Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby/Tabularium 2

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rolandus Burrage Dixon[fontem recensere]

I thought he might catch your eye! However, the bit about his work on the peace commission came straight from en:, which you may want to correct. It says: "He was [a] . . . member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace (1916-18) in Paris." IacobusAmor 20:30, 29 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might, but I get a bit tired of correcting en:wiki. Some similar pages will say "Versailles" instead of Paris, which is even more of a howler. It's not just wikipedia: the standard (US) biography of Ho Chi Minh describes him delivering copies of his Vietnamese "Claims" along the corridors at Versailles; there would have been no one there, and he wasn't the fellow to waste a railway ticket ...
You can see from already-linked pages on the Inquisitio (1917-1918), the Commissio ... and the Deliberatio ... where people actually were at what date. I have not heard that Dixon went to Paris in 1919: I take it the date in the article is therefore correct and he was one of the many who worked in the Inquisition up to 1918 but didn't make the transatlantic trip. However, this would want to be confirmed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New World Encyclopedia (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Roland_B._Dixon), which I hadn't checked before and seems to have a better article on him than Wikipedia, says: "In 1918, he became a member of the House Commission, which collected reports on the political conditions in Central Asia. Dixon spent several years with the commission, negotiating peace in Asia." Nothing about Paris! Maybe this passage has useful clues for you. I'll fix our text when I find time, but meanwhile anybody is free to have a go at it. IacobusAmor 11:32, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds very dubious, because "Colonel" House fell from favour in April 1919 (and Wilson, whose protégé he had been, was mentally inactive after September 1920 and out of power in March 1921). Therefore, if I understand correctly, I don't at present believe in this "House Commission" (except as the Commissio Americana ad Pacem Componendam (1919) whose history we know) and I certainly don't believe any such thing would have continued for several years after 1918. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mystery deepens! Note that Dixon doesn't appear among the men in the photo of your article. ¶ Do we have an insertable sign that questions an assertion of fact? I've been assuming that "dubsig" should be used only for dubious Latinizations (or generally the forms of words), but maybe it has broader uses? ¶ In America, official commissions, committees, etc. are often popularly called by the name of their chair, so "the Smith Commission" could be a way of referring to the President's Commission on the Blablabla Incident, and "the House Commission" could be a perfectly ordinary phrase for the group in question. IacobusAmor 12:31, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure -- the dubious assertion in the "New World Encyclopedia" was that the commission continued for several years after 1918.
All such errors are typical of tertiary sources, i.e. encyclopedias, which is why one never relies on them! In this case I think the doubt is manageable. The House group, under one or other name, existed 1917-1919 (it cannot have existed in 1916 because the US hadn't got involved in the war at that time; it ceased to exist by 1920 when the last treaty was signed). Everyone says Dixon was in the House group at a certain period; Wikipedia says he was in it 1916-1918; he isn't in the 1919 photo, I hadn't heard his name as a Paris participant in 1919, and that all fits. Conclusion: he was probably in it 1917-1918, and on this tiny issue en:wiki scores about 50/100, "New World Encyclopedia" scores about 30/100. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the real story (or something much closer to the real story than the wikipedias have), in his obituary in the American Anthropologist (written by Tozzer & Kroeber): "In 1918 Dixon became a member of the House Commission, called the “Inquiry,” and collected reports on the political conditions in Central Asia. In December of the next year he sailed for France with the American Commission to Negotiate Peace and remained in Paris until May." So he served on the commission from 1918 at least to 1920, and was in Paris from about December 1919 to May 1920. Unless of course even people who knew him and had access to (some of) his private & official papers erred! IacobusAmor 13:56, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good evidence: his absence from the photo means nothing, of course. Maybe it was his day off. But your "1920" is wrong, based on a misunderstanding by the obituarist or the copy-editor: the words "of the next year" ought not to be there. In fact they all sailed to Paris in December 1918, and they (nearly all) remained in Paris until May 1919. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "of the next year" is right and 1918 is wrong (and should be 1917). IacobusAmor 14:48, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very neat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the twelfth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Conference of the Powers assembled in Paris for its first plenary session on 18 January 1919, and its Supreme Council met for the last time on 21 January 1920, but "Even then the work of the peace settlement was incomplete." The article goes on & on & on, in excruciating detail. IacobusAmor 14:04, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that agrees with my timetable. Very few if any of the "Commission" remained after May 1919; but he may have been among the few, if he was dealing with Asia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iosephus Song Sui-Wang[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, in historia episcopi Jordan te vidi. Gratias ago! Etiam in haec nova re ire potes?

Rex Momo 18:57, 31 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subcategories for scotland[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, i was just beginning to create subcategories for scottish scientists - (Categoria:Zoologi Scotiae), like the english wiki does, i discovered that you removed Categoria:Geologi Scotiae, was this because of bad latin? Hendricus 10:03, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA, Sardou, etc.[fontem recensere]

Ciao I give you answer in my discussion page. Thank you and Happy Easter--Massimo Macconi 12:39, 10 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew![fontem recensere]

My pages are always very short, but I prefer to write little than to write a lot with a lot of misstakes--Massimo Macconi 14:36, 10 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diarium, radiophonia et televisio sunt ...[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, Neander told me you might be the right person for questions about modern words in Latin. I'm looking for a translation of "(mass) media" (simple:mass media) and "media studies" (simple:media studies). Right now, radiophonia and televisio are parts of the Categoria:Technologia, while diarium is part of the categories "Opera" and "Litterae". Greetings from Berolinum --Kolja21 18:31, 13 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kolja, I am going to copy your question to the Vicipaedia:Taberna because I am sure that others, also, will have opinions on this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:36, 13 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds great. --Kolja21 23:01, 13 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diodotus[fontem recensere]

Thank you! Indeed, I still have some bugs in my work; mistakes that I have made more than once. But everyone on here has been extremely supportive and constructive, and I will continue to sharpen my skills with all of your help! How do you feel about my Latin in general? Are there any notable overall corrections to be made in my style? CeleritasSoni 19:25, 16 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oranius Ioannes Tempesta[fontem recensere]

Salut, mon chér ami. Merci pour Nik NOvecento. J'ai laissée cette autre page en custorire ça fait long temp, mais pas de personne l'ont corrigée. Est ce que peut tu regarder se ça va?

Merci et a bientôt

Rex Momo 17:22, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaestio de categoriis[fontem recensere]

Andrew, just wondering why you're changing the category of "International organizations" (Organizationes inter civitates) to "Organizations of states" (Societates civitatum). Plenty of international organizations (e.g., the Red Cross) aren't run by the governments of states. Did my "inter civitates" for "international" throw you off? Is there another & better option? ¶ Otherwise, I'm fine with changing (the modern monstrosity) organizatio to (the classical) societas. IacobusAmor 12:55, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have two categories: Categoria:Societates internationales and Categoria:Societates civitatum. I think they cover it, don't they? But, if not, suggest a third. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that. I was avoiding the adjective internationalis because to Cicero (if Cassell's is to be belived) it would have implied something having to do with barbaric & uncivilized tribes (nationes). IacobusAmor 13:03, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's us today, I guess :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia[fontem recensere]

Thanks for helping to clear up the mess! For the sake both of clarity and of diplomacy, favouring none of the Macedonias above the others, I thought it best that Macedonia should become a disambiguation page, as it now is. --Fabullus 11:55, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best choice, I'm sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Your welcome is very kind, and I appreciate the helpful information. I hope that I can contribute to Vicipaedia without making too many errors!--Pebbles 17:02, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

slovene wiki[fontem recensere]

Hey Andrew. I noticed you created Vicipaedia Slovenica. I was just curious why you chose to make this particular page. Do you have some sort of Slovenian affiliation? You can see from my babel template (I will happily translate for you if you wish) that I have an affiliation. Just curious, no big question. Cheers. --Ioscius (disp) 01:37, 11 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithmus - algoritmus - algorismus[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, I see you redirected Algorismus to Algorithmus (the method) instead of Algoritmus (the man). However, I was just contemplating moving Algoritmus (the man) to Algorismus, which seems to be the oldest attested Latin name of the man. But perhaps you can think of a better way to distinguish between the two. These are the facts as I know them:

  • The man (al-Khwarizmi) is called in Latin Algorismus, Algoritmus and many other variants. Algorithmus (with th) does not seem to be among them.
  • The method is called in Latin algorismus, algoritmus but also in more recent publications algorithmus.

It seemed to me that we might use the unambiguous and modern-sounding algorithmus for en:algorithm, a concept that is still very much in use, and the oldest attested form, Algorismus, for the historical figure. What say you? --Fabullus 11:37, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right, Fabulle. I will delete Algorismus for the present, and you can place al-Khwarizmi where you think best! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Greenwood[fontem recensere]

Scisne Margaretam Greenwoodem-Whalenem? Magistra mei est. Irishguy4m 23:49, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bisbona[fontem recensere]

Multas gratias tibi ago! De pagina "Bisbona"...bene speremus!:) --MarcusXC 17:33, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Come si usano i template in Vicipaedia? --MarcusXC 19:23, 2 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias! --MarcusXC 14:09, 5 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veniam peto, bene non intellegi[fontem recensere]

Ave, Andrew! Veniam tibi peto. Non intellegi notae "UV" significationem et errorem esse putabam quia imaginem semper minorem inveniebam: ehu, nondum Vicipaediae Latinae peritissimus sum. Me excuso et tibi ago gratias de communicatione in pagina disputationis mea. Ave atque vale.--Alexander Gelsumis 19:40, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credo optimam esse, ago gratias propter patientiam tuam. Si dubia aut impedimenta habebo in pagina creanda aut in imagine addenda, non haesitans auxilium a te petam. Vale.--Alexander Gelsumis 16:33, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edson Damian[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, et tibi gratias ago causa istae paginae. Can you watch again, a little, please? I put another new and a picture. Can you watch if all is good. Tibi semper gratias ago

Rex Momo 09:48, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to say "Novel" in Latin[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, I'm writing a Vici page about Gabriele D'Annunzio, one of my favourite writers. But how can I say "novel"? I have some ideas, like "Liber longior" or "Implicatior liber" but I hope you can help me. Thank you.--Alexander Gelsumis 17:08, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "novel" we usually say "mythistoria", Alexandre. Good! I look forward to reading the page! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patres Albi[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habeas? Can you watch a little this page, if I have written something wrong in my not good Latin?

Tibi semper gratias ago

Rex Momo 09:19, 5 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Régime de Vichy"[fontem recensere]

De adjectivo censui. De nomine tamen adhuc incertus sum : "respublica", ut dixi, patenter non decet et "Francia" absurdior est, sed dubito an "regimen" facile intellegatur. Quid tibi videtur ? ThbdGrrd 19:52, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcolithicum[fontem recensere]

Vale Andrea, paginam Aetas Aenea movisti ad Chalcolithicum. In pagina tamen Aetas Lapidea distinguitur inter Aetas Cuprea (chalcolithicum) et Aetas Aenea. --Fabullus 04:23, 17 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago, mi Fabulle. Corrigi errorem (cui ego contribueram!). Habui duas paginas, Aetas Aenea (eam nuper movi) et Aenea aetas. Nunc, fortasse, bene est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:48, 17 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Request[fontem recensere]

Ad Vicipaedia:Tabernam movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category for translators?[fontem recensere]

Does Vicipaedia have a category for translators from Latin? I see that Haroldus Norse translated poems by Catullus (at least numbers 15, 16, 21, 33, 55, 81, 100) into English verse. Also Italian (or, rather, Romanesco)? He translated some poems by Belli too. IacobusAmor 12:40, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have Categoria:Interpretes Latino-Anglici! At present we've developed these language-pair categories only for Latin, but it could in the future be done for other language pairs too. Meanwhile, to take account of Norse's translations from Italian, you can also put him at Categoria:Interpretes textuum Italianorum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and done. Thanks! IacobusAmor 13:36, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petens Ammonitum[fontem recensere]

Hey Andrew, I have a quick question. I just began working on Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum, and got immediately stuck (of course) haha. In the first sentence it reads, "in aedibus Gestationis Lugustrorum", which is supposed to translate "In the house of Privet Drive"....I get "gestatio" as bearing/wearing (Noun), which makes no sense. Is this a common neo-latinization for Drive/Way/Road? Or can you at least put some sense into it for me? It would be greatly appreciated! (P.S. Casu primo posui hoc in disputatione de "Andrea Dalby"! Ha!) CeleritasSoni 00:47, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what is perhaps an even stranger developement...why do I keep switching languages? haha too late for this =) CeleritasSoni 06:02, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why me, CeleritasSoni? What do I know about Harry Potter?!? No, I can't make any sense of that. Since some of the Harry Potter books exist in Latin, the best way is to work from the names used in the printed translations. Don't know if that helps in this case ... Good luck! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checked a dictionary; per L&S, gestatio can mean 'drive' in the sense of going about in a vehicle and in the sense of the place one does so. —Mucius Tever 15:43, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see! Thanks, Myces. It's true, then: a "drive" (as a street name) is so called, historically, as a place in which one would drive a carriage. However, I can't help thinking that not many will understand the word "gestatio" if used as a street name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:55, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is the name of the place. I don't know if there would be any words better suited to actually translate 'Drive' as opposed to other types of street. —Mucius Tever 21:58, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume it's Via. If this is the first Potter book, I actually own a copy, but I've searched & searched and haven't found it! If it turns up, I'll let you know. IacobusAmor 19:54, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found which? 'in aedibus Gestationis Ligustrorum' is on page 1, first sentence. —Mucius Tever 21:58, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see: it's the other way round! Well, maybe it's a misleading translation, as there's no significant conceptual difference among a drive and a street and a way: you can drive on any of them, and you can have an address on any of them, and each of them can be straight or curvy, wide or narrow. Whether a real-estate developer or a surveyor calls a path a drive or a street or a way may depend merely on whim. Both a street and a drive may be a narrow, winding road, and both may be as broad & straight as broad & straight can be. IacobusAmor 22:37, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, it might be misleading in the way that the surname 'Baker' is misleading when its bearers aren't pistores. In many places labels like "drive", "boulevard", "way", etc. are just part of the name of the street and don't necessarily describe its properties. The same town might even use them to have a Privet Drive, a Privet Lane, and a Privet Avenue all at once, so they can't usually be ignored or remapped. —Mucius Tever 23:27, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, on the left you see a drive, and on the right a street. IacobusAmor 00:09, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Shore Drive.jpg
Misasa Onsen Street01.jpg
Gestatio for drive in the sense of a street for driving appears to be decidedly non-classical. As far as I know this neologism was invented by Peter Needham. The closest classical meaning is "a promenade, a place where one is carried to take the air". In general, it means "a bearing, a carrying, a being carried about". I would have just translated it as a "via" or if I really felt compelled to be more specific I would have just used "via autocinetica". However, as a Proper Name, rather than a mere substantive, I really can't dispute it.--Rafaelgarcia 00:33, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those are just L&S's glosses, and they are working with a slightly different language than we are. (They give "bear, carry" and "be carried" as their major glosses for 'veho', too; a modern dictionary—Traupman's—s.v. gestatio has "ride (on horseback, in litter, in vehicle); drive (place); walk (place)".) I googled one translation of the first example L&S cite and 'gestatio' is translated by all of 'a ring, for taking the air on horſeback". —Mucius Tever 13:50, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Cassell's doesn't have gestatio ; and for the verb gesto (a frequentative of gero), it gives the basic sense as 'to carry, bear about' and a second sense as 'to ride about'. IacobusAmor 14:05, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To put it in context, just remember what Gestatio means in english and romance languages: gestation!--Rafaelgarcia 11:53, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this is only one of Peter Needham's to my view misguided decisions. These include 'birotula automataria' for Hagrid's gigantic motorbike, 'Hermione' declined according to the third instead of first declension, and unattested 'Nicolas (indecl.) Flamel(us)' for attested 'Nicolaus Flamellus', to mention just a few that I happen to remember. --Fabullus 05:13, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Hermione' gets me too, ever since I found out it was a Greek name. I'm sure I've mentioned my biggest peeve, where the basiliscus in the second book is everywhere a basilicus. —Mucius Tever 13:50, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The misspelling basilicus could emanate from the press (typesetter, copyeditor, proofreader), rather than the translator, and a diminutive form for a gigantic motorbike might have ironic value. Hermione, though, if it has an attested history in the first declension, probably shouldn't wantonly jump to the third! IacobusAmor 14:05, 22 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thanks for catching the error on exstinctus before it led to something.--Rafaelgarcia 11:54, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOS !!![fontem recensere]

Vale Andreas carissime, quomodo te habeas? Necessito adiutum tuum, si potes: je cherche, urgentement, le discours de Obama à L'Université de Notre Dame.... en Français.

Je l'ai trouvé seullement en Anglais, mais j'aurai besoin aussi en Français. Est ce que tu peut m'aider le trouver?

Tibi sempre gratias ago causa adiutorum tuorum

Rex Momo 12:00, 26 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movere titulum: a "Pugna navalis apud Trafalgar (1815)" ad "Pugna avalis apud Trafalgar (1805)"[fontem recensere]

Ave, Andrew!

Errorem feci in hac pagina scribenda: nam scripsi "1815" pro "1805" sed nescio titulum redirigere. Potesne me adiuvare? Gratias ago.--Alexander Gelsumis 16:00, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emendationem a te factam vidi et eam magni facio. Ave atque vale,--Alexander Gelsumis 16:07, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thanks, Andrew, for fixing the title of Electricitas so speedily. (I'll go to Wikipedia now and add a link there, so as to help our score on the ratings for the 1000 pages.) Now we have another problem: the article's nexus for Electrum wrongly redirects to Electron—which amber most certainly is not! If electrum really can mean electron, we need a disambiguation page, since Vicipaedia should surely allow for the possibility of having an article on amber! IacobusAmor 14:39, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe remember, Iacobe, that you can deal with this yourself. Type "electrum" in the search box. When you get to "Electron", click on the little word "electrum" under the title. Now click on edit. Create your discretiva page. Eurekas! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:57, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a discretiva page, see : Electron (discretiva), where amber is called succinum--Rafaelgarcia 15:05, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Then I guess the redirect at Electrum could be edited to point to Electron (discretiva). Is that best? Succinum is surely the right Latin word for "amber". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. Now you're confusing me. The earliest source for succinum in Ainsworth's & Cassell's is Pliny, but electrum goes back to Vergil & Ovid; so, apparently being earlier, shouldn't electrum take precedence (even if it does come from Greek)? The form of succinum preferred in Cassell's is sūcĭnum, and that seems reasonable, if (as Cassell's says) the word derives from sucus. IacobusAmor 18:03, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Iacobus. I think the original page authors like Pliny were motivated by the fact that the word Electrum is used for so many contradictory things: in latin just about any material that is amber colored is called electrum: gold/silver alloys as well as amber.
Under electrum Lewis and Short give :"ēlectrum, i, n., = ἤλεκτρον.I Amber (pure Lat. succinum), Plin. 37, 2, 11, § 31; Ov. M. 15, 316. — Plur., Verg. E. 8, 54. — " but under succinum they redirect to sucinum where they state :"sūcĭnum (succ-), i, n. sucus, I amber, usu. called electrum, Plin. 37, 2, 11, § 30; Mart. 3, 65, 5; 5, 37, 11; Juv. 6, 573 al."
So in summary, the proper name seems to be held to be sucinum or succinum with the more popular common name being the ambiguous electrum.--Rafaelgarcia 18:24, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy this to Disputatio:Succinum: let's continue there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:39, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna[fontem recensere]

Iustinus Andreae diu absense spd,

Habeo, Andrea, domini André de flora librum, sed non de fauna. Scisne num exstiterit apud antiquos piscis (non serpens) nomine "aspis"?

Valere te iubet Iustinus 05:52, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago! Sed Pennatula rubra ...? Num sea pen? Si ita est, crux mea nondum resolvitur. Malum! --Iustinus 22:29, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paginas meas a te visas esse[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew,

I am really honoured that you found 'my' pages interesting enough to look them over one by one the day before yesterday, and that you found their latinity palatable enough to be rated L1! To be honest I have my doubts about the latinity of Terra Media (which I hope now to have improved), and Premislia (which still needs a careful check). You have also removed the "stipula"-template from many of my pages. Could you explain to me when a 'stipula' becomes a 'normal page'? Some of my pages are still extremely short, and could easily be expanded by someone more knowledgeable than myself. I feel especially honoured by your inclusion of some of 'my' pages in the list at Usor:Andrew Dalby/Paginae (aliorum) notabiles! By the way, Atropates is now included twice, and Media is a disambiguation page. Thanks and best wishes, --Fabullus 11:06, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?[fontem recensere]

Hi, do you know where I can place a request for deletion of my user page (Usor:Chaemera)? I've been searching for the appropriate page, but I can't find it. Much obliged. «Chaemera»™ 18:36, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found out you're a admin too, can you please be so kind as to delete my userpage for me? Thanks in advance. «Chaemera»™ 21:43, 7 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circumequitatus[fontem recensere]

Verbum Circumequito -are constat hic. Putasne circumequitatus validum esse? (de chilense Rodeo loquor).

Ita, "circumequito" vidi. Non impossibile est quemdam, in lingua Latina hodierna, verbo "circumequitatus" usum esse. Si id speramus, possumus in pagina Chilia reinstituere ... Id nunc feci! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:20, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodeo, secundum MWCD, est "a public performance [ergo, ludus?] featuring bronco riding, calf roping, steer wrestling, and Brahma bull riding." Only one of those (four) activities features horses, and the activities of roping & wrestling don't seem to feature riding. A problematic term! IacobusAmor 17:25, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodeo Chilensis non est sicut Rodeo Americae Septentrionalis. Vide: es:Rodeo chileno aut en:Chilean rodeo. Rodeo Chilensis does feature riding and in circles Cato censor 18:58, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that Vicipaedia should use a single word for 'rodeo', and that circumequitatus should be it; but then how does that fit the sense of 'rodeo' as quoted from a North American dictionary above? If one word is wanted, it should be capable of conveying both senses. Ludi animalium tractatorum 'games of the handling of animals' could accommodate both senses (and more!), but it's a bit long and nonspecific. IacobusAmor 14:02, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Vandalica Slavica[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, could you please review this article I created? Thank you very much. El Mexicano 18:47, 12 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media[fontem recensere]

Gratias iterum iterumque! Ergo tu consentias Media imprimis esse regio Asiae, deinde tantum aliae Mediae. --Fabullus 11:44, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:LHH[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew. Thanks for the better wording. I adapted it from articles that link to LHH. Actually, there are many more: Specialis:Quaerere nexus externos/www.hls-dhs-dss.ch. Would you be willing to help me to replace the links by the template? --Leyo 13:13, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

societas hominum[fontem recensere]

I think that's right, Andrew. I was going to add that myself, but I forgot the mot juste and wrote societates humanae which of course came up read, so I abandoned ship. Thanks for doing it correctly. =] --Ioscius (disp) 13:36, 17 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De institutione Cynica[fontem recensere]

Alexander Andreae s.p.d.

Andrea, scribere paginam de institutione Cynica Antisthenis Diogenisque vellem sed nonnulla dubia de verbo hanc interpretante habeo. Non obscure rem agam: licetne institutionem Cynicorum verbo "Cynismo" interpretari sic ut intellegere possim et lato nostroque sensu?

Cura ut valeas. Alexander Gelsumis 12:22, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Alexander! Verbum "Cynismus" (= philosophia seu traditio Cynicorum) reperio semel apud scriptorem Latinum tardiorem (Cassiodorum) et quater apud scriptoribus Graecis classicis seu post-classicis; hoc verbum igitur credo satis notum esse et nobis utile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ago tibi. Vale! Alexander Gelsumis 14:11, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Need your help...[fontem recensere]

Hi! I'm from Polish Wiktionary. We are translating names of our main templates into various languages (our top 50) in order to help users who don’t speak Polish understand our articles. I wonder if you would be helpful and translate for us just a few linguistic terms into Latin. How about that?

  • [1] pronunciation - pronuntiatus
  • [2] definitions (plural) - definitiones
  • [3] inflection - flexio
  • examples (plural) - exempla
  • [4] syntax - syntaxis
  • [5] collocations (plural) - collocationes
  • [6] synonyms (plural) - synonyma
  • [7] antonyms (plural) - antonyma
  • related terms (plural) - cognata / verba cognata
  • [8] idioms (plural) - idiomata
  • [9] etymology - etymologia
  • notes (plural) - notae
  • [10] translations (plural) - versiones
  • derived terms (plural) - derivata / verba derivata
  • [11] transliteration - translitteratio
  • [12] transcription - transscriptio
  • sources (plural) – fontes

PS. Please note that some of them must be in plural. We’d be very grateful Best regards! --PiotrekSzwecja 16:37, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sure helps. Thank you! Here you can see them all. --PiotrekSzwecja 18:14, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana pagina mensis Augusti.[fontem recensere]

Salve ! Plurimas gratias tibi ago, Andrew. Magno honori arbitror esse mihi, quod aliquantulum contribui paginae "Diana", ut quae digna titulo paginae mensis iudicata est. Tua cura meliorata magis placet quam antea. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus 13:09, 3 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De imagine Catonis Censoris[fontem recensere]

Ave optime, Andrea.

Cum quidem adhuc imperitus sim, intellegere non possum amotionis imaginis a pagina "Marcus Porcius Cato Maior" causam: in plurimis libris meis atque in paginis interretialibus inveni hanc imaginem (vide hic), remotam die 17 Iulii, esse hermam - Saeculo II a.C.n. factam - Catonis Maioris ipsius nec illam eius pronepotis Uticensis appellati, cuius statuae multae et imagines pictae nobis sunt. E Disputatione hunc nodum quaestionis esse intellexi, sed spero te me correcturum si errem. Auxilium tuum magni facio.

Vale, Andrea, et salve. Alexander Gelsumis 14:36, 7 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salve optime, Alexandre. Imaginem olim in pagina habuimus, sicut et in Vicipaedia Anglica; et removimus (sicut et e Vicipaedia Anglica remota est) quia re vera nemo scit an imago Catonis sit necne. Legere potes disputationem hic: en:Talk:Cato the Elder#Portrait. Imago est pulcherrima, sed anonyma. Si credis imaginem Catonis esse, necesse erit citare fontem fidelem (in his non includo Communia!) huius rei ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 7 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias plurimas, Andrea, tibi ago. Haec pagina utillima mihi fuit. Spero hoc dubium non nimis tibi molestum fuisse. Salve. Alexander Gelsumis 15:19, 7 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscus Brusonus[fontem recensere]

Gratias tibi ago per refectiones tuas in Franciscus Brusonus.

--Achillus 11:12, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Frusino[fontem recensere]

Cur omnes meas recensiones paginae Frusinonis delevis? solum mea recensio ultima ("Frusinas") corrigenda erat. --Luca P 19:04, 20 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omnes errant: "delevis" -> "delevisti" ... --Luca P 17:55, 21 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of a short story[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew!

I would like to request something from you. Yes, translation. I hope, it's not a bad thing for you. Some years ago I wrote a (really) short story about a lonely man (actually symbolized the Saami nation). I translated into some languages and I thought, it would be great to have it more, like also in Latina :) I made this page, the English translation is somewhere there. You can put the Latina translation there. Thank you again! Sorry for my disturb... :( - hu:User:Eino81

Villas Culturas[fontem recensere]

Gallice: Couture sur Loir (41) ----Clive Sweeting

Alpincica et languedocana[fontem recensere]

Salue Andrew, "Alpincica" et "Languedocana" non sunt inuentiones meae. Erant in formula "linguae romanicae". Lingua occitanica diuisa est: - lingua occitanica borealis: aruernica, lemosina, "vivaro-alpina" - alpincica ? vivarensis-alpina ? - lingua occitanica medianis siue australis: "languedocien", prouincialis - lingua occitanica atlantica: gasconica siue aquitanica Translatio vetus "languedoc" est "lingua occitana" (1319). Languedocana = lingua linguae occitanae? --Jfblanc 07:55, 26 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgontiola[fontem recensere]

Vale carissime, quomodo te habeas? The right name of this city, where is also born the cheese Gorgonzola, is Concordiola, from Dea Concordia.

Can you take off the orrible Gorgontiola and tell som Bot to change? Perhaps is the same that created the page Codonio that I've asked to you to change in Cotoneum.

Thanks a lot!!!

Rex Momo 10:59, 10 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Momo[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habeas? Novam paginam scripsi et tibi adiutum peto, de ista pagina ad scribendas novas res. Non bene Latine scribo, sed in pagina Italica et Francica ire potes.

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo 16:50, 18 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, I think it's better to leave Rex Momo like Rex as name and Momo as surname, that in Wiki.LA aren't translated. Rex Momo 19:14, 18 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I misunderstood. I did not know that "Rei" existed as a name. I thought "Rei" was his title and "Momo" was his name, derived from the ancient god "Momus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:22, 18 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

salve![fontem recensere]

hello my friend,I 'll try!Greco22 16:38, 23 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thank you for welcoming me; I am not able to write in a decent latin yet, so I cannot contribute here: next year I will be more free, and I will start a serious study of latin. I think that, as an italian, it's my duty. See you in future! Mparu 18:53, 23 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adfixum/Affixum[fontem recensere]

Hello, if "affixum" is synonymous with "adfixum" as you say, then the definition of affixum needs to be changed as it does not comprise interfixes or infixes. See for example [13], [14], [15]. Greets, Solejheyen 17:39, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Mea Latina mediocris est. Solejheyen 17:41, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand now that some people treat the two words as distinct. It would be good if we can cite a reliable source ... maybe a linguistics textbook. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:44, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just found a better source, look here [16]. An adfix is not exactly the same as an affix indeed, though they have much in common. Solejheyen 17:46, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The awkwardness here, Solejheyen (in case you don't know), is that adfixum & affixum are merely different ways of spelling the same Latin word: the former is the etymologically correct (fussier, if you will) way, and the latter is the way that reflects the pronunciation. It's approximately the same difference as that between realize (the etymologically correct spelling) and realise (the evolved spelling, based on French). Just as there's no ordinary difference in lexical meaning between realize & realise, there's no ordinary difference in lexical meaning between adfixum & affixum. IacobusAmor 17:52, 27 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis[fontem recensere]

Please update interwikis in Formula:Abecedarium Graecum, using w:en:Template:Greek Alphabet because local interwikis are not current. 94.246.126.81 19:16, 29 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo patriarchalis Sanctae Crucis Hierolosymae[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habeas? Haec nova pagina feci. Tibi gratias ago si custodire mea pagina potes.

A bientôt

Rex Momo 06:49, 9 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, how are you? Please, can you find 5 minutes to wacht this new page? Sorry, but my Latin isn't so excellente as your, and it's a pleasure that the page can be corrected form you! Have a nice Sunday a thanks a lot Rex Momo 10:45, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting plenty of help from others, Rex. Hope that's OK! I'm a bit busy this evening ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutatio nominis[fontem recensere]

Salve! Usoris nomen suum mutare volo: possibile estne? --MarcusXC 17:50, 9 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, Marce. Id Usor:Adam Episcopus efficere potest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:30, 9 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago[fontem recensere]

Tibi gratias ago. Here we are lucky today it a sunny day, I will go in Italy in Milan to theather. I hope I can go on in the future with la.wikipedia, but at the same time I'm sorry we find only (from my point of view) few new friends for our project --Helveticus montanus 09:34, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commune Italianum[fontem recensere]

Haec de Formula:Commune Italianum removi quia minime me intersunt. Vide Disputatio Formulae:Commune Italianum :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 14 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Philippus Maakaroun[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes? Tibi parvum adiutum peto, si haec pagina corrigere potes, quia mea Lingua Latina non multum bona esse!!!

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo 17:03, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De cibis matritensibus[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew! as you can see, I'm beginning a new series of articles on food from Madrid (Gastronomia Matritensis). I thought you would be interested! There are some dishes which may have had Roman equivalents and may have had a more adequate name, but I guess that I'll write you as I write them. Vale--Xaverius 14:00, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mouthwatering! As for me, I'm working on breakfast this afternoon. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pars secunda (de cibis Vasconum)[fontem recensere]

Hi again, Andrew! I was wondering, how do you say "curd"? my dictionary has simply caseus, but that would be confusing, and coagululum doesn't sound right to me. What do you think?--Xaverius 15:39, 29 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secundum Cassell's: lac concretum. IacobusAmor 16:09, 29 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Coagulum" is the rennet, not the resulting curd. "Caseus" is what it was sometimes called (just as you can call grape juice "vinum" the moment it begins to ferment), but that word is no help if you want to make the distinction between curds and cheese. "Lac gelatum" was also used, but it is technically wrong of course, so "lac concretum" is the best solution. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:27, 29 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pars tertia (de tomaculis et farciminibus)[fontem recensere]

Just bringing your attention to this, Andrew. As I wrote this on the same day as the discussion on "Cohortes" started, my comment must have passed unoticed --Xaverius 15:17, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time my doubt is a bit more complicated. Whereas in Iberian languages (Spanish, Portuguese, Basque and Catalan) and as far as I can tell in Italian too, we make a disntinction between cured and raw sausage (es:salchicha vs. es:embutido) I was wondering if in Latin such a distinction would exist. Whether if it exists or not, I came across several terms and I cannot decide which would be more accurate for either term: tomaculum, farcimen and lucanica. What do you reckon?--Xaverius 12:25, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I now just thought about en:cold cut/es:fiambre, which would be the general category for all of these, wouldn't it?--Xaverius 12:28, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, Xaveri, I overlooked this so-interesting topic. I have been pretty busy the last few days.
An authority on sausage is a paper by Frank Frost, 'Sausage and meat preservation in antiquity' in \Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies\ vol. 40 (1999) pp. 241-252. I have a copy before me as I write. Maybe Francus Frost deserves a Vicipaedia entry. Anyway, Frost believes (and gives evidence for the belief) that a botulus is the general word for a sausage, while a lucanicum (or lucanica) is a cured sausage. He doesn't discuss tomaculum. Unfortunately for us, Frank gives much more space to Greek terms than Roman.
Now I'm looking at my own collections of words. According to Aulus Gellius, farcimen was the upper-class word for what the lower classes called botulus; while according to Petronius, botulus and tomaculum were somehow worth distinguishing, and both might be served to eat. Apicius treats "short, chopped/sliced Lucanica" as ingredient in a cooked dish. In Petronius again there is a c(h)orda, served in slices. There is also a medieval Latin word salsicia that is the parent of modern "saucisse" etc.
The distinction you mention, incidentally, corresponds to French saucisse (fresh sausage) and saucisson (cured sausage). My inclination is to treat botulus as a sausage in general, botellus as a fresh sausage, tomaculum as a cured sausage, and lucanicum and chorda as specific types of cured sausage. But I'm not certain. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andrew - no worries about the delay. Then I guess that we would want a categoria:botuli which will include pages on fresh (Categoria:botella) and cured (Categoria:tomacula) sausages. Farcimen would then redirect to botellum, the general page on fresh sausages. Special sausages, like black pudding could be botellum sanguineum or something similar, although translating names of modern-day sausages may get complicated: weisswurst can be clearly botellum album, but chorizo may be chorizo (tomaculum) (although according to the DRAE, it derives from saslicium.--Xaverius 14:21, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libbie Henrietta hyman[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, how do you think a womansname should be translated? en:Libbie Henrietta Hyman, Hendricus 15:31, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Andrew, the past days i´v been correcting quit some articles, added some bio´s and a museum and even somen categories, there haven´t been any corrections after that. does that mean i´m starting to learn it? Hendricus 19:45, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template botanistae[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, the abbrevations are only to be used with botanical specimens, i'v added that in the formulae, i also added a little leaf, maybe you like it? Hendricus 18:41, 28 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cohortes = Parlamentum?[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, Could you look into this link which appears utterly bizarre to me but usor:88.26.168.207 has created and created again without explanation. It seems vandalism to me.--Rafaelgarcia 22:24, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's and White's dictionaries don't make any such connection. IacobusAmor 22:30, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a vandalism, it is just the old Castilian name for parilament, "las Cortes" which existed in Navarre too and etymologically come from cohors. It is usually used always in the plural (las Cortes). I cannot think of a medieval document now which would call them cohortes in Latin, but I'll have a look --Xaverius 23:04, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem then that Castillian cortes is a sibling of French & English court, as all three words reflect Latin cohors. But a court is not a parliament, and redirecting a form of Latin cohors to a word for a parliament but not at the same time redirecting it to a word for a court may therefore be inappropriate. IacobusAmor 23:28, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Spain at least, "cortes" are the parliament. However, this should not necessarily apply to Latin (even if in medieval Latin this was used to refer to Castillian, Navarrese and aragonese cortes).--Xaverius 23:30, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, even with this figurative sense, in latin this could only be understood as a proper name at best. Corhortes Hispaniae = The Corhorts/Retinue of Spain, which obviously is not a synonym by any stretch for the term cohortes nor is it literally translating the spanish term Cortes either. Nevertheless the names Cohortes Hispaniae etc can be profitably incorporated in a disambiguation page on cohors. A latin source for such names should be given though, or the spanish/Navarre name should be preserved with a suggested latin translation in parentheses. THe issue now is how to communicate with the anonymous user...Do you think you can Xavieri?--Rafaelgarcia 23:59, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again to communitace with him, but I do not know if it will work. I think it is the same user (with different IP) who created most of Canariae Insulae and Castella et Legio (in which, by the way, cohortes also appear). We never managed to contact him. And lastly, I haven't found a source for cohortes other than the RAE dictionary.--Xaverius 09:30, 3 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[conflict of edits -- I see I'm partly repeating but will say it anyway! --] I'm glad Xaverius chipped in here because I didn't know this. But from what we now know, I'm prepared to bet the word does occur in the medieval Latin of Spain with this special sense. I don't have a citation to hand, however.
The immediate reason for a redirect, I guess, is that the writer on Navarra has used the word cohortes in this special Spanish sense. It's also used in that way on at least one other page of ours. That seems a fair reason to permit the redirect, at least for the present, until we have something better on cohors and/or cohortes. This writer, whoever it is, is a reliable Latinist who has made many, many useful contributions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:04, 3 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

categories[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, i´ve placed some categories at Gulielmus Aitcheson Haswell, can you take a look for me? thanks, Hendricus 17:54, 6 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cypros an Lawsonia inermis?[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, I would appreciate it if you could have a look at the latest edits to Cypros (arbustum) and Lawsonia inermis, and my comments thereto at Disputatio:Lawsonia inermis. --Fabullus 09:30, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Liber de wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Care Andree,

Facilius francogallice quam latine loqui est... sed, si vis, possum etiam anglice loqui.

J'ai déjà eu l'occasion à plusieurs reprises de lire vos articles de la wikipédia latine. Or, venant de recevoir une proposition de compte rendu de la part du Bulletin des bibliothèques de France (BBF), j'ai eu l'heureuse surprise de découvrir qu'il était dû à votre plume. Je dois le recevoir d'ici quelques jours et suis sûr de n'avoir que du bien à en dire.

Bien cordialement,

Remi Mathis 13:10, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Don't make such dangerous predictions, Remi! But it's nice to hear from you, and I'm pleased to know that you'll be writing something. In return, I'm sure that whatever you have to say will be full of interest. Good wishes -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, How are you? Could you please help me? How would you translate in the page National Book Award no fiction section. Thank you--Helveticus montanus 10:22, 22 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! It's not easy, is it? In classical times practically all books were non-fiction, so the distinction hardly needed to be made. You might say "Libri rerum", because "res" are matters of the real world. Iacobus and Rafael might have other suggestions.
For sections lower down that page you might consider "Libri iuveniles" and "Libri pueriles". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 22 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very useful suggestions--Helveticus montanus 10:44, 22 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De revolutionibus[fontem recensere]

Adding this to category Germaniae scripta is erroneus. Majority of Polish books of this time were written in latin and printed in Germany. So Poloniae scripta Germaniae edita. Mathiasrex 15:19, 22 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no error. See Disputatio:De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. If the book was written in Poland, please say this in the text, adding a footnote if the claim is controversial. Having done this, you can add the category "Poloniae scripta". Do not remove "Germaniae scripta". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 22 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Miecislao[fontem recensere]

Salve, Andrew. How can I undo the redirecto on Miecislaus I (dux Poloniae) ad Miecislaus I (rex Poloniae) without simply emptying the page as you told me not to do?--Xaverius 12:53, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way to delete an awkward redirect and then make a move. Part 1. Try to go to the redirect Miecislaus I (rex Poloniae). You will be landed at Miecislaus I (dux Poloniae). Now click on the little words "Miecislaus I (rex Poloniae)" underneath the page title. You will be taken back to the redirect. Now click on "delete", and confirm that you wish to delete.
Part 2. Go to the page Miecislaus I (dux Poloniae). Click on "move". Type in "Miecislaus I (rex Poloniae)". (You wish a redirect to be created, so don't remove the tick. It is bad practice to remove redirects.) Confirm. The page will be moved. Eureka! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

damnatio memoriae[fontem recensere]

Hey Andrew, thanks for going back over my grammar in damnatio memoriae. I've been studying Slovene 5-6 hours a day this semester and my how my Latin (and everything else) is struggling as a result. That difficulty multiplied by attempting a total rewrite of an article at 0730 and I'm bound to miss a few hominums and delevits. I've missed being around here, but I think I'm finally at a point where my Slovene is good enough that I can scale back to 2-3 hours a day and find some more time to help out around here. Cheers =] --Ioscius (disp) 12:10, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to reply. I didn't realise they were your words I was trying to improve, Iosci! And, yes, you have been missed. But maybe the Slovene Wikipedia has been getting the benefit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:12, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aelam/Elam[fontem recensere]

Fortasse melius est paginas Aelam et Lingua Aelamitica movere ad Elam et Lingua Elamitica (nunc paginas redirectionis). Illud 'ae' vice 'e' videtur esse res tantum typographica e tempore classico tardivo cum inter ambo nihil interfuit. Nunc tamen, ut et Ciceronis tempore, 'ae' [ai] dicimus, non [e]. Etymologice 'e' melius esse videtur quam 'ae'. Praeterea, Elam quoque in fontibus Latinis (sicut Nova Vulgata) attestatur. --Fabullus 13:17, 8 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laete consentio, Fabulle! Ego enim mutationes facio in pagina de lingua si tu eandem rem facis in pagina de regione. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 8 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paginam Elam non possum delere qui magistratus non sim. --Fabullus 13:29, 8 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da veniam: movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 8 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praemium Runcimanianus[fontem recensere]

Going on with my pages dedicated to litterary awards it has been a nice surprise to find your name for the Runciman award. I see that in the page "Andrew Dalby" the prize is named Praemium Runcimanianum, should we modify the page's name? Ciao --Helveticus montanus 20:40, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you were right: "Praemium Runciman" agrees better with our rules. Yes, I was interested to see you created that page! Best wishes -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:20, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professores melius quam Professor[fontem recensere]

Recte me monuisti, mi Dalby, de usu Vicipaediae latinae, tam de litteris quadratis quam de categoriis, sequarque libenter hanc regulam mihi pro tua affabilitate indicatam. Hac occasione oblata, velim etiam te interrogare cur categoria nominetur Belgia non Belgica sive Belgium. Belgia enim nomen est nymphae quae repraesentabat Belgicam. Multo elegantius est, ut puto, loqui de regno Belgicae, sive de Belgica sive de Belgio. Rarissime Belgia invenitur apud nonnullos poetas neo-latinos. Aliquid aliud: categoria Professores sive Alumni Universitatum Lovaniensium mihi non videtur congruere cum veritate historica. Fuerunt enim Lovanii tres Universitates studiorum quae inter se nullum connexum historicum habent. Ita melius est categoriam pro unaquaque earum universitatum creare ut feci, ne ingens confusio fiat inter has tres scholas universitarias. Nescio quid tu de his rebus reputes, sed licet tibi de hac re tuam propriam opinionem sequi. Vale perquam optime.--Bruxellensis 17:01, 12 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credo, care Bruxellensis, te recte dividisse categorias de eruditis Lovaniensibus: utilius erit categorias universitatum singularum habere. Possumus igitur novis categoriis semper uti, veteribus delere.
De nomine civitatis Belgiensis (et categoriae respectivae) licet apud Disputatio:Belgia ... disputare! Salve optime -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 13 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your radio interview[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, a new nice surprise I heard you yesterday hearing a podcast of a BBC radio broadcast (All things donsidered if I rember right)! Ciao--Helveticus montanus 10:15, 20 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard you this morning!--Xaverius 10:47, 20 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope some of it made sense. I can't remember what I said! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 20 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catharina Owen Eldred[fontem recensere]

Recte animadvertisti, mi Dalby, errorem quem calamus nimis rapide motus effecit et ad rectiorem formam illam Catharinam, pro tua eximia navitate, reduxisti. Quam optimus custos esse videris Vicipaediae! Quam sagax et perspicax scrutator! Te duce, omnia menda suum vindicem invenient! Gratias plurimas.--Bruxellensis 17:04, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dessert[fontem recensere]

Hey Andrew, I was reading some of the quotes on Cannabis, trying to figure out how I will organize that page better, when I came upon the translation of the Galenus which suggests that cooked cannabis seeds are used in a typical tragemata, which article I was thinking to start. I ask if that's the best translation of "dessert" or should it be a redirect to something better? (oh and I'm halfway through my Christmas present, your new book on Wikipedia). Best! --Ioscius (disp) 19:52, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent Christmas present idea! (Hope you're enjoying it.) The word tragemata was indeed borrowed into Latin -- used by Pliny and others -- and for good reason: at least, I can't think of a native Latin word meaning exactly what it means, things to chew alongside wine after dinner. It even survived into Romance languages (French dragée "spicy sweet e.g. sugared almond"). Yes, I think tragemata should probably be the word, though how closely it corresponds to dessert depends on your view of dessert ...
Ah, but now I realise that there is also the Latin word Bellaria, discussed e.g. by Aulus Gellius 13.11.7. He implies that the meaning is the same; in which case the substitution of tragemata may have been a matter of fashion, and we should perhaps choose the more-Latin "bellaria" after all. It already exists as an article, I notice, though covering "sweets" rather than "desserts". Gellius would disapprove of that interpretation of "bellaria", but he wasn't always right .... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed enjoying it.
So perhaps we should keep the bellaria article covering confectionery in general and start tragemata specifically for dessert. If bellaria can have more than one interpretation and tragemata only one perhaps that's the way to go. My view of dessert certainly includes things to eat with wine after a meal. I'd even forego the meal in its favor. Thanks! --Ioscius (disp) 21:15, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes good sense. And assuming we may include cheese in our dessert, I might make the same choice as you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion cheese should be with every meal and as a snack in between.--Ioscius (disp) 22:22, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a few more cibus questions[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, me again. It would help a lot if you could take a look at the whole Cannabis#Cibus section. I am linking things there but the majority of things are redlinks. Things I can't seem to suss out for myself:

  • Ephippus:
    • Brachus
    • Brygmus
    • Mnûs*??
    • Pyramides
    • Conchae (seafood?)
    • Iovis cerebrum??
  • Platina
    • Baricocoli Senensium

If you could help that would be great. Thanks! --Ioscius (disp) 21:08, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you should replace Brachus, Brygmus, Mnûs with [...]. No one understands these words, and there is no point in making the eager readers of the cannabis article puzzle fruitlessly over them. Pyramus I could do an article on, taking it from p. 70 of my A to Z. Conchae seems in the wrong place in the menu: maybe there's another mistake. There are sources on Iovis cerebrum: Athenaeus 514e, 642f; Zenobius 3.41; Hesychius s.v. Dios enkephalos. The phrase is claimed to mean "a morsel fit for a king", but I really don't understand why, and if it does have that vague meaning I don't see why Ephippus should put it in his list with all those other very specific things. Not very helpful, I'm afraid.
Baricocoli I can help with! See this link. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok see what I have done with brachus, brygmus, and mnus, but it lacks a source (that the meanings of these words are not well understood). Could always cite our resident food expert ;].
What shall we do with conchae, then? I agree it looks weird on that menu, but so it is written?
Same problem with Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος. Weird as it seems, so it is written. Should we add a reference to that too?
--Ioscius (disp) 22:18, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on conchae, the meaning for what it's worth is most likely "mussel", Mytilus edulis. Seems best to link to that.
On Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος, the interpretation is given by Henricus Liddell, Robertus Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9a ed. (Oxonii, 1925-1940) s.v. ἐγκέφαλος "III. prov. of rare and costly food, morsel for a king". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:41, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a/ab[fontem recensere]

About your change to 50412 Ewen, I thought a was to be used before consonants, ab before vowels and h, and abs before t (if at all)? -- Robert.Baruch 14:42, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite right (though abs can be forgotten). Similarly e before consonants, ex before vowels. Note that initial h is ignored (i.e. count as a vowel). I was afraid the script might not reliably make this distinction. If it can, do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobia massonica[fontem recensere]

Verbum lobia, significat ut scribit Bacci id quod nos vocamus "a lodge" sive "une loge". Verbum massonicus etiam existit (videas Bartal etc...), videas infra omnes notulas meas. Etiam existit, secta massonica (quo utuntur hostes latomismi).

Si dici potest Secta massonica etiam dici potest Logia massonica, sive logia massonum, sive Logia francomurariorum. Lingua latina non est ut opinor rigida et congelata, semper adiectivus addi verbo potest. Ita anglice dici potest: a lodge aut a lodge of freemassons idem latine dummodo verba extiterint!

  • Francomurarius invenitur in Bacci
  • massonus in Ducangio
  • masso -onis in Blaise.
  • massonum secta in Blaise.
  • secta massonica in Codice Juris Canonici.
  • latomismus in Bartal

tamen verbum lobia, quo utitur Egger mihi videtur aptius. Hoc verbum, secundum peritos, venit et verbo francico laubja e quo cadunt verba theotisca Laube et anglica loft. In latinitate mediae aetatis invenitur (saec. IX) verbum laubia quod significat porticum. Sed secundum P. Guiraud hoc verbum venit e graeco logeum sive logium. Legito: Alain Rey, Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, II, Paris, 2000, p. 2046-2047, sub verbo "loge". Carolus Egger, Latinitas, 1983, p. 190, dat nomen: lobia.

  • Antonius Bacci, Lexicon vocabulorum quae difficilius Latine redduntur, Romae, 1963, p. 337: "francomurarius".: "
  • Vide: Albert Blaise, Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi praesertim ad res ecclesiasticas investigandas pertinens, Turnhout, Brepols, 1975, p. 571, : masso- onis.
  • Antonius Bartal, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis Hungaricae, Leipzig-Lipsiae: latomismus

Vale. --Bruxellensis 16:15, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bene, et gratias ago. Oportet potius haec in pagina ipsa a principio aperte explicare. Si collocatio "lobia massonica" est neologismus, oportet id dicere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:19, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Etiam animadvertendum est in omnibus symbolis est iunctura lobia +massonica: Cur non latine?
  • de:Freimaurerloge
  • en:Masonic Lodge
  • es:Logia Masónica
  • et:Loož (vabamüürlus)
  • la:Lobia massonica
  • nl:Loge (vrijmetselarij)
  • pl:Loża wolnomularska
  • pt:Loja Maçônica

--Bruxellensis 17:05, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quis potest tali quaestioni responsum dare? Sed et has res potes ab initio in notula indicare, sic:
1. Lobia massonica: fortasse neologismus? Cfr. Anglice Masonic lodge, Hispanice Logia Masónica. De verbis "lobia" et "massonicus -a -um" vide notulas alias.
Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobby[fontem recensere]

Quod attinet ad lobby, mihi magis placet verbum quo utuntur Germani: Lobbyismus, etenim nemo scit quid sit lobium tempore medaevali, forsitan "porticus". Lobby cum duo b, non mihi videtur ex verbo lobium originem suam trahere. Inspiciendum est in dictionario etymologico scientifico. Valeas pancratice.--Bruxellensis 16:24, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tale dictionarium iam in pagina citavi hodie; tu citationem delevisti! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:32, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tunc da mihi excusationem quia inconsulto feci mutando textum.--Bruxellensis 17:02, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do! Et vale optime Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puy-de-Dôme[fontem recensere]

Ave,

I'm not often on the Vicipædia, is it normal that Puy-de-Dôme is a redirection to Puy-de-Dôme (praefectura Franciae) ? Cdlt, Vigneron * discut. 15:14, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vigneron! The answer is that it's OK, it's not a bad thing, although it would be even better if we knew a Latin name for Puy-de-Dôme and then we could move the page to that Latin name. If you wanted to start a page for another concept with the same name (e.g. the mountain?) this is possible, the redirect can be edited to turn it into a full article. Does that answer your question? Greetings -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok for me. I searched for the latin name but I can't found it.
FYI : there is no concept with the same name (the mountain is Puy de Dôme). In french the hyphen are used for disambiguation (Puy-de-Dôme vs. Puy de Dôme, Mont Saint-Michel vs. Mont-Saint-Michel or Saint Michel vs. Saint-Michel).
Cdlt, Vigneron * discut. 15:41, 20 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conventiculum[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew. I proposed a meeting of vicipaediani some time ago, and now it seems that it may actually take place. If it were to take place, and you were able to come (I knot it is too far away still, but it just occured to me), we would be delighted if you could give us a lecture on Vicipaedia! after all, you are the only one with a book written on the topic, and we heard you in the BBC. There is plenty of time, so you can give it a thought if you wish. Cheers, --Xaverius 00:30, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly do my very best to come: Rome seems a good idea to me. And, yes, I am always happy to talk ... so I agree to say something ... but I hope others will also! Unluckily it appears Rafael can't come at that time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can open in the discussion a setcion for "proposed topics" - maybe someone will also speak! It's a pity Rafael cannot come, but this means we'll have to organise another meeting in the States.--Xaverius 15:31, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[fontem recensere]

Hi, Can you translate my userpage here in the Latina Wikipedia? Thanks. --MisterWiki 16:27, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has a permanent block at en:, Andrew, you know this guy? --Ioscius 17:52, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, MisterWiki, but I'm a bit busy! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:04, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but I don't know why everybody judge me because of that block. --MisterWiki 06:11, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me -- that wasn't my reason. I really am a bit busy just now! Ask on the Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

geoponica[fontem recensere]

Andrea, des mihi quaeso fontem illum in Geoponica ubi de introitu veris tractat? Gratias! --Ioscius 19:58, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoponica 1.1 (chapter title: "On the subdivisions of the year, the solstices and equinoxes").
Incidentally, did you notice any of the following signs, mentioned in chapter 1.4? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:28, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Holly-oaks [Quercus coccifera and Q. ilex] and oaks [Q. robur] fruiting heavily mean that the winter will be a long one. Nanny-goats and ewes, mating and wanting to mate repeatedly, foretell a rather long winter. If cattle dig at the soil, and stretch out their heads towards the north, they predict a hard winter."
No, but I saw the kurenti scaring away the winter. Can't be long now. --Ioscius 00:07, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usor ignotus[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew. An usor ignotus is creating formulae in French, which I cannot understand, and I cannot communicate with him. I've asked Bruxellensis for help, but I thought you may also want to have a look at what he is doing.--Xaverius 13:48, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Javi, I've blocked him for the present. He seems to be making unwanted duplicates of our Formula:Ling. Whether he has a connection with Usor:WikiDreamer I'm not sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about {{U}} and {{M}}? I've asked Bruxellensis to translate a note to him into French, but as he is probably a Pole, we may need another usor who is actually Polish (like Matthiasrex).--Xaverius 14:06, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can afford to wait for some explanation of those. The ones we have deleted clearly duplicate our Formula:Ling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you around now, andrew?[fontem recensere]

Just sent you a mail. Comments appreciated =] --Ioscius 13:54, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sent :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve[fontem recensere]

Iustinus Andreae spd, svbeev. Ab aliis notis in disputatione tua adscriptis video te parum nuper vacare, ne igitur multum te importunem. Attemen volo te rogare num epistolam meam acceperis. Vale quam optime. --Iustinus 05:54, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da veniam, mi Iustine. Accepi hodieque respondebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dummodo acceperis & repondere aliquando velis, contentus sum :) --Iustinus 17:49, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responso accepto gratias tibi ago! --Iustinus 03:05, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen 'systema stellare'[fontem recensere]

(a Disputatio:Taygeta (systema stellare))

Systema stellare videtur alterum systema solare designare. Fortasse, systema stellarum (Anglice 'system of stars') melior est? Pantocrator 22:59, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago ob nuntium! in paginam disputationis respondi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional editor[fontem recensere]

Hello, I am never going to do very much here as my studying of Latin only went as far as 1965 (4 years at school and one term at University), since when it has been hardly used. I have just done a Peter Fox article for the English WP having found that Latin articles already existed for several university librarians I knew something about. The Latin user name was of course just chosen as a variant on a pseudonym used by a 19th century author.--Felix Folio Secundus 09:19, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image[fontem recensere]

You wrote in http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Abecedarium_Graecum as follows:

For the letter J (for which Jot is the German name) I have preferred an image giving both uppercase and lowercase forms. The various incarnations of Eta are dealt with at that page, but the image you supply will be more use when we have the Spiritus asper page. Watch this space.

that you prefer Yot in both uppercase and lowercase. This file that meets your preferences was deleted from Commons, because it was falsely classified as fiction, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yot_uc_lc.svg&action=edit You can request its undeletion at image deleter's talk: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous_Dissident , which is preferable, because you are more trusted in Wikipedia than anonymous users.

64.191.50.30 19:29, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jj
You're mistaken, I think: the file I chose is still there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mistake. Deleted File:Yot_uc_lc.svg is nearly identical to image cited by you except serifful/serifless alternation, while having matching naming scheme, and has stylization strictly matching with:

Digamma uc lc.svg Stigma uc lc.svg Heta uc lc.svg San uc lc.svg Sho uc lc.svg Qoppa uc lc.svg Sampi uc lc T-shaped.svg

I know about existence of this file from Internet Archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080629005101/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yot_uc_lc.svg

In http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Yot_uc_lc.svg&action=edit you must scroll up to see deletion log. 64.191.50.30 19:43, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but I can't help you. I chose not to use that file; I did not think it was helpful. Therefore its deletion from Commons is not a problem for me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert introduced errors, because bad glyphs are pointing to bad letters. Reexamine your bad edit, please:

http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formula%3AAbecedarium_Graecum&action=historysubmit&diff=1084424&oldid=1084420

Note that San wikilink is falsely marked with Qoppa variant. I thought that you are reliable, but I now doubt that.64.191.50.30 20:34, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider your aims carefully. If your real aim is to waste the time of administrators and confuse readers of Wikipedia in many languages, yes, you have done some of that, but it hasn't made you happy.
If your real aim is to publish the truth as you see it, you're failing to do that. Even if some of your changes stay a short time, they are all reverted eventually.
Yet other people succeed in spreading information by way of Wikipedia. How is that they succeed, while you fail and make yourself unhappy? If this question interests you, I could suggest one or two ways in which you would succeed better.
But you have to be prepared to learn. I came to Wikipedia not only to teach but also to learn. If you believe you have learned everything already, and insist only on teaching others, Wikipedia is not the best place for you to do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insigna[fontem recensere]

I was correcting a few of Nuada's city pages from insigna to insigne when I found there are over 120 more - too many for me to correct.

Is there any chance that insigna is a valid spelling? Pantocrator 14:46, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right. The plural "insignia" would be quite OK too, but "insigna" means nothing. One might ask a bot to help ... UV runs one of those ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:50, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VolkovBot[fontem recensere]

Please unblock the bot. The problem was in pywikibot framework where 'disambig' template was included into the list of disambig templates, and this confusion has caused bot's misbehaviour. I've corrected my local copy but the issue needs to be addressed globally for all iw bots. --Volkov 15:04, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking. As for the template, if I got you right, current 'disambig' template does the same thing as en:Template:Otheruses. It may be wise to rename Latin template to avoid any further confusion. --Volkov 16:55, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle voice[fontem recensere]

In many of your edits, most recently here, you have changed active to passive forms where the meaning is middle. This is good Latin, indeed. Latin preserves the PIE use of passive forms of otherwise transitive verbs with middle meaning, where English uses the active (this is the shortest way to summarize it). However, both Latin and English use the present 'active' participle also with middle meaning (also a PIE inheritance).

I mention this because it seems to be omitted in all Latin grammars I know of, but nonetheless is an important feature of the language. People are likely to get it wrong; perhaps we should add it to one of our guides? I was thinking of writing something myself. Pantocrator 13:47, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply yesterday. Yes, I have always felt that a Latin passive (middle in sense) often corresponds to an English active intransitive: perhaps I'm unconsciously conscious (sic) of this because I studied Greek as well, and Greek retains a partly-separate middle voice. I hadn't thought about the use of the active participle with middle sense. By all means write something! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a grammar that explains this as I have (the use of passives as middle in s. 125-126, and the double use of the pres. part. in s. 139), but it's strange that I had to look at so many before I found one that did. Pantocrator 00:03, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too have long believed many languages have a middle voice and just don't know it. If there isn't a functional difference of voice between "I open the door.", "The door is opened by me.", and "The door opens", then I don't know anything.
Not sure what you're reading, though, Pantocrator, for PIE lacked a passive voice (as is most widely postulated)?
--Ioscius 19:17, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PIE is usually described as having a 'mediopassive'. Perhaps at some time it was only used as a middle, though, with no passives expressible in the language, but it is relatively easy to pass from the middle to the passive in such s system. Pantocrator 00:03, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Empire(s)[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrea, in pagina diputationis mea tibi respondi. --Fabullus 11:42, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honoratus/Honorius[fontem recensere]

I see you fixed the inconsistency by moving Honorius de Balzac to Honoratus. Should I then change the name on my list?

There are Saints of both names, but I know of no vernacular form today from 'Honorius'. This page and this show Italian Onorato, which confirms Honoratus (French apparently does not have a separate form from Honorius). Pantocrator 00:03, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are Popes called Honorius (Onorio in Italian). There is also an Italian painter en:Onorio Marinari. So Honorius does certainly exist as a forename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, there is in Italy. I guess the forms must be taken separately, and we just have to assume that French 'Honore' comes from Honoratus for the reasons given. Pantocrator 01:04, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as to which name is more appropriate here, but for an example of Honoré = Honorius, see fr:Honoré d'Autun --Iustinus

Interpretes textuum Hispanicorum, etc.[fontem recensere]

Good evening, Andrew. Excuse me that I write in English. I am looking at the Categoria:Interpretes textuum Hispanicorum. Is it meant to be the Latin equivalent of en:Category:Translators to Spanish? If "yes", please let me know, and I will inter-wiki this category and all the other similar ones. Best regards, --Fadesga 00:19, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, Fadesga. A good thing you did. In fact our category is equivalent to en:Category:Translators from Spanish (from, not to), and all these categories of ours belong under en:Category:Translators by source language. It will be good if you do the interwiki links! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. Thank you so much for your kind remark. So, I have already inter-wikied all the possible "translator from..." pages I came across. Now, I wish two things: 1) that you create the Latin versions of "Category:Translators by source language" and "Category:Translators by destination language" (because the Categoria:Interpretes is actually "Category:Translators" and nothing else); 2) that you create a couple of subcategories, for instance, "Category:Translators into English" and "Category:Translators into Latin"; with these two new subcategories, I can help create further subcategories for other languages. I like this task!! Best regards from Montevideo, --Fadesga 23:35, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gratias[fontem recensere]

Andrea, gratias tibi auxilio tuo de pagina me scripta "Josepho Matt" ago. Sapiens et doctus magistratus es, et semper verba tua auscultabo. --Andrew K. 03:13, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De libro tuo de Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Ave Andreas,

Ecce versus quos scripsi de libro tuo sunt. Quos qui invenies.

Remi Mathis 07:38, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok...i'm sorry :'([fontem recensere]

ok...the next article I ask help to the tavern, I am also taking a course of autodidactic Latin I hope that to my next Article to be improved. I Wish you an Excellent Holy Week--Lodewijk Vadacchino 12:09, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Iacobus was willing to help, so there's no problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:13, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumpa[fontem recensere]

I rather think it's excessive of you to try to get it deleted. There's no grammatical errors in there; only the title is dubious, and it's only still there because there's no agreement on the best name.

I'm not sure why you deleted Origo either; as I created it, I'm pretty sure it was in Latin! Pantocrator 21:00, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origo didn't read like Latin to me! But by all means have it back if you're going to work on it. Let me know. If we restore it I suggest you mark it {{Tiro}}.
It wasn't doing any harm, and I may well work on it. Bad English is still English, and bad Latin is still Latin. Yes, of course you should bring it back (outside of mainspace if you insist).
"Sumpa" is sitting on the borderline: there are errors in every sentence plus the title is neither a Latin word nor a foreign word. Are you still working on it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:08, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this moment, but I always keep track of my articles. Pantocrator 22:01, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronovisor[fontem recensere]

Mutasti, mi optume Dalby, "chronovistrum" in "chronovisor", quod, pro certo habeo tibi ius est, sed magis mihi videtur hic ius linguae latinae servandum esse quam ius privatum uniuscuiusque. "Chronovisor", ut mihi videtur, homo est qui vidit temporalia. Nonne tunc si auribus tuis verisimiliter delicatis displiceat chronovistrum, placere possit chronovisorium? Sed expecto sententiam senatus vicipediani. Vale semper perquam bene.--Bruxellensis 12:25, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu vale optime, Bruxellensis! Consensum disputationis ad paginam ipsam non video; scio autem nos regulam habere "Noli fingere". Igitur verbum Anglicum "chronovisor" misi quia citationem huius verbi faciliter repperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:48, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bene secundum aureas regulas vicipedianas egisti, nunc est expectandum ut aliquis scribat de hac re.--Bruxellensis 13:09, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tartessus[fontem recensere]

Salve, Andrew. How is your paper on Solomon and Tarsis/Tartessus going? or is it actually finished? --Xaverius 15:00, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxinomia linguarum[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, is there, as far as you know, any generally accepted taxinomical nomenclature for languages? For instance, if Indoeuropean languages are a family, what then are the Indo-Iranian languages (a subfamily?), and what the Iranian (a genus)? --Fabullus 12:48, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look into this, a while back, when writing the Dictionary of Languages. My conclusion was that though some linguists, working on some families, have tried to introduce a fixed system -- with different names for each taxonomic level, and with different suffixes for the names of the groupings -- just like Linnaeus -- the great majority don't accept any such system. And personally I agree with the great majority! because (a) with gene research it is increasingly dubious to what extent such a system works in biology (b) even if did work for biology, languages aren't like that: they change for all sorts of reasons, at all sorts of speeds, and their relationships are much more complex than simple genetic descent.
So, when I was writing the brief Vicipaedia pages on Indian languages, I used "familia" for the highest-level group (everyone uses that word), and simply borrowed handy everyday words such as grex and series (one might add ramus etc.) for smaller units without seriously trying to be systematic.
Are you going to write more about Iranian languages? What a good thing! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Mithridate nostro exhortante, Latine pergam): Non in animo habebam plura de linguis Iranicis scribere. Novistine me antea nihil fere de his linguis novisse, sed quae scripsi plerumque alibi in interreti invenisse! Transmittendo tamen multa didici! Vale, --Fabullus 10:24, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Textilia vs. textiles[fontem recensere]

Andreae Fabullus s.p.d. Valde gaudeo nunc paginam Latinam de bombycino scriptam esse. Scribesne etiam de serico? Ceterum credo Categoriam:Textiles cum Categoria:Textilia iam diutius exstanti coniungendam esse. 'Textilia' tamen melius quam 'textiles' scribendum esse puto. Vide Charlton T. Lewis, Carolus Short, A Latin dictionary (Oxoniae 1879), lemma textilis . --Fabullus 15:22, 14 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recte mones. Contribui. Gratias, mi Fabulle. Fortasse tu vis de serico scribere? Si nolis, ego paginam incipere possum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 14 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quid de Amorgino scis? Id nomen in pagina Anglica video, sed fontes a me lectis potius de productione insulae Cos loquuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 14 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]
De serico tu paginam age scribe, nam ego ne differre quidem sericum a bombycino noveram! De Amorgino item nihil novi, sed Coa novi a commentatoribus Lucretianis qui putant Lucretius IV 1130 Cia aut Chia (manuscripta inter se discrepant) pro Cois scripsisse. --Fabullus 10:39, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin stuff[fontem recensere]

I see you deleted a nuch of redundant pages today; why didn't you get around to those actually marked for deletion by me? One at least is not only a housekeeping deletion. Pantocrator 19:59, 24 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal! I just happened to be working through a different list. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:09, 24 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted another topic on the taberna; I wish I didn't but I know no one important responds to me elsewhere; but still if I just do it myself I get reverted and yelled at.

On English wikipedia, there are admins that spend much of their time responding to user requests and housekeeping stuff. Here, on the other hand, you are the only one here at all reguarly, and you spend all your time here writing articles - which is not a bad thing, but it's not what admins are for. Pantocrator 19:59, 24 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are not so many of us, and we all have our own interests and lives. Our main aim -- all of us, I'd say, whether admins or not -- is to make Vicipaedia bigger and better. At this stage, with a small number of regular users, that's best done (I think) by improving pages and writing more. Long discussions can be too much of a distraction -- and that means you may find that nobody wants to take on too many discussions at once. I guess you just have to take us as we are! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:09, 24 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowy Dwór Królewski[fontem recensere]

Hello!

I'm sysop on Papowo Biskupie Wiki. I organize action writing article Nowy Dwór Królewski on all languages version Wikipedia. Please writing article.

Link on Enclish Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowy_Dwór_Królewski

Answer on this page: http://pl.papowo.wikia.com/wiki/Dyskusja_użytkownika:Kinrepok

Orationes[fontem recensere]

Congratulations, Andrew, on turning (most of) the orationes into preces. Macte! IacobusAmor 21:13, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done them all now. But they are weak pages, most of them: they need a few more facts and many fewer lines of quoted text! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Translation[fontem recensere]

Hi there Andrew! Would you be so kind to help me translate en:RES_–_The_School_for_Renewable_Energy_Science into your language? Please. If you think that article is too long, here is a short version: "RES - The School for Renewable Energy Science is a international graduate school located in Iceland. The school is a higher education institution offering a one-year M.Sc. in various renewable energy technologies, continuing education. All instructions and correspondence are in English. Acclaimed international faculty ensures very high standard and quality." Thanks a lot and best regards. :) --D

Accurate[fontem recensere]

I'm well and you? I thank you for your -as always - precious suggestion. Could you please check also my new pages about the Football World Cup, for instance 1970. I will use it actually as a model. Thank you and ciao--Helveticus montanus 11:58, 9 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[fontem recensere]

Please in protected Formula:Abecedarium Graecum change interwiki from bad

pl:Szablon:Alfabet grecki (horizontal)

to good

pl:Szablon:Alfabet Grecki (vertical)

because in this point two different interwiki sets are crosslinked. 79.191.244.115 21:11, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factum'st. --Ioscius 21:14, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Abecedarium Graecum[fontem recensere]

Could you change interwiki as described in discussion. Malarz pl 21:27, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish page to which you want an interwiki link does not exist. Also the Aragonese needed correction. Otherwise, I've made the changes you requested. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:37, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. PL template have temprary title while I'm clening interwiki. The old pl:Szablon:Alfabet grecki was removed, bat some (three) protected templates have interwiki to them. When those interwikis will be corrected I will move template to this (corrrect) name. Malarz pl 20:17, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have happened now, and I have corrected the interwiki to pl:Szablon:Alfabet grecki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:58, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. No problem. I'll make that change as soon as you wish. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found, that ja interwiki should be ja:テンプレート:ギリシア文字, not ja:Template:現代ギリシャ文字. Malarz pl 19:11, 17 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 17 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casus belli[fontem recensere]

Hello, I understand why it was removed. You told me I can recover the data there, could you please restore it temporarily so that I can copy it somewhere else? Thank you, --Darwinius 14:04, 14 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Sorry to be inhospitable. I'll restore it briefly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 14 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's back there now. Please let me know when you have made your copy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 14 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied it now, thank you very much. It's me who have to excuse for using this wiki for unrelated business. :) Thanks again, --Darwinius 14:59, 14 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Aloysius-Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy[fontem recensere]

Tibi gratias ago causa adiuti in hac pagina. Etiam in hac pagina me adiutare potes?

Thanks a lot, my Latin isn't so good as your !!!

Rex Momo 09:45, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crosslinked interwikis[fontem recensere]

Please: in Sho interwikis:

change ku:Şo (japanese measure) to ku:Sho (Greek letter)

in Koppa interwikis:

change ku:Qoppa (indian city) to ku:Kopa (Greek letter)

because otherwise interwiki sets are crosslinked and bots are stumbled. 89.238.153.24 15:49, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:55, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De lingua prisca hispanica[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew. I was wondering if for medieval Spanish it would be better to use lingua Castellana prisca or lingua Hispanica prisca. The thing is that this language (ipse sermone Roman paladino), was only present in Castille, and not in all of Spain, so Castellana may be more adequate. What would you think? --Xaverius 18:24, 21 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right to prefer Castellana. My old textbook (Entwistle, The Spanish Language) carefully uses "Castilian" for the medieval period to about 1500 and then switches to "Spanish". And Nebrija, for example, calls it Castellana. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 21 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over here in the Americas, castellano is the Spanish language in general, including the language spoken today. IacobusAmor 10:56, 22 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Nebrija is that he is the hinge between both modern and medieval Spanish. I use always castellano anyway. I'll use Castellana prisca then in this case.--Xaverius 21:08, 21 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non est obliviscendum quin vera lingua hispanica prisca sit lingua "vasconica" olim tempore Romanorum in tota Hispania locuta nunc solum in montibus Pyrenaeis!--Bruxellensis 09:28, 22 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just a tiny thing, could you have a look at my versio latina of the Coplas por la muerte de su padre?--Xaverius 10:49, 22 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Revert[fontem recensere]

Maybe, but the edit was made by a cross-wiki vandal. --Diego Grez 17:20, 27 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to check facts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 27 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Vetus Testamentum[fontem recensere]

sorry, I do not even remeber to have deleted the category, it was a misstake. --Helveticus montanus 06:24, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
here we are more lucky. The spring was cold and wet but the last 15 days have been sunny, ciao--Helveticus montanus 05:11, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satrapiae Imperii Achaemenidarum[fontem recensere]

In pagina disputationis mea respondi. --Fabullus 09:51, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et iterum ... --Fabullus 08:56, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directores BM et BL[fontem recensere]

Hello, There may not be a single head for the library after 1973; Whitaker's Almanack 1988 gives three directors general: Humanities and Social Sciences, J. M. Smethurst; Science, Technology and Industry, Maurice Bernard Line; Bibliographic Services, Peter R. Lewis. The first of these relates to the part which had been the library departments of the British Museum. I will try and investigate further.--Felix Folio Secundus 12:50, 13 Iunii 2010 (UTC) I have now added Smethurst to the list; he becomes deputy chief executive for a few years so he was probably under Lynne Brindley's predecessor.[reply]

Re:I couldn't find a list of heads of the British Library after 1974 (see Index bibliothecariorum et directorum Musei Britannici necnon Bibliothecae Britannicae). Can you, by any chance? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:48, 12 Iunii 2010 (UTC)--Felix Folio Secundus 16:06, 13 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duff, E. G., ed. (1899) Catalogue of the printed books and manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Mancunii: J. E. Cornish, 1899. 3 voll.

This reminded me that the forms of Latin names to be used are a problem: e.g. Franciscus Taylor was as far as I know plain Frank Taylor in all his appearances in print. Then there are Ioannes / Iohannes / Joannes / Johannes. I would have put Eduardus Gordon Duff for the above as the letter w did not exist until the Middle Ages. (Duff now has an article in the en:wikipedia).--Felix Folio Secundus 10:02, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on our Taberna you will find massive discussion of the forms of various Christian names, but often no conclusions. However, we definitely don't use J (in Latin names). I tend not to worry about the rest of it, just to write the articles. Is Wikipedia not a "work in progress"? :) It is of course possible to make redirects from forms not chosen, and if you want to move one of these pages to a form that seems more appropriate, by all means do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Lang bridges the gap according to an article cited in the Lynne Brindley article. How 'chief executive' translates into Latin I am not sure (?director principalis); I shall not get too worried about forms of names since the persons dealt with are so diverse.
Yes, the name rings a faint bell. Good, good! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in the article Corbin Bleu[fontem recensere]

Hey mr.Andrew Dalby, Possible request, Corbin Blue article you need to add other languages, Please, See here [17] add them Thank you friend .--Zimmer611 23:50, 16 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the article. Go ahead and add the interwikis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varburgum[fontem recensere]

Vale Andrew, petitio reevaluare L-1 pagia Varburgum Vestphalorum

Tempore carente, id ad Tabernam moveo. Da veniam! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 18 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monacum[fontem recensere]

Propter auxilium tuum tibi gratias ago. Kamulewa 13:54, 19 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for John Beames and Ho Chi Minh[fontem recensere]

It's John Beames birthday today, and I was pleased to find that someone (you!) had made a Latin Wikipedia article. I've studied several North Indian languages, so Beames holds a special spot in my personal pantheon. And what a surprise that you've also written a very sizable Ho Chi Minh article also in Latin. A surprise since I'm leaving for Vietnam in a few months to teach. Thanks for you polyglottery! 99.145.160.70 14:03, 21 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beames was at my elbow when I (all too briefly) studied a couple of North Indian languages; I liked his style, and afterwards rediscovered it with great pleasure in his memoirs. As for Ho Chi Minh, he's one of the main figures in a short book of mine due to appear later this year (the title may turn out to be South East Asia in 1919, but who knows?) I envy you your journey to Vietnam: I've never been there. Make the most of it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 21 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I forgot to sign my comment. I will look forward to reading your book when it comes out. Interlingua 14:16, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Melo Manuel[fontem recensere]

Bonjour, j'écris quelques articles pour débrouiller certains homonymes du XVIIème siècle portugais : Francisco de Melo. On confond souvent l'écrivain baroque Francisco Manuel de Melo avec d'autres Francisco de Melo, et notamment son cousin germain Francisco de Melo Manuel qui fut aussi écrivain (il n'en reste pas grand chose), dessinateur, ambassadeur en Hollande et Angleterre, où il vécut jusqu'à sa mort, auprès de la reine Caterina. Il existe un portrait de lui qu'on attribue parfois à son cousin, où apparaît une devise en latin, que j'ai été incapable de traduire de façon compréhensible : Iovis et Mihi ex utraque Melos. pourriez vous la traduire ? l'article se trouve sur le wikipedia portugais, où vous pourrez trouver ce portrait. Merci. Cordialement Usor:Victorcouto pt.Usuário:Victorcouto

Neologismus[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, I noticed that you marked Murus quartus as a neologismus, but shouldn't it rather be called a 'calque' (what's that in Latin?). Somehow I find calques less objectionable than neologisms, especially if other languages render the same concept by calques as well. In this respect 'Murus quartus' is exactly the same as my Via Sericaria (de: Seidenstraße, en: Silk Road, etc.). Best regards, --Fabullus 08:05, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. In such cases we should indicate that Vicipaedia is allowing the creation of a new calque, but "neologism" is not suffieciently precise. So, that's it, what should we say for "calque" or "loan-translation"? Will our Latin term turn out to be a calque itself ...? :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction to the English article on the Silk Road it says: "The term "Seidenstraße" (literally "Silk Road") was coined retrospectively by the German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in 1877 and has since found its way into general usage." I was planning to write something similar on the corresponding Latin page, which would remove any objections someone might have against the Latinization of the term. A similar sentence might be added to Murus quartus as well. --Fabullus 09:27, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why "murus"? A good many languages (Swedish, Finnish, German, Dutch, ...) have "paries". Even English "wall" could be so translated. ||| Re calques, I'm all for allowing them (except for English idioms translated as such into Latin). --Neander 18:05, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't devise it, I simply accepted the author's term without applying independent thought. And the author no doubt inserted the first or only Latin word that came to mind! So by all means improve and move the article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copied my message to the discussion page of "Murus quartus" that would've been the proper place for me to begin with. --Neander 19:30, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabetha Grable[fontem recensere]

Thank you for touching up the Elisabetha Grable article. My Latin always was shaky!

--UnicornTapestry 17:33, 17 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding request[fontem recensere]

Hello, I would love for you to expand this article (Selena), so it can be either a "good article" or a "featured article" on this wiki. For more information about the page visit, en:Selena, so you can have an idea or thoughts about expanding this article. Please respond to me on my talk page located here (en:User talk:AJona1992). Thank you AJona1992 18:00, 19 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina asteroidum[fontem recensere]

Vale Andreas! I hate to say it, after you've done such good work putting in the source names for asteroids. Could you also add categories when you add the sources? Such as [[Categoria:Asteroides ab hominibus appellati]], etc? --Robert.Baruch 19:04, 20 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, of course, I forgot that. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:49, 20 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, seems I didn't forget. The idea is new: Mr. Spock is currently the only member. Fine; it's a good idea. But Mr. Spock is not a man, is he? He's either a fictional Vulcan, or a cat, or possibly both. And there may be some other difficult categorization issues ahead ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 22 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectus Ionico-Attica[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, would you care to have a look at the latest edits to Dialectus Ionico-Attica and the disputatio thereto? Thanks, --Fabullus 14:25, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again! --Fabullus 18:10, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning U.S. Constitution Translation[fontem recensere]

I would like to point out, just in case it was overlooked, that Section 7 of the translation leaves the following words out: unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.Andy85719 01:05, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a US Constitution man, so I'll copy this to the Taberna. Continue there! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:25, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitur[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, I found this word in a page dedicated to an African nation. I remember to have check it, but now I do not find it again. Perhaps it was a missunderstandig of an other verb. Therefore now I will ask if a bot can change it to "situs est". Thank you--Helveticus montanus 19:52, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sinitur[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, I am very grateful for your correction and your interest for my pages (very simple, but at the moment I have little time) and in any case in Italian we say "meglio tardi che mai" that's "it is better later than never" :-) --Helveticus montanus 17:09, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Bergomensis[fontem recensere]

Hi my dear, how are you? I made this new page, can you watch for me if is good? I corrected also in Bergomum, because I'm sure that the Protector of the city is this Saint Alexander, and not Poe Alexander!. Thaks a lot for your help.

Alexander... Rex Momo 15:54, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio:Marius Balotelli--151.20.233.141 15:30, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Italica/Italiana[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrea! In hac pagina iudicium meum scripsi. Cura ut legas, quaeso. Ave atque vale. Ariel 11:48, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago ob notitiam, sed de hac re plura dicere nolo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

la-1 et id-1[fontem recensere]

As la-1 and id-1, I can't pretend being able to introduced improvements without the counterpart of new mistakes... However, as the Latin article on Indonesian started with "Ornitographica" for "spelling", I hope the balance might be positive and I would not worry if my own mistakes were eventually corrected, re-corrected or de-corrected. On the opposite... Regards. Acsacal

Tellus / Terra[fontem recensere]

Hello, There is an article in English about these which offers some suspect etymology for these words. There is also an article there about "Tara (goddess)" which makes Tara=Terra (?). So Vicipædia needs to consider it.----Felix Folio Secundus 17:24, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply: I decided later to remove the Tara connection. both etymology and comparative mythology are best left to experts, not something I would claim to be. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus 18:34, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehno-linguistic map of Afghanistan[fontem recensere]

The map was removed based on the following discussion [18]. Please refer to the second discussion on that page. The map is based on unavailable data (information on ethnic composition of the districts). It has used AIMS as a source, but that source doesn't have any information on the ethnic composition of over half of the districts of Afghanistan. Thank you (Ketabtoon 14:40, 24 Septembris 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. I've read the discussion now. The map displays the languages of Afghanistan according to one criterion: majority speech in each district. This appears to me useful and not POV, and I note that it was decided not to delete the map from Commons. Other criteria could certainly be used. Rather than simply delete this map, we should try to replace it with a better one, or add another that provides a balancing viewpoint.
The problem with the data is, of course, that accurate and up-to-date data for Afghanistan are not available. It is still useful to display the best information we can get. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 24 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I have done for the present is to edit the map captions. They now say (in Latin) "Majority languages of each district of Afghanistan. NB: Old data". If you want me to change this again, please say so. I have also removed the percentages, because in the context of this map it is not clear to me what they are percentages of! And let's hope that we will soon have a better map to accompany or replace this one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 24 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for going over the discussion. Majority of the users want the map to be deleted. There are some who wants to keep it based on [19], but with a dispute tag. It was not deleted, because according to COMMONS, anything that is legally hosted should be available - even if it is not neutral. The creator of the map was banned from English wikipedia for disruptive pov editing. According to the creator, the map is based on information taken from AIMS. However, AIMS doesn't have any information on ethnic make up of over half of the districts, and nothing on linguistic make up of the districts of Afghanistan. So, if the information is not available at AIMS, how did the user come up with that information?
The important point is that there are other credible ethno-linguistic maps available at the commons which can be used [20], [21], [22], [23]. I should also mention that the current map totally contradicts all other ethno-linguistic maps of Afghanistan. (Ketabtoon 05:32, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As you can see, most of the other maps look alike. This is a very up to date and accurate map available on the net. If you google "ethnolinguistic maps of Afghanistan", you will notice that there is not a single other map which matches the current map. I am also trying to use AIMS and MRRD (Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation of Afghanistan) to create a similar district ethno-linguistic map. The stats provided by MRRD are the joint work of MRRD, UNHCR and Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan. So far, it looks something like this. It is not complete yet, but even this map looks much more like all the other ethno-linguistic maps available on the net. Dari is spoken by the "green" and "blue" portion. However, it would be a much better idea if we still use the more academic and credible maps provided by the US government and NGOs. (Ketabtoon)
That's very useful, thank you. I look forward to seeing your map completed. Meanwhile I have asked Fabullus to comment here: he originally inserted and captioned the maps in Vicipaedia, and I think he may have an opinion. But, yes, we could either replace this map with one of those others, or put them side by side. The discrepancy is interesting in itself ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. It is very decent of you to invite me to this discussion! When I inserted the map I had no other motive (and certainly no personal p.o.v.) than to illustrate the geographic division of languages in Afghanistan, based on my interest in languages in general. I should of course have checked the reliability of the map and the data it provides, and I am very happy that someone is doing that right now. Thanks in advance, Ketabtoon, and thanks for your explanation. --Fabullus 09:41, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining in, Fabullus. In view of what you both say, I will delete the image from our pages and substitute the most recent of those linked by Ketabtoon above. However, it's not a perfect solution: those maps do not credit a source of data (further back than the CIA World Factbook), and the Texas map collection is just a collection, it's no more a guarantee of NPOV than Commons is. Clearly the recent maps are relying on relatively old information. It will be good to have Ketabtoon's own map when that is completed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K123456[fontem recensere]

Thank you for welcoming :-) Hi K123456 09:57, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence with me[fontem recensere]

Do you want to correspond with me e-mail? I think provate e-mail. I from Czech Republic and I want to improve my English. Write me on my takl page. Hi K123456 17:22, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ode an die Freude[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrea. Stipulam An die Freude omnino correxi, sed simulac conatus sum ad nomen plenius Ode an die Freude movere, quo aliae quoque Vicipaediae uti videntur, infectis rebus te adeo. Demiror enim, cur mutationem facere nequeam. Neander 06:38, 1 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve optime, Neander. Motus interdictus est ob historiam prae-existentem paginae pessimae Ode an die Freude, quae olim cum An die Freude contributa est. Nunc igitur, personam dictatoris (perpetui?) agens, hanc movi, istam delevi. Tibi etiam epistulam electronicam mitto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 1 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidus Fuldensis[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew Dalby,

Gratias maximas tibi ago, qui paginam meo vitio tyrone dignissimo mendosam quodammodo defaecavisti. Consilium tuum secutus conventum aperui et anonymus esse desii. Spero instantissime me tuo auxilio tam simplicibus casibus in futuro non abusurum esse. Sed triarii est tyronibus manum dare, ut tu fecisti aliis in exemplum. Error meus indicatione falsa provocatus est. Nam non illud tag defuit, sed notam non clauseram </ref>. Itaque iterum atque iterum frustra illud tag inserere conatus sum et non vidi illud </ref> desse. Sed nunc paululum didici et vitium hoc me non repetiturum esse promitto. Fac valeas, nec te taedeat tyronibus succurrere --Brun Candidus 17:50, 11 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct revert[fontem recensere]

Original post had textually written alphabet, so I restored it, see:

especially, because image after update no longer match original post meaning. 79.191.237.160 18:56, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were quite right to restore the original alphabet. Thank you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your useful correction[fontem recensere]

Daer Andrew, I thank you for your help and I wish you a pleasant travel. I will continue to try to add new pages but unfortunately I have few time, I hope always new people will help us so that I can ameliorate the pages I have already created. Do you know that in his last book "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English" John McWhorter praise you. Ciao--Helveticus montanus 17:30, 13 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S have you ever been in Switzerland? If you will come here, let me know

interwiki linking question[fontem recensere]

Hey Andrew, I was just looking at tempus trying to caerulify some of the red links there when I got to motus (physica). This one obviously corresponds 1:1 with en:Motion (physics). Then I was looking at en:Motion, which is, naturally, a discretiva page there, as ought be motus apud nos. But should they be linked together? Notice that at the English page, many of the things listed use Motion as a proper noun. Am I worrying too much or being overly pedantic? Any thoughts on the philosophy in question here? Thanks and best. -- Ioscius 10:06, 3 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was Iacobus's text, and he (as he has once or twice reminded us) treats English as default. This works for him as a method -- but we must also think outside that box. I would urge you to do what's comfortable to you but, whenever in doubt, start from Latin terminology when deciding what needs disambiguating and what links where. I always find strong differences if I compare disambiguation pages for an English common noun and a Latin common noun that are supposed to be synonymous.
Incidentally Iacobus, if I understand him, looks forward to the day when Vicipaedia will be fully the equal of English Wikipedia. The only real difference between him and me (but it's a big one) is that I look forward to the day when it will be better. And I'm fairly sure my day will come sooner. I don't suppose that helps ... :/ Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:25, 3 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the technology of that happy day, as soon as one wiki becomes better, the others will follow, with ever-decreasing temporal intervals of disparity, so that eventually they'll all be better, and seemingly all at once, iterum et iterum usque ad finem temporis. ;) IacobusAmor 13:30, 3 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but now that I re-read your question, I see it differently: should disambiguation pages be linked to "the same" words, or to synonyms? Yes, sometimes a common Latin word may be used as a proper name in English (e.g. Veritas, misnomer of a British political party): so then do we link our Latin disambig page "veritas (discretiva)" to the identical form in English, "Veritas (disambiguation)", or do we link it to "truth (disambiguation)"? Is that what's on your mind? If so, the answer is that I have often wondered, and I have no answer :) It is a general problem, and the only general answer would be to allow disambig pages to have two sets of interwiki links; which we can't do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 3 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

de invitationibus[fontem recensere]

Andreae s.p.d.

eorum invitationem qui nil utile ad Vicipaediam miserunt, quiete delere potes. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 18:39, 9 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for admin on the Taberna[fontem recensere]

Hey, can you help me out here on this edit request: Vicipaedia:Taberna#Edit_request_for_MediaWiki:Sidebar_for_multiple_language_support. It will require an administrator, so I thought I'd ask you. Thanks! -Oxguy3 23:05, 9 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was quicker ;-) --UV 00:03, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De absentia mea[fontem recensere]

Fabullus Andreae s.p.d. Gratias tibi ago ob cordialem tuam salutationem! Hos dies perparvum modo tempus in Vicipaediam dego, quod dissertationem de cosmologia Epicurea praeparabam, quam nunc paratam hebdomadam proximam denique defendam. Praeterea tamen multa alia me occupant impedientia quominus multum tempus hic verser. Interdum tamen visitabo. Fac valeas, --Fabullus 10:22, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC).[reply]

100 libri Saeculi XX: nota scriptoris[fontem recensere]

Andreas,
A number of your edits are inconsistent, eh.
You capitalized French titles that weren't, and decapitalized ones that were. My capitalization was taken directly, cut and paste, from WP articles on those books. Yours are arbitrary.
Franciscus Scott Fitzgerald: Scott is a Christian name, not a surname. It historically derives from Scot, which is why I had Scotus, as in Duns Scotus. Scotus, Scottus, whate'er you please, it still needs to be Latinate.
Scriptor scriptrixve is more precise. Is Auctor political correctness? I originally had Auctor, as cognate with Author/Auteur/Autor/Autore in my other translations of this page, but other Latin articles actually use scriptor and scriptrix, not auctor.
Albertusque: You changed that to et Albertus. I studied Latin in school for 5 years. Why does your personal taste outweigh mine?
Goscinnix is already in use here. I realize it's a pun, but so what? It suits the author's work and is more Latin than ending a word with a foreign Greek υ, as you have (re)introduced.
Regulus: Has the book really been translated under that title?
Vale, Varlaam 00:10, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You're a sysop with 75K edits. And you went to Birkbeck, etc.
But I stand by my original points, regardless.
Varlaam 00:27, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reverse order: Yes, Regulus has been so translated: see the footnote on our page about the book. It might be worth remembering that prince has a wider range of meaning in French than the apparently "same" word in English.
Yes, Goscinnix is a good conversion and it hurt me to change it. [Added: if he, or someone else, published this version of his name, we can use it. Did he, by any chance?]
The variation between et and -que is largely a matter of sentence rhythm. If you don't like my rhythm, I suggest you change it back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gildersleeve (#476) makes a semantic distinction, thus: "-Que (enclitic) unites things that belong closely to one another. The second member serves to complete or extend the first." (In other words, the Romans used -que much as one might use an ampersand in "Mr. & Mrs. Doe" and "tried & true.") Familiar examples are "Senatus populusque Romanus" and "Ibi mortuus sepultusque Alexander" (Livy). A more complex & instructive instance is "[Sol] oriens et occidens diem noctemque conficit" (Cicero). ¶ While we're on the subject of coordination: many modern authors have unperceived trouble with atque ; says Gildersleeve: "Atque . . . adds a more important to a less important member." In other words, English-speakers can think of it as tending to be more like 'and even' than merely 'and'. IacobusAmor 13:04, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are useful points, thanks, Iacobe! Whaether I was subliminally aware of them, heaven only knows, but I had certainly never thought about them :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, I thought it was political correctness, and unnecessary in Latin, to use the two terms scriptor/scriptrixve when one term covers it. If you like scriptor better than auctor, again, change it back.
There has been a lot of dispute here about Christian names. An utter waste of time in my personal opinion! We already have a redlink to Franciscus Scott Fitzgerald and I changed this one to match. What we want is an article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a redlink to Fitzgerald's cousin Franciscus Scotus Key, but that's probably incorrect. American onomastic traditions require the default interpretation that this particular Scott was a surname that was given as a middle name; more Vicipaediano, unless it can be shown that the family conceived of the name as meaning 'Scottish person' (which of course, though quite remote, is possible, much as Titus Pomponius was known as Atticus 'the Athenian'), it should therefore not be Latinized. IacobusAmor 13:04, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a redlink to Franciscus Scott Key in the new article Terra Rubra. IacobusAmor 13:41, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If my capitalisation is inconsistent, correct it. We have discussed this on Vicipaedia somewhere, a while ago, and the upshot I think was that we capitalise (a) proper names (there are some unexpected proper names in some of these titles) (b) all major words in English titles (b) apart from these exceptions, only the first word in all other titles. I believe en:wiki has a special rule for French titles, additionally capitalising the first noun: personally I feel that's too complicated, and the fact that it didn't happen in all the French titles you pasted, only in some of them, supports me -- it is perhaps too complicated for the people on en:wiki as well! But if you want to argue for a new rule on French titles, go ahead.
I never war -- life's too short -- so if you change any of those points back again, they stay (till someone else happens along, and who knows what they will think!) I meant what I said on the talk page: it was a good idea to translate the page and it was nicely done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chops[fontem recensere]

Salve, Andrew! I was wondering if you could think of a better translation of 'chop' other than the secti agnelli I came up with. I will not ask for a translation of es:escabeche (even if it is allegedly mentioned in the "One Thousand and One Nights", according to es:wiki), for I imagine it will not have a Roman/Latin equivalent. Cheers--Xaverius 00:02, 20 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Latin name for escabeche just under ten years later: see scapeta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 4 Octobris 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Maia[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes? It's a long time I don't made page in Latin Wikipedia!

Please, I need your help: I just made this new page about this Brazilian singer, but, as you know, I write in horrible Latin! Can you help me ti put the page in good Latin? If you don't understad, you can watch something from English page, ok?

Gratias causa adiuti tui!!!

Rex Momo 15:20, 22 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you by your attention[fontem recensere]

Hi, Mr. Andrew:

Thank you by your attention. I am new in Vicipaedia, and since colege times I use only Latin for reading, and not writing. I sorry by my Latin, but I am very happy people in this site made a lot of changes in my text.

One more time, thank you very much. Erico Molero, from Brazil.

Erico, from Brazil[fontem recensere]

About Past Masters band, I will try to find more resources. I finally understood the Wikipedia system, and its criteria to keep or not a page in it. Thank you anyway by your attention!

Erico Molero.

Problem in the article Corbin Bleu[fontem recensere]

Hello mr.Andrew Dalby, Possible request, Corbin Blue article you need to add other languages, Please, See here [24] add them Thank you friend .--Zimmer611 15:28, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mr.Andrew Dalby, Possible request, Corbin Blue article you need to add other languages, Please, See here [25] add them Thank you friend.

And also, why can not Wikipedia:Bot, to add other languages in the article, the article did not need this protection Protecta, add this protection better Semi-protecta.--Zimmer611 19:12, 27 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Zimmer, is that the article has to be protected against you. If the article is not fully protected you can make your continual useless edits to the page. I know you're not a vandal but you can't write Latin, so your edits always have to be reverted. We are busy people, and the quick way to solve the problem you are causing is to protect the article.
If you would promise just to leave the article alone, we could unprotect it and everyone would be happy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:30, 27 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mons Celtorum (fuit Cantal)[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew, Orbis Latinus habet 'mons Celtorum', ergo moveo Cantal ad montem Celtorum. --Jfblanc 13:45, 7 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina dialectorum[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew! Ista nomina jam erant in Vicipaedia. Pro mihi quoque non sunt "naturalia". I agree to change them. Best regards; --Jfblanc 21:11, 7 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptores apud Melissam[fontem recensere]

Bene vidi categorias addendas et addam ne tibi sit nimis grave opus propter negligentiam meam. Vale optime.--Bruxellensis 13:01, 8 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helena et Susanna Bugiucle[fontem recensere]

Ave Andrea! I have a question concerning the proper transcription of the Greek surname Βουγιουκλή, since you are the one who proposed Bugiucle. All modern Greek female surnames are in fact genitive cases of male ones, implying "daughter of" or "wife of" i.e. Ελένη (κόρη του) Βουγιουκλή. So I wonder if it would be better to transcribe Βουγιουκλή as Bugiuclis (according to Sophocles / Sophoclis). (Of course the etymology of Βουγιουκλής has nothing to do with κλέος (glory) like in Σοφοκλής, as it is, in my best guess, a hellenization of the Turkish surname Büyüklü (büyük = big), although in modern greek is treated more or less the same as Σοφοκλής). --Protnet 22:56, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Protnet. Thank you for telling me the origin of this surname -- I was quite unable to guess!
We start on Vicipaedia from the fact that Latin has a standard transliteration for Greek (the same ever since ancient times), so we always use it for Greek surnames. It looks strange, sometimes, when the surname is a Turkish one, but it is always possible to follow the rule so we always do.
We can easily deal with the fact that men's middle names are the genitive case of their fathers' names. That kind of thing has been done in Latin too. But thank you for explaining that women's surnames are the genitive case of men's surnames. I wasn't sure of that, and I don't think we have ever discussed on Vicipaedia how to deal with it. I think you are right right that just as we would say "Sophoclis" as the genitive of "Sophocles", so we should say "Bugiuclis" is the genitive of "Bugiucles". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[fontem recensere]

Please add to Yot legitimate interwikis:

he:יוט
it:Jod

79.191.103.247 19:50, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gentlemen, no problem, I've added them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divina Comoedia[fontem recensere]

Ciao! In Google Books ci sono altre due versioni della stessa edizione (two versions of the same edition): 1 e 2. Micione 12:57, 22 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas[fontem recensere]

Happy Christmas and a Happy 2011 to you, dear Andrew!--Helveticus montanus 18:23, 23 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

problems with some users[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew,

how are you? I write you because I have some problems with two users. One of them is Jondel. He adds pages which from my point of view has little to do with the Latin language (see first version of Lojban). When I correct them, he regularly (see [[26]] and his previous collatio) does not accept the corrections (on the above mentioned page he stands on that the agent in a passive sentence should be expressed with per + acc instead of a +abl, I checked two grammars but per means through and not by). Being at work, I did the corrections as anonimous but I remember to have had a discussion with him on other corrections I did as Helveticus. Besides (and that's what makes me angry) he always deletes the formulas indicating the low level of the Latin language used on his pages. Could you help me please? Could you give me a suggestion?

Also Lilly Kitty creates long pages on interesting arguments but with a poor Latin but I feel she is going better and in any case she accepts the corrections I do.

Ciao and a happy new year 2011--Helveticus montanus 21:44, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think LilyKitty's work is a problem! Perhaps you agree with me here really. These are very important subjects, about which no one else on Vicipaedia writes much, and I have the impression that the Latin is improving all the time (just like mine and yours, if it comes to that ...)
I'll remind Jondel not to remove the templates. As discussion elsewhere happens to have shown (so I'm revealing no secrets), Jondel isn't fully at home with the grammar of European languages -- and is also a bit impatient, but usually regrets it later ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:59, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Andrew. I agree with you for LilyKitty. The only problem is perhaps that her pages are very long. Therefore I ask me sometimes if there's people who has the time to correct them. In any case I tried to correct the shortest ones and it was a good exercise to improve my Latin which (I know it) is poor. What also makes me angry is perhaps the feeling that some of our vicipaedia's friends do not even try to check in a vocabulary or a grammar if the words they use exist in the Latin language or if their sentences are correct. That's the case for Jondel. When I saw the remark on per/a I thought first: ah I do not know some aspect of the Latin Language. Then however I checked my grammars and I found that his peremptory statement has absolutely no grammatical foundation --Helveticus montanus 22:58, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know! You read these statements and you think: "Who's wrong? Have I been wrong all this time?" But then, occasionally, it turns out that we have been wrong, and we are being taught something new ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
vere humilitas occidit superbiam :-). Tibi gratias ago--Helveticus montanus 11:44, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I use examples also to bolst my grammar. I feel per can be used as 'by'. The example I am familiar or have in mind is 'Res publica per me defensa nobis' . Res publica defensa is ablative absolute. me in 'per me' is accusative. There is also 'Superstitio rursum erumpebat ... sed per Iudeam (accusative), originem eius malis.... You have to go beyond the grammar books and use language samples themselves. Please don't get angry but at least discuss. I don't invent but I investigate thoroughly. We have the internet which allows us to do this. In good faith.--Jondel 14:42, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q. 1: The words "Res publica per me defensa nobis" can't be found in that form on Google. You tell me where you found those words, and I'll help you to understand them.
Q. 2: "superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam". I found that on Google OK. That means literally "Superstition was breaking out again, not only through Judaea, the origin of this evil, but even through the City". So here is "per + acc.": it doesn't mean the same as "a + abl." I don't know the context of your original discussion with Helveticus, but you seemed to be saying that the two mean the same thing. They don't. You wouldn't use a + abl. in this sentence. "Per" means "through" (in this case you might also say "throughout" or "across" or perhaps even "in"); "a/ab" means "from", or (identifying the agent of an action) "by". The meanings are quite different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was the Lojban article. I used 'inventa per gregem' Helveticus changed to 'inventa a grege' which fine by me. My point is that the are the same but most are not familiar with per +acc to mean 'by'. Do you have the Latin grammar (Oxford press) book? It is not popular but it is British. A frequent conflict I have is that I feel people are limited in using words and grammar in particular way. It is good that a natural standard is being formed(e.g. not to use per as 'by'). With templates, as with medicine, and other complicated things, 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it. But if it did exist in classical times, it should be investigated. I have the grammar references. With Q1, I have the oxford book now. Let me peruse a bit and I 'll be back 3 min. --Jondel 14:42, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with generalizing from an unusual or special form (seen in per me) is that it's, well, unusual or special. Gildersleeve says the pattern seen in per me works with persons, but only sometimes with things; accordingly, per gregem (with the noun not being a person) may be leading you onto thin ice. Gildersleeve says (416.18) "Per = ab of Agent is found only in late Latin." ¶ Your non modo per Iudaeam means 'not only throughout Judea' and has nothing to do with Agency. IacobusAmor 15:00, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is from that late Latin usage, perhaps, that the Spanish derives. Spanish por is regularly used for the agent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence which eludes me right now but I memorized by heart is "Re publica per me defensa nobis eorum benevolentiam conciliavit." Perhaps I saw it in my Wheelock. From the grammar book I have 'per deos' by the gods, I will try to avoid usage in this way. It may be late latin but it is 'standard latin'. I acceept 'non modo ' has nothing to do with agency.I have to go now. Sorry for the trouble if any.--Jondel 15:21, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobus is quite right, I feel: if we work from "per deos" we are generalising from a special usage. The gods are a bit special: if they are involved, things are done not just by them but through them, with them, etc. ... It's quite difficult to pin down the meaning of that Latin "per" in another language. With humans, if you say "per me" you are most likely to mean "as far as I'm concerned" or "with my permission" or (maybe in "per me defensa") "with my co-operation or involvement or guidance or leadership" but not in the simplest and most straightforward sense "by me". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I find "Per me defensa est respublica" used as an example in some old grammar books, and the old books are saying that "per" equates with "a" in this case. I don't fully agree, though clearly you can argue it. If I were publishing a translation of that phrase, I would be uncomfortable with a mere "by" as equivalent. Anyway, it is a special usage. "Me", probably Cicero, is taking a slightly superhuman (not to say divine) point of view. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The est isn't in Cicero's phrasing quoted below, where (pace Shackleton Bailey's free translation) I take the subject of the clause to be (per me) defensa res publica 'the defense of the republic (through my actions)'. IacobusAmor 15:52, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict.] The phrase per deos presumably means 'by the gods', but it isn't a statement involving Agency in the usual sense, and is merely a customary way of taking an oath (confer English 'by Jehosaphat! by gum! by God!'). ¶ The passage you seek may be this (Cicero, Ad Familiares, 225 (IV.13), 2): omnibus amicis quorum benevolentiam nobis conciliarat per me quondam te socio defensa res publica, translated—quite unliterally—by D. R. Shackleton Bailey in the Loeb edition as 'all the friends whose good will I won when I defended the state with you at my side'. One might take this per me to mean something more like 'on my account' ('through my actions') than 'by me', but more experienced readers may of course differ. IacobusAmor 15:43, 29 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, is that per + person indicates an objectification of the doer. He is not the true origin of the action, simply a tool through which something is done. v.e. Mk 14,21: “Vae autem homini illi, per quem Filius hominis traditur!”--Chris1981 23:37, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a useful perspective, thanks. In fact I agree with both of the above speakers! Per + acc. is not, in classical Latin, an equivalent of a + abl.
But it's possible, perhaps, that because of its use in this special way in religious expressions, especially Christian, it eventually (in late Latin) came to be thought of as equivalent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 4 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year in Advance!![fontem recensere]

Andrew and Iacobus, I wish you guys in advance a Happy New Year! Ut valetis? Vos laudeo hortorque laborantes. Please understand that we have similar goals. I will do my best to avoid per +acc when I can use ab+abl anyway. However please do study the phrases below. I am very sure that per can be used in the instrumentative sense but is not well documented in latin text books. I have 'by;by means of' in my dictionary. If the articles I write are correct, it is upsetting to see templates because it invites others to another form of latin which may be questionable. The articles are not very long so why not try to correct them instead. They won't be too taxing on your time and effort. Gratias ago.--Jondel 11:28, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per ' by' (perseus.tufts.edu, Julius Ceaser) regno occupato per tres potentissimos : kingdom occupied by three most powerful [--Jondel]

You've given a mistranslation here: a kingdom was not occupied by three most powerful &c.: in context (book 1, last sentence of section 3), regno occupato is an ablative absolute ('when they had seized their kingship'), and per tres potentissimos goes with the verb you haven't quoted. The whole is perhaps well caught in the Loeb translation: 'when they had seized their kingship[, they would be able,] through the efforts of three most powerful . . . [tribes, to master the whole of Gaul]'. This 'through the efforts of three' (per tres) isn't at all the same as 'by the three' (a tribus) would be. Each preposition has multiple senses, and using one for all isn't likely to be a reliable strategy. IacobusAmor 12:12, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I got it. my point is that per is used in the instrumentative sense('by means of') in your above translation, of 'of three most powerful' could also be translated as through the efforts by three.. . --Jondel 12:21, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(perseus) Of agency, through, by, by the hands of, by the agency of : quae comperta sunt per me: per homines explorare, S.: per procuratores agere: quo minus cum eis amicitia esset, per populum R. stetisse

(perseus)Of means or manner, through, by, by means of : id a te per litteras petere: vates per avīs consulti, L.: per litteras [--Jondel]

I don't see anything here on which I can usefully comment. Sorry. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:42, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I accept the templates. I've been here a few years now but, I see I still have a lot to learn(Seeing Iacobus' recent improvements on Guilelmus Jones). By the way please feel free to change the per + acc to ablative forms . I got used to this. Thank you very much for your patience.--Jondel 12:50, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facere melior Maassluisia[fontem recensere]

Multos multos gratias omnibus vobis ago qui pagina Maassluisia curaverunt in modo quo non me potui. Non plus dicere possum, nisi Vive Vicipaedia!--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 12:59, 17 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suecia[fontem recensere]

Multos gratias , mi Andrew! Experientia docet! Jim Jhendin 14:01, 17 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Προσθήκη κατηγοριῶν[fontem recensere]

Andrea, velim, si vis, pro me iustas addas categorias in Apocolocyntosin. Puto enim categorizationem meum non esse "poculum theae".  :-) Martinus (Neander 18:00, 7 Februarii 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Secundum en:Apocolocyntosis, categoriae sunt "Latin prose texts | Satirical works | 1st-century works | Hades (underworld) in Greco-Roman literature | Political thought in ancient Rome | Works by Seneca the Younger." IacobusAmor 18:33, 7 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feci. Possumus, si volumus, categoriam "personalem" pro Seneca creare, sicut nuper pro Claudio creavi; etiam categoriam de itineribus ultraterraneis ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:09, 7 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[fontem recensere]

Please feel free to change or delete categories. My main focus is having correct encyclopedic content in good Latin. When someone changes the content for articles I am concerned, I have to check both the Latin correctness and that the elements are still contained. Like nature, I hate vacuums(undone things) and thus may be creating categories as I go along. --Jondel 01:31, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply, Jondel, and thanks for your comment. That's useful to know. I tend to work very fast with categories, and sometimes I delete them, but my final aim is always to bring more users to our pages via more useful categories! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 23 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well leave the categories to you. For Heroes, maybe in the future, vir fortis could be created. (Unless it exists already). Jondel 11:48, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. The problem with "Heroes" as it stood is that it was POV: how do you define who is a hero? That's why long ago I suggested deleting it, and I guess that's why no one objected. In a way it's the same with the national symbols and state symbols (which Iacobus likes to add as redlink categories, and which I delete). If they are unofficial national symbols, that may be very interesting but they aren't always sufficiently verifiable to be listed in categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: to be accurate, I long ago asked "what is this category about?" (It contained several Filipino historical figures, Vlad the Impaler from medieval Romania, and a couple of ancient Greek mythological characters); Iacobus (if I'm not mistaken, maybe in a summarium) commented that the concept was POV; and it was UV, more recently, who proposed deleting it. No one else commented, and so in due course it was deleted. The basic problem was, as I said above: "it was POV: how do you define who is a hero?" Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, the state birds, insects, reptiles, songs, dances, and so on are matters of law, having been enacted by the legislatures and signed by the governors. They're quite verifiable, and they are of course listed as categories elsewhere. IacobusAmor 13:12, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if they are official national symbols, that's such a boring concept that it isn't notable any longer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Boring" is a POV, irrelevant in the creation of categories. One person's "boring" is another person's "fascinating"! IacobusAmor 13:12, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd show up, mi Iacobe! Well, if you think them interesting, and if you actually create those categories for US states, and if you populate them, who knows? you may find that nobody deletes them. Yes, I've known of the state symbol business since I was 9 years old, when someone gave me a secondhand copy of the Information Please Almanac. American states are very odd. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that if we try to categorise every concept, we get into unverifiability and we end up wasting time. In some cases, instead of categorising, we can make lists. Lists can have footnotes and links. So you could -- in this particular case -- make a list of Philippine national heroes :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which would pose a POV danger, especially if it excluded, for example, the heroes known as the Ultimi Philippinarum! IacobusAmor 13:12, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more optimistic, I guess. It could work well. It's up to Jondel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable and encyclopedic are the main issues(not boring and exciting).(but there are non encyclopedic but very interesting articles at the English wiki) If in the English speaking world, the Hero-ness can be verified by legislature, then perhaps we can create a vir fortissimus category (or some latin equivalent of national symbol person). I assume the category of Hero is not too acceptable because it should be defined by the Greek mythological context. I create categories because it obviously becomes more organized and navigable but it is not such a big issue for me. I will try not to create news categories but search for existing ones and try to be careful with their appropriateness. So. It is up to you or the mainstream majority Latin wikipedians. Jondel 13:43, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and Iacobus, Jondel -- I was wrong to raise the issue of boring and exciting! But the problem with "Heroes" really was the POV -- or, looking at it another way, the impossibility of defining the concept. It would be the same with "vir fortissimus", I think: would you and I and others agree on who fits in this category? In our biography articles we aim to explain people's lives and achievements. We don't aim to rate them greatest or strongest.
Actually, some of our articles, especially the old ones, do, calling men & things of all sorts clarus and inlustris (the latter often with the shudder-inducing hiatus of a illustre); see L'oro di Napoli, La ciociara, La città delle donne, La strada, La voce della luna, Ladri di biciclette, Lo sceicco bianco, Lo scopone scientifico, etc. Just overnight, a biography has characterized a poet as famosissimus. I usually delete such judgments when I find them. ¶ It's especially chuckle-inducing to be told that certain of one's compatriots are clarissimi when one has never heard of them. ;) IacobusAmor 14:55, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do just as you do (amazing how often we agree). It is (I personally think) a wasted word to say a subject is "clarus". If it isn't notable, we don't write about it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let our readers do that, based on the evidence we provide.
It is a good idea to search for existing categories. You certainly are free to create new ones; usually there's no problem, but ask yourself first, "Would others agree with me on who belongs in this category? Will its membership be easy to define?" If these questions would be controversial, maybe better to make a list with references and footnotes (as I suggest above) or to explain the issue in the text of the articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, readers would understand that vir fortissumus was really not meant to mean the 'heroes' being brave and strong but being a national symbol.(but they are brave anyway so no harm done) (As a translator ) you have to struggle with getting the meaning across (national symbol translated as vir fortissimus) yet correct in definition(thus avoiding heroes). There are a lot of late latin words that retained their form in many languages like Hero,and it is hard to avoid using them in this Latin wiki in the modern easier to understand sense. It communicates so much better! If their countries' legislative bodies defined them as national symbols that should be the (encyclopedic)evidence and that, I think should fit the category(and the rating). References and footnotes are indeed required (but require so much work). I guess I should respond in the discussions. Jondel 14:46, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with "Would others agree with me " is that, relatively few people write in encyclopedias, let alone a latin one. So the impression I have is few would care or take the initiative or would be too busy to do so.(nature hates vacuums) Well I'm glad people like you are around qui probe curet. I will try hard to anticipate the sentiments of others hopefully to get it right the first time round.(I have to go now) Jondel 14:46, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a formally constituted body legislates a list of "national heroes" (?fortissimi civitatis/reipublicae viri), one should think that that fact could rightly define a wikipedia category, much as other formally voted lists do, like those that name the winners of Academy awards and Nobel prizes and such. Likewise the winners of contests (including sports, TV game shows, etc). The essential criterion is the formality of the mechanism that generates the list—and perhaps that it be external to Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor 15:04, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that the members and the award itself are notable (hence I'd incline to cross the TV game shows off your list). Quite right: we have several such categories. When they are created, clearly defined, unambiguously named, and populated, there's no problem, I'd say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:17, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

la:Georgius Queirolo Bravo[fontem recensere]

Hi, please delete the page Georgius Queirolo Bravo per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Speedy_deletions&oldid=1314357#Jorge_Queiolo_Bravo_and_related_articles its Vanity and spam.

The discussion you link to is two years old, and it mentions our decision to keep the article. So what is new? I suggest, if you now want to propose we delete it, you get a user account and explain your reasons here: Disputatio:Georgius Queirolo Bravo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:46, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De nomine paginae[fontem recensere]

Mi Andrew, paginam scripsi de en:23-F, quam nominavit Conatus ad democratiam Hispanicam derogandam anno 1981. Est nomen latinum a me propositum verum aut bonum?--Xaverius 11:34, 23 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True and good, I think; one might prefer the "anno 1981", which is a bit of an anticlimax as the last part of the title phrase, to go in parentheses "(1981)"; but it's a minor thing and I wouldn't bother to mess around with it until others have commented if they are going to ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 23 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If it were "(1981)" rather than "anno 1981", it would seem to me as if it were one of many... which on a second thought is what happened, which is sad. Anyway, I thought that being today the 30th anniversary we needed such a page!--Xaverius 14:08, 23 Februarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Museum[fontem recensere]

es:Derby Museum and Art Gallery, ca:Derby Museum and Art Gallery and eu:Derby Museum and Art Gallery have now been created!--Xaverius 11:19, 1 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Javi, the people at Derby will be over the moon! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 1 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Animalia ficticia[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew, the other day you added a 'blue' category Categoria:Animalia ficticia to my new page on the fabulous tarandrus with the remark 'for now'. I take it, then, that you have some reservations about the present use of this category, which at present combines both animal species, such as Unicornis or Kraken, and individual animals, such as Aslan, and fails to distinguish between fiction (e.g. Aslan), mythology (e.g. Unicornis), and rumours (e.g. Yeti). Do you have an opinion on this matter? Or better still: do you have ideas to solve the mess? --Fabullus 12:05, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fabulle, nice to hear from you! I don't have an opinion yet: one puts things in half-appropriate categories because it will help to concentrate minds and produce, eventually, a more satisfactory categorisation.
We have some categories for things that are "fictitious" (if the Latin word ficticius means that); we have some categories for things that are "of doubtful existence" (opinabilia); we don't, I think, have categories for things that are mythological. That may well be a different concept from those other two, and perhaps that's what we should start doing. If we do, as between the terms fabulosa and mythologica I have no strong view. Have you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: for English 'fictitious', Cassell's dictionary gives commenticius and fictus ; for 'mythical', it gives fabulosus. It doesn't recognize ficticius. ¶ Surely the big wikis have addressed this problem and found solutions for it? IacobusAmor 13:22, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "ficticius" wasn't a good choice. Luckily those categories are sparsely populated. We could shift the "ficticia" things to "commenticia" and start a series "fabulosa" -- in which Categoria:Animalia fabulosa Graeca will already belong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I created that one! That was back in the day when my system could create pages. :/ IacobusAmor 14:40, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Pisaurenses[fontem recensere]

Salvus sis, mi Dalby, proposuisti ut haec deleretur categoria, sed puto eam utilem fore ut appareat hanc urbem non solum Victoris nostri Ciarrocchi sed etiam alterius poetae esse quasi cunae. Utile est enim nonnunquam tales coincidentias palam monstrare. Sed submitto hoc tuo sapienti iudicio. Vale semper optime.--Bruxellensis 13:18, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoc tempore, mi Bruxellensis, categorias incolarum urbium et oppidorum singulorum non habemus. Id possumus facere, sed erit opus re vera magnum et longum. Suadeo utilius fortasse futurum esse nomina incolarum, et praesertim scriptorum, in pagina ipsa Pisaurum enumerare.
Non obstante, si vis categoriam singulam Pisaurensium retinere, minime delebo! Oportet autem categoriis singulis quattuor "membra" praebere ad minimum (vide VP:CAT). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communia praefecturae Adduae[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, I will work only on the already existing pages (creating the new category) but I hope he will no add any more otherwise I will stop him because his pages has nothing to do with the Latin language (when I have remarked it today it was too late). In the future I will slowly complete the villages but for the moment only for this departement Do you agree with me? --Helveticus montanus 13:31, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC) Dear Andrew, I'm on holiday therefore I will let Bersatu blocked. Later we will see. Ciao Massimo[reply]

Just testing[fontem recensere]

Please help: replace this red text with a translation of the English message below. Thank you!
This page relates to the Wikipedia GLAM/Derby Collaboration and the Derby Multilingual Challenge. Click here to sign up!

" Wikipedia is particularly pleased to see that Derby Museums are encouraging the creation of articles in languages other than English." (Jimmy Wales, 14 January 2011)

Please help: replace this red text with a translation of the English message below. Thank you!
Announcing the Derby Multilingual Challenge

This is the first multilingual Wikipedia collaboration. All Wikipedians can take part, in any Wikipedia language. The challenge runs from 1 May until 3 September 2011.
Sign up now!
" Wikipedia is particularly pleased to see that Derby Museums are encouraging the creation of articles in languages other than English." (Jimmy Wales, 14 January 2011)

films[fontem recensere]

thank you very much friends to have me told of the discussion in taberna and to appreciate my work. According to the disposable time I will add more navbox about directors. Ciao e grazie!--Helveticus montanus 18:40, 23 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria Auctores Latini hodierni[fontem recensere]

Bene vidi et optime fecisti ad formulas unificandas. Utar igitur hac categoria. Dommodo omnes hodierni auctores maneant in eadam categoria ut facilius inveniantur ab indagatoribus qui de litteris latinis hodiernis aliquid noscere cupiunt. Est bonum instrumentum et ut puto utile. Vale perquam optime, mi Dalby, pergasque tam in rebus coquinariis quam latinis nos diu delectare.--Bruxellensis 11:54, 25 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Constantiae/Thanks[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, I thank you very much for the award you proposed to give me--Helveticus montanus 18:02, 29 Martii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civitas Dei[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime amice, quomodo te habes? Je te demande une petite re-lecture de cette nouvelle page que j'avait crée. Merci encore pour ton aide et bon fin de semaine.

Rex Momo 08:45, 1 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bersatu[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, from your remark I imagine you have already tried to explain Bersatu that he should add more information. Before I thought I could prepare for him a model (with at least the number of inhabitants, an external link to the official page and an image when possible) and explain him to use it. Do you believe it will be only a loss of time --Helveticus montanus 17:47, 3 Aprilis 2011 (UTC) This is what I have written to him:Cher Bersatu, je suppose que tu parles français. On te remercie pour ton aide à vicipaedia mais tu es en train d'ajouter trop de pages avec trop peu d'information. Tu nous peux surement aider, mais tu devrais respecter un model minimal. Par exemple en indiquant le numéro d'habitants, en introduisant dans la page si possible une image et une liaison à la page officielle de la commune. Voie svp par exemple mes modifications à ta page Ceignes. En outre si la commune est indiquée aussi avec le nom du département vicipaediae utilise la forme par exemple Ceignes (Addua) et non Ceignes, Ain. Tu devras donc avant tout modifier le nom dans la listes des communes du département. Je reste naturellement avec plaisir à disposition pour toute information. Si tu devrais continuer à ajouter pages sans informations je serai malheureusement obligé de te bloquer[reply]

I do not understand at the moment Bersatu has he been stopped or it is free?--Helveticus montanus 18:27, 3 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn't blocked at present (at least, not by me!) Whether he knows French I have no idea. He has been seen on the Buginese Wikipedia (minority language of Sumatra). ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 3 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ooops please could you perhaps translate it in Eglish for me, of course you could do it faster than me--Helveticus montanus 18:51, 3 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, Massimo, I guess his English is not too good either. Still, I'll certainly have a try ... ! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:55, 3 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your translation. Because of lack of time I will add some other French villages, I hope Bersatu will use them as an example--83.77.60.206 18:56, 4 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro benevola salutatione gratias ago ...[fontem recensere]

... interdumque hanc in vicipaediam me iturum rediturumque promitto. --Irenaeus 11:59, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DE pagina Francogalliae.[fontem recensere]

Salve, Mense augusto anni 2010i, paginam latinam Francogalliae mutavisti ut fontem nominis "Franciae" adderes. Fontem dedisti : Johannis Iacobi Hofmanni Lexicon universale. Explanationem vocabuli Franciae ex hoc lexico legens, animadverti hoc vocabulum ad francogalliam nuncupandam usurpari non posse : "Francia, vulgo la France, regiuncula est regni Franciae sic dicta, in provincia inferiori Franciae, inter Lutetiam ad austrum et Sylvanectum ad boream, versus Fanum Sancti Dionysii, Monmorancium et Gonessam, et extenditur tantum ad aliquot leucas in illo tractu". (confer http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof2/s0304a.html) Immo plane significat regionem francogalliae hodiernae quae nunc "Île de France" vocatur.

Mea sententia, (et aliorum) nomen latinum regionis quae Francogallice "France" vocatur non est "Francia", est "Francogallia".

213.56.200.5 11:30, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Fredericus Charpentier scripsit.[reply]

Gratias ago. Si paginam "Francia" movere suadetis, tibi et aliis oportet apud Disputatio:Francia ... disputare. Utile erit fontes et pro sententiam vestram, et contra (si sint!), recensere et citare: Vicipaediani enim de rebus, minime de sententiis, disputant et statuunt. Utilius erit conventum aperire et conlationes plures in paginis Vicipaedicis facere. Usque adhuc, nisi fallor, perpauca scripsisti (de aliis nihil scio). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomen Francia manifesto provinciam, regionem, rempublicam significare potest. Confer en:Île-de-France (provinciam) et en:Île-de-France (regionem). Praeterea, vide commentarium de metonymiá, et tum compara Novum Eboracum (civitatem, unam ex quinquaginta civitatibus Civitatum Foederatarum) et Novum Eboracum (urbem, unam ex permultis urbibus). IacobusAmor 12:46, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bindon Abbey[fontem recensere]

Movendumne ad Bindonium? --Alex1011 20:51, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ita, amice Alex, si fons sit. A, iam citationem vidi. Move! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:04, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De epico carmine[fontem recensere]

Salve, Andrew. Excuse me for my recent prolongued wiki-absence, but somehow there are always other things to do! I have written a short page on a French song (La Guerre (Janequin)), which I have described as a "carmen epicum", but I do not know how adequate this will be, and yout opinion will be most welcome! Cheers--Xaverius 19:14, 1 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! I knew nothing about this. I am reading with interest. If it seems too short to be a carmen epicum you can consider the terms "epyllion/epyllium" (a classical term for a short epic-like poem) or "cantilena", a medieval word used for a ballad, including e.g. a "Song of Roland" in some form that was sung before the battle of Hastings. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:22, 3 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Andrew! I'll use cantilena, if is a medieval term, which I feel is more adequate for this composition. I'm glad you find it interesting, I find it myself a great song, and the version I'd linked from the page in particular (you can always trust the King's Singers to make great versions)--Xaverius 17:49, 3 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental question is what did Janequin and his Latin-writing contemporaries call it! IacobusAmor 19:23, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Challenge[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew ... I'm guessing you are back from hols. One user is having a hospitality issue on the French wikipedia. |"They" are deleting articles and asking questions later. Could you intercede as it requires v good French I think (as that is the issue I believe with our contribution)? Details are on my talk page. I have recently updated everyone's scores and we have 6-7 barnstar holders. Any ideas to up the game even more? Victuallers 19:16, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to ClemRutter. Thanks. The problem was the origin in machine translation, whch maybe was too evident after all. Many wikis would delete on getting a whiff of that -- actually it was nice of them to move it to his userspace. OK, back to work tomorrow. Thanks for fielding all the messages over that period -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thank you for the reply and the encouraging words. What troubles me most is that when I try writing Latin, I naturally use 'Romance' vocabulary and syntax; words usually from vulgar Latin or directly related to modern Romance languages. As a novice, I also use simplistic syntax with heavy use of infinitives, like modern languages. As a result, an Italian or Spanish would easily understand my writing.

However I believe the case was different in 'real' Latin: an Italian or Spanish would not really understand an original Latin text. The vocabulary would be a bit more alien, and the syntax more complex (with subjunctive, gerunds, and other constructs like those 'little words' which connect phrases), not just relying on infinitives.

So, besides correcting grammatical mistakes, I wish some expert would add more spice in my "watered down" Latin and improve it in the spectrum of how 'real' Latin can be. Can you help me on that matter? Lusor 09:30, 22 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentius Bertolone[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes? Parvam et rapidam relecturam istae paginae tibi peto. Tibi gratias ago.

Rex Momo 10:18, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praemiolum[fontem recensere]

AnimWIKISTAR-laurier-WT.gif Pro auxiliis firmissime datis
Hocce praemiolum modestum igitur tibi, carissime Domine Andrea, quod me Vicipaediano olim alumno atque tyroni grate opem sine ulla negatione mihimet ipsi in cunctis temporibus pressae necessitatis dedisti, pro edictis beneficiis a. D. bis millesimo undecimo, secundo Kalendas Iunias, muneri dignatus sum. Cura semper ut valeas! --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 10:00, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Fontes Byzantinorum temporum[fontem recensere]

Salve Andrew! I have written a short section on sources for late antiquity. Sadly, I do not know other written sources for this period, and maybe there are some important texts that I may have left aside. Could you have a look? Cheers--Xaverius 16:21, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't do it till now, Javi. I made some minor changes, adding some links, but I think you have all the main sources there already. Glance at my list Libri rerum gestarum Byzantinarum: from this you might want to add Malalas and Menander Protector but the latter is fragmentary so maybe not worth it. I guess that list of mine follows on from yours. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:37, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, many thanks, as always! --Xaverius 22:42, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cipriani[fontem recensere]

Can you delete this [27]? The title is uncorrect!--151.65.143.93 18:20, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um[fontem recensere]

Why was I reverted like a vandal? Firstly, Pichilemu is part of Chile (Chilia), and secondly, it was founded in 1542 (though most dates indicate the date of the creation of the commune, which is infactual). The edit was perfectly okay. Please, undo your action. Diego Grez 15:41, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linguae Periclitate[fontem recensere]

Fortasse vis de periclitatione morteve linguarum commentationem scribere, cui nexum ab Phonographum#Historia inscribamus? --Iustinus 07:31, 10 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerabilitas[fontem recensere]

Dear Andrew, what do you think of Vulnerabilitas socialis, verbum vulnerabilitas in Castiglioni, Aloisius; Mariotti, Scaevola. Vocabolario della lingua latina, latino-italiano, italiano-latino. Quarta editio a Petro Georgio Parroni curata (Taurini, 2007). non est. Ciao Helveticus montanus 14:34, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias...[fontem recensere]

ago tibi, Andrew, pro aiutorio tuo. Vides me parvulum esse in vicipaedia... --Castaliensis 13:29, 17 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Bleu[fontem recensere]

Hello,
You have protected Corbin Bleu, so the bots can't edit it's interwikis. Can you update them from fr:Corbin Bleu please ?
Regards --Hercule 11:23, 22 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 22 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution in an article Corbin Bleu, but you can develop the article such as this article David Clayton Henrie, please.--RockStar50 19:09, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lagidae[fontem recensere]

Great job with all the Ptolemaic stuff! --Iustinus 18:31, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, the Ptolemies may yet bring you and me together. I am more and more interested in the transmission of luxury from Greece and the East to Rome: clearly the Ptolemies were a stage in this process. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planeta[fontem recensere]

Hello Andrew! So planeta is masculine? Ah, how could I miss that? Mea culpa...

Anyway, thanks for pointing out.

Donatello 19:12, 25 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Balder[fontem recensere]

Hello Andrew! I am here again to talk about the article latina about Artur Balder. I think the sentence about cross wp spam is out of context in the article itself. If you want, you can place it on the Discussion page of the article. But you are interferring and intermixing the life and work of a person with the fact that an internal issue took place in the wikipedia. You should consider this points. --Lolox76 17:23, 9 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De la traduction de région par regio[fontem recensere]

Bonjour. Je viens de répondre à Leonellus Pons au sujet de l'emploi de regio et je l'ai fait en invoquant ce qui me semble d'usage sur Vicipaedia depuis plusieurs années en cette matière. Mais peut-être le débat pourait-il être enrichi, voire tranché par un Britannique résidant en Poitou-Charentes (ce qui n'est pas la même chose que le Poitou...), qui plus est contributeur fréquent à Vicipaedia ? ThbdGrrd 10:05, 10 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuarium Nostrae Dominae Custodis Derthonae[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime amice, quomodo te habes?

Please, can you correct this page that I've made now? Thank you very mauch for your help!

Rex Momo 09:21, 17 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[fontem recensere]

Sorry, Latine non loquor. ;) [[Specialis:Conlationes/71.14 1.101.92|71.141.101.92]] 19:48, 5 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Ecclesia Iesus Christi Sanctorum Dierum Ultimorum[fontem recensere]

Hello. What grammatical error is there in the title of the page that I moved it to? As far as I can tell there are no mistakes…Iesus is a 4th Declension noun, so the genitive is -ūs, and Christi agrees with that…the genitive of sancti is sanctorum, and the genitive of dies (plural), which is 5th Declension, is dierum. I'm aware that dies can sometimes be feminine but in this case I made it masculine because that seems to be how it is more commonly used…so the form of ultimus that would agree with it is ultimorum. Literally it says "The Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of the Last Days". This agrees with the way that the church's name is rendered in other romance languages and properly conveys the meaning of "Latter-Day" within the context of the doctrine of the church. I admit I'm a few years removed from my formal study of Latin but I don't see where I went wrong here. Please enlighten me; I will continue this discussion on the talk page of the article itself.--Antodav 13:54, 30 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will answer you there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 30 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolseius[fontem recensere]

Hello, I have finished the draft Chronologia at Disputatio:Thomas Wolseius but feel that the Latin version is not good. Perhaps you could have a look at it sometime.--Felix Folio Secundus 11:56, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is much better. The phrase you queried was supposed to mean "sought the office of Pope" but the grammar was probably wrong. The Chronologia was not compiled in a very good way but an attempt to provide at least a fuller account of an important statesman. The English article is so long that summarising it would take many hours so the Chronologia was based on one in the French WP which I had already translated into the Simple English WP. Thank you for the improvement.--Felix Folio Secundus 12:01, 4 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now what's the Latin for the "Field of the Cloth of Gold"? Perhaps "Arvum Textilis Aurei" would fit.--Felix Folio Secundus 02:56, 5 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippus gonzález[fontem recensere]

Hi Andrew. I'm sorry I've been absent this summer. I'm in the process of returning to normal academic life (i.e, not in a field) and as usual now I return to our vici. I've seen the comment about the Spanish president list. I am not sure right now if the list is correct, but it al seems a problem of terminology (president of the government vs. president of the Republic). As the list stands now, I believe that it correctly represents the presidents of the government of the Republic, because there were just two presidents of the Republic (Azaña and Alcalá Zamora).--Xaverius 18:55, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, then, Javi. And it's good to see you back again. I hope you enjoyed your time in the field ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:18, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De nominatione categoriarum geographicarum[fontem recensere]

Mihi placet disputationem concludere de vicis Italiae, gratias tibi ago. Quaero si sit locus ubi scribitur de nominatione categoriarum geographicarum, quoniam categoriae de geographia Italiae mihi sunt sine ratione. --Achillus 14:26, 5 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. Nunc categorias moveo nec nomina muto. Si video necesse est mutare scilicet disputatio offerenda. Vale. --Achillus 13:05, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regna mediaevalia Cambrica[fontem recensere]

Vide si tibi placet hanc disputationem. Mattie 03:23, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica Virginis Candelariae[fontem recensere]

An augmentum redit articles hic English version in Italian, sic vos docebit vos. it - en--193.152.175.64 13:13, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My writing in Latin is bad ... could help expand the paper, we would appreciate it endlessly, thank you very much to improve the article of the Virgo Candelariae, I've left the Italian and English version for you to gui, God bless you always.

Alfajor[fontem recensere]

Crustulum Argentinum modo edi, cui nomen est alfajor. Vox, arabica sane, satis antiquast, et invenitur in Antonii Nebrissensis Dictionario Latino (p. 459): "Alfaxor o alaxur.artomeli.grȩcum." --Iustinus 02:36, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[fontem recensere]

I believe that I have just saved Vikipedia from the terrible threat of vandalism, in the person of Usor:93.112.91.100 in the article Dâmboviţa (circulus). Since my Latin is worse than sub-par; since I am new to this Wikipedia; and I since I could not find a VP article on vandalism, I would be very grateful if you could look over what I threw together for it.

I would also value your advice on how to deal with Latin vandalism in the future, since that is probably the most useful contribution I can make here. Chamberlian 20:17, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't yet see anything terrible, just a faulty link. By all means explain further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:41, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A full inspection of the link will show that it is, unless I am woefully mistaken, a commendably clever joke: "You have reached the last page on the internet. If you think you have reached this page in error, you have not. It is simply because you have been online too long and had nothing better to do." Chamberlian 20:16, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I saw too! Well, thank goodness it's possible to get back home again from there. Of course it was right to delete the link. There's no mystery about dealing with vandalism: the basic step, if it clearly is vandalism, is to remove it. If it repeats, blocking may be needed, and admins (magistratus) may need to be alerted. Thanks for your help -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:44, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits[fontem recensere]

If I'm reading the summarium right, you made about three hundred edits in Vicipaedia last week, but the edit-counting bot says you made more like three thousand. See comments at Disputatio Usoris:Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits. IacobusAmor 16:39, 31 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Yes, 300 might be right: 3000 can't be! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:40, 31 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I just checked (easy to do by comparing edits via the historia button), it says Rafael made 2030 edits last week—but in fact, he didn't make any. Something is seriously wrong with that bot! IacobusAmor 17:02, 31 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ⲡⲗ̅ⲫⲉⲗ?[fontem recensere]

Andrew, I went and commented to en:talk:Falafel per your request. As you will see, my feelings on this etymology are mixed at best, but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely if it interests you. To be honest, though, I tolerate wikidebate poorly, and may not have the fortitude to keep up with this conversation... you may need to let me know when/if it develops. --Iustinus 03:18, 4 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse volumus commentationem Latinam elaborare, quod nunc apud falafel invenitur. Ex Davide Morgan credo me aut "cicer frictum" aut "isichiam ciceris" audivisse, sed non bene memini—et sane difficultati est nobis felafel etiam ex faba fieri, ut nuper te hortante didici. Fuitne felafel in opere Iambobini/Iambonini quod abhinc multis annis ad te cititabam? Non iam habeo apud me, et obliviscor. --Iustinus 04:06, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting idea, I have him not far away, I'll look.
I will write a note for PPC, and I would be happy if you will look at it before I submit it. Essentially it will be to outline the question and to say that a second etymology has been posited, but that there are problems with it.
Am thinking about the fish below. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it offa might be superior to isichia—cf. the Egyptian Arabic ṭaʿmiyya. I suspect this tripartite folk etymology results from keeping exactly the same vocalization as the Arabic—if it really does come from Coptic -phel makes a lot of sense, but phala- is, if not impossible, at least unlikely (due to the weakening of vowels in unstressed syllables). This is why they had to resort to stacking prefixes, rather than treating it as one word. But I digress. I'll write you a little more by email. --Iustinus 20:10, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petrocephalus[fontem recensere]

Hey, if you'll look at my Usor:Iustinus/pisces_Nilotici chart, you'll notice that the one species for which I don't have any ancient name in any language is Petrocephalus bane (well, the Egyptian name seems to be bs, but I can't find any authentic citations). Do any of your sources give a classical name for this species? --Iustinus 04:51, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've found yet. It is mentioned a couple of times in Darby et al. (as I expect you know), said to be "esteemed" nowadays, but no names given. Is it illustrated on figs 7.34 and 7.36 (same relief) of Darby et al.? I can only go by the generic picture in FishBase, so I could be fishing in the wrong pond there. How can a fish be native to Cote d'Ivoire and Egypt? Clever creature! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 11 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Municipium[fontem recensere]

Thank you for your precious help Andrew. Of course from now on I will use curia but now we have hundreds of pages to correct. Could somebody activate a bot please? Thank youHelveticus montanus 11:31, 8 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Helveticus has used it only in the pages about French communes, and only in picture captions, so the text to be replaced would always be ": municipium ]]". Is that right, mi Helvetice
yes that's rightHelveticus montanus 08:31, 9 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The World and Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Citogenesis --Iustinus 17:37, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenia[fontem recensere]

Good day! Why are you reverting my edits? 91.202.129.142 11:45, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't yet see the justification for them. Please explain at Disputatio Categoriae:Ruthenia. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Template[fontem recensere]

Do we not have anything in the way of a {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}} template here?

If I were to draft one, would you have any advice for it?

Do we have a latin word for vandalism?
Should it include the message in a second language?
Should that language be English?

Does this even seem like something worth doing? - [ Usor:Chamberlian ]

Vandalism is not a big problem, though it happens. Most unwanted edits are made from anonymous IPs, whose users don't know any Latin and are making a quick tour of the Wikipedias; they don't come back to read messages.
We had a brightly-coloured template called something like "Destructor", designed long ago to place on naughty user pages. I haven't used it for a long time and I can't find it now. As you can tell, it isn't often used. Ask at the Vicipaedia:Taberna: someone will remember!
As I said to you above, the main thing with vandalism is simply to revert it. Incidentally, I don't know whether the erroneous link you discovered back there was vandalism or not. It could have been an honest error, for all I know. There is a relevant and possibly useful website with a very similar address. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprianus Biyehima Kihangire[fontem recensere]

Vale, care Schulz-Hameln, tuum adiutum peto. Parvam relecturam dare in ista pagina potes?

Non callidissime loquor nec scribo Latine, et relectura tecnica sicut tua necesse est! Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo 15:41, 30 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Sortilegii[fontem recensere]

Thanks for your note, Andrew! My idea was to replace "Sortilegii" by creating a redirect to Alea (modus ludendi) that I had begun to write. But the result was that I happened to create a misspelled Area (modus ludendi) without noticing the lapsus. Having done this, I believed in my sleepy mind that my [[Alea (modus ludendi)]] had been overwritten or something by the redirect. So I made the silly decision to prefix a {{delenda}] tag to it and left the whole mess at that, having in mind to get back to it later. Now, I think, Area (modus ludendi) should be deleted, and Sortilegii should be redirected to Alea (modus ludendi), but I'm afraid that my further moves will be no good -- certainly these aren't my strengths! Would you please do the requisite changes for me? Neander 21:35, 10 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the form of sortilegii appears to be false, as (Cassell's says) the word is sortĭlĕgus, -a, -um (presumably with stress on the antepenult) 'prophetic, oracular' and sortĭlĕgus, -i 'soothsayer, fortune-teller'. So if you want a redirect from sortilegii, you should probably add a redirect from sortilegi too. ¶ I happened upon the article as it was, unmindful of its history and without the benefit of the day's first cup of coffee, read the title as Area (locus ludendi), and supposed you might be writing about a 'playground'—to be contrasted with Area (geometria), of course! IacobusAmor 22:29, 10 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I must have been sleepy too or I would have questioned "Area" more searchingly. I did think, "Is Neander speaking with a Japanese accent today?" OK, I will make the required moves soon if no other magistratus has done it already! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 11 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you like the picture. Neander, there could be few better illustrations of your first sentence. Not sure whether "Paginarum lusores" is the ideal title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 11 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor[fontem recensere]

Rem de mentoribus incepi (modo ut commentationem habeamus), but I think you should take a look at the footnote and, if possible, cite the sources you consulted that claimed the word was first used in French. Mattie 20:13, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I'm glad you've done that and I'll add some stuff later! It's interesting that the first [or maybe second] Mentor was a transsexual (i.e. Aphrodite playing the part of a man). I'm sure I wrote something about that somewhere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a page on the mythological figure. I don't know whether you think the picture suitable. The young man may well have needed a mentor at that moment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, Andrew! The page is much better now, I'm glad you took the time to work on it. I moved the picture into the "Origo nominis" section, which I thought it was better suited for. This makes the page layout look a bit odd at the moment, but once the page will be longer (who knows when that'll be, but nonetheless) it should be ok. Feel free to put it back where it was, though! Mattie 18:37, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change of username[fontem recensere]

Salve! Do you know where I may change my username? (Aaemn784 > Panarium) --- Aaemn784 02:32, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to ask our grapheocrates, Disputatio Usoris:Adam Episcopus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[fontem recensere]

Thank you, Andrew Dalby, for the good faith welcome. It is most appreciated. ;) Cheers, Cirt 13:33, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Andrew thank you for welcoming. I was reading your biografy and to tell you the whole truth i am impressed and honoured to know you. I studied latin at school but girls were more important to me at that time... so my possibilities on this project are a bit limitated by my poor "latin" tools and I am very happy to know there are around the world some very good latinists like you. For sure I will bother you and your wisdom asking for help in future. Andrew only culture and knowledge improve our world, so thank you and good job--1felco 07:34, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to have replied earlier, 1felco. I hope you stay with us -- it'll be a pleasure to work with you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:21, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina movenda[fontem recensere]

Salve Andree,

Administrator es, itan? Ego non, ergo nequeo commentationem Wikipediam ad Vicipaediam movere, cum "Vicipaedia" ad "Vicipaediam Latinam" redirigat... Si vis, possisne quae in disputationem mense Octobri scripsi legere commentationemque movere? Gratias, curaque ut valeas! Mattie 18:18, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I overlooked this till now. Writing in haste and therefore in English: sorry about that too! I could move it for you; the objection is that many links point to Vicipaedia and intend "Vicipaedia Latina". All those links would be misdirected if this page was moved. But I agree the renaming is logical. Therefore, would it be better to move it to "Vicipaedia (series)" or something like that? I'm happy to do what you think best, I just want to be sure you've considered the outcomes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:56, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Albert non Albrecht, Smith non Smyth, Vicipaedia non Wikipedia est. As a proper name, Vicipaedia can't be confused with Wikipedia. Brands are unique. No adjective is needed. Of course to distinguish in Latin the German Wikipedia from the Spanish Wikipedia, then the adjectives will romp! IacobusAmor 18:10, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'll now copy this to Disputatio:Wikipedia, which is where Mattie suggested that the page be renamed: that's the best place to discuss this (not unimportant) point. It came to me here only because a deletion was needed in order to carry out the move. So let's continue there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:27, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobo in disputatione tacente, te credo paginam movere posse, si vis ... :) Mattie 17:25, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, initial moves made! I'm short of time, so if you could check the text of the page and edit where necessary, that would be good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Factum est! Mattie 22:44, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now completed the moves. I worried unnecessarily, in fact: there was no mass of incoming links to Vicipaedia that were aiming for Vicipaedia Latina. So all was quickly done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jatorduak[fontem recensere]

Happy new year, mi Andrew! I've replied (late) on my disputatio. I wish I could have been more useful! --Xaverius 16:28, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax of paintings?[fontem recensere]

Andrew, you're doing a great job, indeed, in introducing paintings by world famous artists. While I can't boast on any kind of expertise on this area, I feel that it might be good to outline some syntactic principles governing titles of paintings – after all, willy nilly, we seem to be establishing official names for illustrous works of art. For example (and right now this is my only example!) the title "Pictor cum uxore ientaculum sumit (Metsu)" strikes me as being a bit too long. (And somehow I've got the impression that finite verbs aren't too welcome in tiitles of books and articles, but I'm not sure about this.) Thus, I'd prefer a shorter title like Pictor cum uxore prandens. What do you think about this? Neander 20:57, 3 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Neander. My aim is to come back to these pages and flesh them out, dealing with them group by group and making sure that there are links to museum catalogues etc.
I am indeed somewhat hesitant about making up names for paintings, but of course only a minority have what you might call a "real name" given in the painter's lifetime and used by everyone thereafter. So it seems to be the reasonable thing to do.
The question of whether to use a finite verb or a participle puzzled me (book titles rarely contain either, so far as I can think, but then books rarely depict a single action, while paintings often do.) I did not spend too much time heartsearching at the beginning: there were only a few. They are multiplying. Yes, I was feeling that I may have made the wrong general choice, and if you think that too, I have all the more reason to reconsider.
Better than either finite verb or participle (I think) is a noun that implies the action. So, if there was only one subject in this picture, it would surely be "Ientaculum pictoris" (or "prandium"; or "uxoris"). Nice and short. But "Ientaculum pictoris et uxoris" is much less neat.
When you have a good name in your mind, I will be really happy if you either move a page to a better title, or suggest a better title on the talk page. You can feel confident that I won't be annoyed! I didn't spend long over each name ... I always have in mind the ease of renaming pages on Vicipaedia, one of its luckiest features ... But meanwhile, yes, I will look back over the titles with finite verbs and try a bit of rephrasing.
You may notice a current emphasis on breakfast. I am hunting up possible illustrations for a book on this subject. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:29, 3 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the impression that you're working on a book, and indeed, I have noticed the breakfast theme. So, what I've got is "1+1", but failed to do the addition. :–) I suggested the participial construction on the model of the Catalan name Parella desdejunant and Spanish Pareja desayunando. Paying heed to your preference for a noun that implies the action, I might add some food for thought and suggest Ientaculum coniugum. Neander 23:06, 3 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title of a painting isn't at all the same thing as the caption of an image: the former indeed doesn't want to have a finite verb, but the latter often (at least in the most elegant company) demands it. Each is an implied sentence, which wants to end with a period. (Even a title consisting of a single noun, say, X, has the underlying form "[Hic est] X.") Accordingly, the title of this painting might well be, as Neander suggests, Ientaculum coniugum, or maybe just plain Ientaculum. The caption, however, might well be something like Pictor cum uxore ientaculum sumit or Pictor et uxor prandent, with details about the food, the setting, the location, the date, the purpose, whatever might helpfully diagnose the presentation. Perhaps ideally for artworks, a third sentence will add the size, the composition ("oil on canvas," "tempera on wood," etc.), the institution where the object is currently kept, and (when pertinent) the name of the collection within that institution and the name of the donor or the institutional fund that purchased the object. Some sources, e.g. the Prints & Photographs Division of the Library of Congress, suggest that the caption include the custodial institution's own catalogue number. IacobusAmor 00:13, 4 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! I learnt a lot. Neander 00:26, 4 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, Iacobe. As you see, it's titles that are the focus of our discussion here, and your point seems very good to me, captions can be quite different and should not distract us. I think "Ientaculum coniugum" is very nice; all the better, in fact, in that some existing titles that I've seen for this picture identify it firmly as the artist and his wife, others (the minority) don't, and I don't yet know what the evidence is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 4 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De Bollandistis[fontem recensere]

Adhuc est simplex et modestum initium sed iam gratulor tibi pro exhortationibus tuis. Valeas semper optime.--Bruxellensis 13:15, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/Gladiator & others[fontem recensere]

Sorry about those category mixups. You know this thingies,[/somenewarticledraft] whatever they are called are like your own personal sand boxes. They were'nt meant to be official. Im too lazy(you need to see my messy English Wikipedia page.) to put them in a separate isolated file. I will try to disable those categories at these pages since they may mess up the overall category scheme at wikipedia.--Jondel 23:35, 13 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jondel, don't worry about it, it's your userspace! Just so long as you didn't mind me adding the <!-- --> there's no problem at all. All the best -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:48, 14 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bowenia serrulata[fontem recensere]

Ave! It was just a draft, I had not so much time, so i left some errors in declensions. Some answers to your questions:

  1. yes, it is possible. clearly it will make mistakes if nouns are of different declensions, but it seems to me too that they have all the same declension. I could teach a bot to change -ae with -arum, but not to understand which declension a noun belongs to, unless I use a dictionary a bot can read: unfortunately, what I found don't cover all scientific language.
  2. Ok.
  3. I am checking it.

In these days, I am busy with some things to do in real life, but as soon as I have time I will fix this issues and produce new test-pages. :)--Nickanc 17:32, 17 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Nick, take your time! I'm busy too ... When we have a good draft, we'll ask others to comment as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 17 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lorem[fontem recensere]

Lorem ego potest auxilium emendare hoc, gratias: Maria de León Bello y Delgado.--81.33.121.97 12:32, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draft page and translation help[fontem recensere]

It's here now: Usor:M0rphzone/Latifundium. Feel free to work on it yourself and ask others to help.
I saw your comment at the Vicipaedia:Porta communis. We do in fact get lots of help here from people who don't know Latin -- links, interwikis, images, making templates etc. You don't have to know Latin to do those things, sometimes working with others. Writing text in a foreign language is hard work and needs study. But you can start here: if you want guidance in learning Latin, ask for help, e.g. on the Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 22 Februarii 2012 (UTC)