  3. The phrase salutem plurimam dicit (or some abreviation thereof).

Thus, if I wrote you a letter, the basic opening would be:

Iustinus Alexandro salutem plurimam dicit

Literally "Justin speaks many greetings to Alexander." Now, this can vary. There are two basic ways that it varies:

  1. Epthets and other comments are very frequently added to one or both names, especially if one wants to flatter the recipient: Iustinus philosophiae magister Alexandro suo strenuissimo...
  2. The finally greeting can be shortened, commonly to one of the following: s.p.d., salutem, sal., s.

To end a letter, one typically need say nothing more than vale. Why? Well, because you already gave your name at the top of the letter! Another common ending is data (or datae or dabat) with the date.
It is possible that Christians in ancient times used different formulas, I don't know. If so, the obvious place to look would be the Vulgate translations of Paul's letters. In the middle ages, there were almost certainly other formulas. But I don't know anything about these things. --Iustinus 01:37, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inner Hebrides[fontem recensere]

As I mentioned above, the Hebrides are Ebudes or Ebudae (or Heb-). I'm having a little trouble getting references, but I believe Pliny uses the spelling Ebudae. As for "inner"... well I can only guess what they might have been called in genuine Latin works (I don't think the inner/outer distinction is ever mentioned in ancient sources though), but I might suggest Citeriores: in the Ancient World, the Romans often subdivided locations into ulterior ("over there, on the other side") and citerior ("on this side") sections. --Iustinus 17:22, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-ing[fontem recensere]

Please see my talk page. --Roland (disp.) 21:18, 12 Septembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moais[fontem recensere]

Recognare per terram totam, in cunctis libris de motione hominium ad locationes alienas depinxunt statuae.

christmas[fontem recensere]

Not at all. Nativitas Christi or Festum nativitatis Christi. The way you say merry christmas is "Festum natalem Christi!"--Ioshus (disp) 02:58, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, christmissalis is no good. You might try arbor natalis or arbor nativitatis. I don't have a copy of the Tunberg "Quomodo Invidiosulus Nomine Grinchus Christi Natalem Abrogaverit" but I'm sure that has a coinage.--Ioshus (disp) 03:29, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comments at Disputatio Usoris:Alexanderr/Christmas Tree‎ (maybe I should move those here). Checking Grinculus is a good idea, but I don't own one (for reasons too stupid to go into). I think David Morgan might discuss this in his notes (beyond what I said elsewhere). --Iustinus 04:20, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. What Ioshus said. Also, my dictionary offers Christi natalium [sic] festum. IacobusAmor 04:57, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. For a translation of "Christmas comes but once a year," my dictionary offers Semel in anno ridet Apollo ! IacobusAmor 04:57, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. In "Grinch": to palatalize the c (as "ch"), a Latin original would have to have been Grince- or Grinci-, so Grinceus or Grincius and Grinceulus or Grinciulus would be more plausible, even if a modern author has published a translation with Grinculus in it. Over time (as we know the phonology of Romance languages to have developed), we couldn't get "Grinch" from Grinculus: we'd get Grink. (Unless maybe something weird happened to the word in Anglo-Saxon?) IacobusAmor 04:57, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

latin[fontem recensere]

Your latin is getting much better, Alexanderr, but it is sill not great. Some things to think about:

  1. First and foremost...CFA, not USA or CFU!!!
  2. Deponent verbs: If you are using a plural verb, ie "secutus sunt" then your participle NEEDS to be plural, ie "secuti sunt".
  3. Please use a {{tiro}} or a {{reddenda}}. It is not to make you feel bad about your latin, but to make wayward readers aware of the fact that this is not proper latin.

Thanks, and continue to feel free to ask for help.--Ioshus (disp) 14:52, 25 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Res Publica Cispadana[fontem recensere]

When creating a page, please try to link to this page from an other page. Otherwise it will become a pagina orbata and will be listed on Specialis:Lonelypages. Thanks. --Rolandus 09:19, 27 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, sometimes it is hard to find a good parent page to link from. It might be easier if we had 1.000.000 pages. ;-) However, in that case just go up the logical tree of pages and you'll find a country or religio or historia or something like this. I think it is better to have the "best link" possible than no link. For your examples Italia and Maria might be ok. --Rolandus 01:22, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medaglia miracolosa[fontem recensere]

mein Italienich/Latein Wörterbuch gibt für Medaglia:numisma und für miracolosa (wie du gechriben hast) mirabilis. Ciao und ein Gutes Neujahr 2007! --Massimo Macconi 06:57, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

has been -ing[fontem recensere]

Imperfect tense...--Ioshus (disp) 13:40, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quod/indirect discourse[fontem recensere]

I forget which article, one of your latest, had an incorectusage of the word quod. Quod only means "that" as a relative pronoun. E.g, "the thing that I saw". It does not mean "that" in the sense "i think that it is day". This is where you want ut. Or in some cases you want to use what's called oblique or indirect discourse. This is where you put the new subject into the accusative and the verbs in the infinitive. Let me give some examples:

  1. I think that it is day =/= puto quod est dies
  1. puto quod est dies = i wonder what day it is
  1. i think that it is day = puto ut est dies OR puto esse diem.

I wish I could explain this a little better. I'm sure you can find examples in any text.--Ioshus (disp) 22:41, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn't quite right. In classical Latin the correct syntax is puto esse diem. In Biblical Latin it woudl be puto quia dies est, and this construction is mimicked in some Christian authors, but in general (even among later Christians) it is considered an undesirable construction, except in bible quotes. I wouldn't be surprised to see quod in some similar contexts, but, in fact, in this sentence one cannot possibly use ut! I also have my doubts that puto quod est dies could be forced to mean dubito quid sit dies.
But in sum, Alexanderr, when you want to translate an English phrase of the form "That SUBJECT PREDICATE", you will almost always need to use the "accusative infinitave construction." That is, the subject of the clause turns into an accusative (!), and the verb turns into an infinitive. E.g. "I think that it is a good day," will be puto diem esse bonum. It may seem strange at first, but compare the English form "I think it to be a good day." --Iustinus 22:57, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was using my equals signs quite liberally =]. Twas a brief explanation, hence the encouragement to read up in a text. But good lord, remind me never to read biblical latin then, that's atrocious.--Ioshus (disp) 04:29, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, it just sounds terrible. But of course the vulgate was meant to appeal to the masses, who apparently weren't so into the acc-inf construction. We think of the bible as being in haughtily archaic dialect, and expect it to be that way in every language, but in fact the Latin is extremely colloquial. --Iustinus 04:42, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please contact me via e-mail[fontem recensere]

Alexanderr, I wanted to send you an e-mail through "Mittere cursum publicum electronicum huic usori" but you do not seem to have enabled this feature in your preferences.

Please send me an e-mail at Specialis:Emailuser/UV so that I can contact you. Greetings, --UV 23:38, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petitio magistratus[fontem recensere]

I apologise for not voting, Alexanderr. Cowardly, perhaps. I admire you very much for wanting to know Latin and going ahead although there's no classes available to you -- it takes real dedication and enthusiasm to do that. One thing that worried me was your remark that you had Wheelock but hadn't actually read him yet. At least, that was what I understood you to say -- forgive me if I misunderstood. I would say, to write Latin confidently, a big issue is that one needs to know why the endings on each word are the way they are. If you know that, you know how to make a sentence mean what you want. The way to be sure of it would be to work through at least, say, the first half of a manual such as Wheelock (there are alternatives to Wheelock of course) -- doing every exercise, and making sure, when you check the results, that you understand why a particular answer was wrong. It's hard work, but there's no way round it that I've discovered. If, in that way, you could be more sure of writing Latin that others would understand, then (for what it's worth) I'd be the first to vote for you next time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew, I'll definitely read Wheelock's latin, however I think I know most of the cases (apart from the locative case, which I don't really get). And I'm glad that you'll vote for me next time (providing of course that there is a next time). Alexanderr 18:32, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Locative case means "place where you are". "In Washington, DC.", "at home", "in Italy", etc...--Ioshus (disp) 06:24, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...[fontem recensere]

It is extremely hard to understand you. Why have you chosen the latin wikipedia to spread your doctrine? I have referred to your views as "terrified". I sincerely believe this. Why do these images scare you so much? People have been having sex for 60thousand plus years (I'm sorry if your book does not account for the possibility that people have been around this long), and it was only very recently that anyone had a problem with that fact. Why does it scare you so much? Further, dude, 2 people have called your view on this ridiculous, and 3 people have voted against hiding in this image. As usual it is you against many, being obstinate, and choosing to impart your radical pov on informational material. I fear your influence, sir, truly. If this wikipedia is to be what your vision is, I am not sure I want to be a part of it.--Ioshus (disp) 06:22, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]