Disputatio Usoris:Fabullus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Salve Fabulle[fontem recensere]

Salve, Fabulle!

Gratus in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle!


--Xaverius 12:45, 24 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Salve[fontem recensere]

Salve, Fabulle. Recensiones tuae mihi valde placent. Velim, quae scripseris, multis, si mihi di favent, diebus legere pergam.--Irenaeus 08:32, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Profecto, Fabulle, non erras, qui me ex Dithmarsia ortum vidisti. Sum itaque non secus atque tu homo maris Germanici aquis, ut ita dicam, baptizatus, qui plano et paludoso solo, caelo altissimo, cibis marinis, Saxonica lingua delecter. Tuorum cum legissem, quae de philosophis variis contribueras, gavisus sum, quod virum sincerae latinitatis studiosum, raram avem, ad hanc vicipaediam accessisse statim intellexi. Quod tibi bene procedat! Vale. --Irenaeus 16:58, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Eleates/Eleaticus[fontem recensere]

Male memini rationem meam, at me scio rationem habuisse. Priusquam dies finitus erit, tibi respondebo... Gratias ob curam tuam ago.--Ioshus (disp) 18:52, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Iustino, primus qui nomen mihi invenit (is et ego strenue conlaborabam pro Infinitate), respondit apud Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio#Zeno: Eleates aut Eleaticus??. Iterum gratias ago ob curam.--Ioshus (disp) 19:54, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Disputatio:Asteroides#Declination[fontem recensere]

Thanks for notifying me. --Rolandus 16:55, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Blanks[fontem recensere]

I have answered on my talk page. --Rolandus 06:54, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)

It is good that you asked, I did not realize that this minor change is - you are right - very hard to follow. :-) --Rolandus 07:13, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)
The same thing puzzled me for ages, on the English Wikipedia as well as the Latin one. What was the change, when no change showed up in red? I see it now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Końskowola - Poland[fontem recensere]

Could you please write a stub http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%84skowola - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%84skowola ? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Please. 123owca321 13:21, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)

De figura paginae primae[fontem recensere]

Salve Fabulle. A few of us were discussing the layout and content of our pagina prima, and some expressed desire to rehaul it. This might include color changes, content changes, layout changes, and who knows what else. Could you join the discussion at Disputatio:Pagina prima/Nova? Give us a list of things you want a main page to have, what you dont want a main page to have, and what specifically you might think to do differently with ours. We will then try to come up with a design that meets as many of these requests as possible, based on content from everyone. Thanks, and regards.--Ioshus (disp) 20:43, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Iuniperus[fontem recensere]

Bonum nomen est et plantarum et puellarum! Sic feci quia Juniperus est nomen botanicum generis; credo ego nos debere ad orthographiam Linnaeanam adhibere dum his nominibus utimur. Sed fortasse movebo ad Juniperus (genus), quia exstat etiam species cuius nomen classicum est Iuniperus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:52, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

De origine litterae V[fontem recensere]

Fabullus Avito s.p.d. Quod scripsisti de origine litterae V mihi merae, ignosce, ineptiae esse videntur, quas potius delendas esse censeo. Fac valeas. --Fabullus 15:19, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Rectissimé dicis, stupiditates sunt supinæ, at non ego scripsi! Tantum transtuli ab aliá paginá quæ appellabatur "V (littera)" a nescioquo scriptá quæque fluctuabat in spatio virtuali. Nunc rem paulatim emendabimus. Patientiam exerceas precor. Avitus 15:43, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Declinatio_nominum_Graecorum[fontem recensere]

I've added a comment to Vicipaedia:Taberna#Declinatio_nominum_Graecorum. --Rolandus 22:22, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

De diminutivo[fontem recensere]

Ut scimus, mi Fabulle, modus et mos diminutivi formandi hoc de quo loquimur loco nobis desunt. Quae cum ita sint, de gustibus agitur. Si filius Alexander nomine mihi esset, eum fortasse Alexandellum hypocoristice appellari mallem, nam nescio quomodo aliquid tenelli habet haec forma nominis, cum Alexandrulus mihi quidem aliquantulo durius audiat; atquin Alexandrulus quoque fortasse alio quodam consilio adhiberi potest, nam pragmatice mihi videntur aliquantulum differre haec formae. (Et quid de Alexandro, etiam de Neandro...) Neque -ellus neque -ulus a legibus grammaticis abhorrere videntur. Itaque, equidem ambas formas siverim velut praestolari usús cuiuslibet inopinati opportunitati. Ad summam, de duabus ambas eligere ad usús varios malim quam unam tantum formam. Verbosus ut saepe, Neander 22:23, 8 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Salve, Fabulle! Habemus novam propositionem in diminutivi paginae disputationis pagina. Fortasse vis usorem ignotum respondere? Harrissimo 10:32, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

Cream[fontem recensere]

Salve, Fabulle. Noster Andreas Gollan, latinista ac coquus optimus, dicit mihi flos lactis.--Ioscius (disp) 13:37, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Papilio[fontem recensere]

... nearly, yes. ;-) I moved it to papilio (genus), because we needed a page for en:butterfly but our page corresponded to en:papilio. --Rolandus 20:42, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

(Similar with Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Ant.)

Fossa[fontem recensere]

Perfectly done :-) --Rolandus 06:52, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Gratias ago[fontem recensere]

mi Fabulle, pro familiari salutatione.--Irenaeus 12:13, 2 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Albicastrum[fontem recensere]

Sicut Carthago, Albicastrum deletum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Et sicut Carthago, Albicastrum nunc iterum est conditum! --Fabullus 10:43, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Citrus to Limon[fontem recensere]

Fabullus, thanks for the info. My lists should just help to support the following goals:

  • Being listed here: m:List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles/Absent_Articles#la_Latina. Since we have less than 250 missing articles now, we are listed there. So the current status is ... DONE. (If we can add an interwiki link to one of these English pages, it will disappear when the list will be updated the next time by the guy who maintains it.)
  • Then I maintained lists to have an overview about the pages we already have. This demand is archieved by our category Categoria:1000 paginae now.

Maybe I'll update the lists, however, they are not really necessary any more.

The main goal for now should be to get a better rank on page m:List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles either by creating stubs or expanding existing articles ;-) --Rolandus 08:40, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Aludel[fontem recensere]

I cannot find it in Wehr, which means either I have not looked properly or the word is no longer in common use (maybe it is derived from اثل "to strengthen, fortify"). Nonetheless, I think your question can be answered. If you look closely at the scan of Tazi (who I think is the most reliable source), he has الأثال (three dots instead of two) and al-ʾuṯal (underscore instead of dot). ث ṯ is often (though less well) transcribed as 'th' (optionally with a line underneath), so this would explain the alternative spellings you have found. The one on the English wikipedia (الؤطال), however, must be nonsense: There are no words in Arabic beginning with ؤ.--Ceylon 19:33, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Holera[fontem recensere]

Recte mones ancipitem esse appellationem, neque habeo ego finem fixum. Nonnumquam audio de voce anglica "vegitable," esse generatim plantam cuius usus hominibus sit partem edere quamlibet praeter fructum, sed haec definitio neque anglice firme fixa est: lycopersica exempli causa saepe "holera" esse dicuntur. Nescio igitur. Quid censes tu? --Iustinus 21:02, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Em. si ita res se habent, mihi necesse videtur exempla petere ex Latinitate classica. Re vera dubito quin Romani poma inter holera numerarint. --Iustinus 15:25, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
His aliquid inest, quae dixisti, nam apud Romanos, "holera" erant inter "fructus"--non autem inter "poma." Anglophoni (et procul dubio aliis linguis Europaeis loquentes) solemus "fructum" dicere quando "poma" dicere debuimus. Haec vero fontibus classicis non consultis dico; cum vera esse credeam, opus erit rem exquirere. --Iustinus 15:47, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

In case you hadn't seen this[fontem recensere]

On en:wiki, on the talk pages for each list-of-stars-by-constellation that happens to include a named star, there is a table that includes Arabic (and also Chinese and classical) names. I just saw them two days ago. Here's an example: en:Talk:List of stars in the constellation Andromeda#Etymologies. Other examples can be found via en:Category:Lists of stars by constellation, then going to the talk page each time. Not sure if this will be any use to you ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:31, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

De Lingua Latina[fontem recensere]

De "Verba restitui quae quis delevit."—Hoc "quis" fuit 78.13.47.136, usor ignotus, sed nosmet quoque erravimus cum eum non omnino revertimus cum tantum eius stultitiam "Olim, ut fabulae narrant, Pan, pecudum deus, Apollinem ad musicum certamen provocavit &c." delerimus. Anglice, Fabulle, dicimus "Good catch!" IacobusAmor 17:12, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Subdividing Categoria:Interpretes[fontem recensere]

You were right that this is a good idea! I am wondering whether, at the beginning, to subdivide it purely by the languages that people translate from. If one does from and to in the same category, the number of possible combinations is terrifying (because, of course, many of our subjects did not translate into Latin but into all kinds of modern languages). If I subdivided it by language-of-origin, I would make sure at the same time that they are put in a category under Categoria:Auctores ... according to the language they wrote in, the "target" language: in this way, both languages would be covered. Do you have any thoughts about this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 7 Martii 2009 (UTC)

So Constantinus Africanus and Gerardus Cremonensis would become Interpretes Arabici or perhaps Interpretes scriptorum Arabicorum and at the same time Auctores Latini? Great idea. Should we perhaps make a subcategory under Categoria:Auctores Latini for translators into Latin? --Fabullus 14:06, 7 Martii 2009 (UTC)
Yes, even better, it would be fully covered that way. I'll try a few. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 7 Martii 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty is inventing category names that are clear, explicit and neat. In this way, I must admit, your Categoria:Interpretes Arabo-Latini is unbeatable.
OK, still thinking about it. We will eventually have more translators into Latin than any other wiki: it is a topic of special importance to us. So if I create Categoria:Interpretes textuum Arabicorum (and so on up to Zulu as required!), and if I make your existing Categoria:Interpretes Arabo-Latini a subcategory both of that and of Categoria:Auctores Latini, I will have covered it, won't I? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 7 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Thebae (discretiva)‎[fontem recensere]

Macte, Fabulle! That's what I'd have done if I'd have thought of it! IacobusAmor 19:25, 28 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Asterix[fontem recensere]

Just in case you can help, Fabulle ... An anonym has twice removed the template {{Imago sine descriptione}} from the illustration at Asterix, and, last time, left a rude message to say that no caption was needed. But we have to have a caption, and, in any case, the picture is not self-explanatory, at least to me. It seems to be of a building with a picture of Asterix and the words "De Galliër" on its exterior. The image was uploaded to Commons by a Dutch editor. So, what is the building? Why does it display these words, and why does it use an image of Asterix? If by any chance it's clear to you, maybe you could add the necessary caption! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

[Fabullus inserted the caption.]
Thank you so much! Why our anonymous interpellator thinks every reader would know that this is the outside of a comics bookshop, I can't imagine. I never saw a building looking less like a bookshop. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Andrew: I transposed your remarks because they seemed to be thanking yourself, and that seemed strange! IacobusAmor 16:30, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Good questions all! As a rule, illustrations in reference works need remarks to tell the reader what to see. In the most fully elaborated reference works, a caption consists of two elements: a title, and a legend. The title is the name of the illustration; the legend is explanatory material. These elements are often separate phrases, each ending with a period. Illustrations that just sit there, with no caption at all, or with a minimalist title, like the mere name of a person (or, as here, a building) depicted, may be decorative but not informative. I've been thinking about these points since I noticed that someone was reducing captions to their titles in Cultura only hours after I'd bragged over in en: that la:'s layout of that article was more attractive than en:'s, "not least because the illustrations have captions that connect them with points made in the text." They do that less now. The need for explanatory material in captions is greater in Vicipaedia than in many print media because Vicipaedia doesn't use callouts (e.g., "figure 1," "table 3") to tie illustrations to the points in the text that they're illustrating. Since some readers of long articles will do little more than look at the pictures and (perhaps) read their captions, the utility of at least a sentence about the significance of illustrations is obvious. When I get a chance, I'll copy into Taberna, from the Chicago Manual of Style, a useful paragraph about the function & structure of captions. IacobusAmor 20:10, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
As the "someone" who reduced some captions of persons in cultura, let me say that I very seldom do things impulsively. I reduced those captions because I didn't find them particularly helpful, given that the pictures are in the immediate vicinity of the relevant text, respectively. If we adopt the format suggested, the legends should be extremely well thought-out and not just more or less naive outpourings of words (I'm not necessarily referring to the article on culture). Anyways, there's a lot of work to do for anyone who wishes to implement the format in all articles. Ultimately, in the case of "cultura", there seems to be a clash of personal tastes. As I won't universalise my tastes, I'll leave the cultura in peace. --Neander 04:08, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
No, no, amice, please keep going: you're improving the text at every turn! The question about captions is a general issue, which should be discussed in regard to the whole of Vicipaedia, and I'll put something about it Taberna when I get time. ¶ As an experienced creator of reference works, I take it as a given that: (1) most readers won't read the full text of a long Latin article, (2) many readers will do no more than look at the illustrations and perhaps read their captions, (3) illustrations for such readers are therefore useless, except as decoration, unless they include some clue as to what they're trying to show. If we want such readers to get anything at all out of the experience of viewing long articles, we need to have each caption convey a point, probably a succinct summary of the present significance of the person or thing shown. An unexplained portrait of Herder might be OK in a biography of Herder, but why is it appearing here, in an article that's not about him? That's a question that a caption needs to answer. ¶ Andrew's original question (above) gets directly at these considerations, but I'd go one unexpected step further: what, in all creation, is a "comics bookshop"? I've lived in four major (population more than one million) American metropolitan areas and have never seen or heard of one. I can imagine what one might be—a store that sells only comic books—, but I'd worry that such a store might also sell other things—noncomic magazines, newspapers, lottery tickets, candy bars, coffee, marijuana—and without a clarifying caption, I'd have no way of going beyond such speculation to the truth. IacobusAmor 14:28, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Now you're joking, aren't you? Perhaps a comics bookshop is more of a continental European thing - I know a general one in Amsterdam that sells comics, new and second-hand, as well as all kinds of comics parafernalia, such as full size statues and magnified pictures to hang on your wall, and one in Brussels specialising in matters relating to Tintin only - but I know of no one that sells marijuana or coffee, nor would I expect them to do so. However, if you think any clarification is in order I would suggest we write a separate article, not clutter an image caption with information beyond what it is and why it is there. --Fabullus 15:09, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
It may be useful to be explicit about why we "have to have" captions, as I said above. It's for accessibility. Some users, some browser setups, and some slow connections, have trouble with images. So, apart from other encyclopedic purposes, our captions need also to tell people who aren't yet seeing the image whether it will be worth their while to fetch it up or not. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:53, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
There's a bookshop of this kind in every medium-sized city in France, I'd say. Passed one in Bordeaux last weekend, complete with little statues etc., just as Fabullus says. And this is in addition to the fact that all major bookshops have large sections devoted to bandes dessinées. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
If it's mainly a European thing, maybe the article should say so. A quick check of Google suggests that such stores in the U.S. don't limit themselves to comic books, but also offer posters, T-shirts, trading cards, and other collectibles. IacobusAmor 16:30, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we have to have captions. No question about that. What I am suspicious of is whether all captions have to have an internal structure consisting of (1) a title, (2) a legend. Rather than legends, I'd emphasise the importance of a strategic layout: the pictures, e.g. of Kant, Humboldt &c in cultura, should be positioned so as to function as indexical pointers to the adjacent text. When that isn't possible, a legend may be helpful. /// When looking at the Vp picture world in general, I can't help getting the impression that an important function of pictures is, willy nilly, decorative. And it seems to me that idle decorativeness can't possibly be countered by adding a legend. If a picture is thematically out of place, no legend will help. In earlier versions of the article on cultura, there were more decorative picture(positioning)s than there are now. A couple of days ago, I <!--- --->:ed the decorative picture with the legend: "Musici in aedibus regiis apud Hasht Behesht Persiae canunt: musica et instrumenta musica sunt res culturae." A beautiful picture but a purely decorative cliché, despite the legend, in the co-text that deals with social Darwinism and cultural evolution. Of course, music and dance are "res culturae", but what isn't. --Neander 03:26, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
De: "Of course, music and dance are "res culturae", but what isn't."—Yes, but legions of people, even college students taking introductory courses in anthropology, don't know that, so saying it may help them, especially if it's the only part of the article that they read. The original captions to the images that you dislike were (sometimes unnuanced) placeholders, intended to stand until they, and the placement of their images, should have been improved. IacobusAmor 11:49, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Iacobe, by all means, if you think the attractiveness of the cultura article hinges on whether or not Kant, Humboldt, Bastian, Tylor have legends, please feel free to do the right thing to do. /// My third try in the "Pagina fortuita" lottery gave the article on uxor. The legend of the picture says: "Uxor se ad nuptias parat". Nice to know that one can be a wife before wedding. :-) --Neander 03:26, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps she plans to call at the divorce court on her way to the wedding.
Yes, a (post)modern bride thinks of her next (even more pompous) wedding, when standing before the priest.
One of the reasons I got tired of en:wiki was the pressure from Projects to insert pictures; e.g. after I had added obscure (but of course notable) ancient and medieval biographies a template would appear on the talk page demanding a picture. Oxalá! I said to myself.
I prefer to do the opposite -- remove (or re-caption) dubious images and imaginary portraits, because, to gullible readers, they can be seriously misleading. My finger hovered over the edit button when I revisited Anaxagoras the other day ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:55, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Interesting background info, indeed. I added the picture of "Anaxagoras" under the impression that some decoration is a "must". I don't mind if you decide to take it away. --Neander 10:24, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Users of reference works are not all the same: most people don't like to read; some "readers" are just lookers; others, searching for answers to particular questions, will initially allot no more than a few seconds to "read" an article of the size of Cultura. Pictures and their captions can serve those "readers" and others. IacobusAmor 11:49, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Praemium[fontem recensere]

Gratus sis, Fabulle! Nominatus es pro praemio Vicipaedico Stellae Constantiae. Vide hanc paginam. --Xaverius 08:12, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Suffixum[fontem recensere]

Xaverius Fabullo s.p.d. Scisne si "-tura" suffixum latinum esse? Ego puto eum non verum esse. Etiam vide hanc rem. Gratias ago!--Xaverius 08:10, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Certe, est tale suffixum, de quo vide e.g. Allen & Greenough 1.238. Rarissime tamen, ut videtur, hoc suffixum nomini adiectivo affigitur. Ceterum mihi videtur 'Extremadurae' nomen non derivatum esse a nomine Latino 'Extrematura', sed potius 'Extramaturae' nomen esse id quod Anglice 'back-formation' vocatur. Ut aliter dicam: Extrematura derivata est ab Extramadura (aut fortasse Hispani illius temporis nondum 't' intervocalicam in 'd' mutaverunt), non vice versa. Hos situs interretiales perutiles de etymologia Extremadurae inveni: [1], [2], [3]. Mihi quidem persuasum est Extremadurae nomen ad flumen Durium nihil pertinere. --Fabullus 10:50, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
Salvue Fabulle, vide rensponsum meum de verbo Extrematura in taberna. --Frater Carmona Valviensis 14:25, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

My recent activities[fontem recensere]

I've had very little time for writing pages recently, Fabulle, but I felt I could at least browse and (where appropriate) upgrade! As to "stipulae", you've probably seen the page Vicipaedia:Hierarchia paginarum. I feel that once a page supplies some good information (and ideally has bibliography or other apparatus, and ideally a picture) it ought not to be a stipula any more: it's beyond the starter stage, though there's nothing to stop us enlarging and improving it further. Latin is a concise language, and we can usually offer readers something good in three/four lines of text. Of course, if you think I've made a wrong judgment, feel free to revert my edit -- I shan't mind!

I maintain my subpage that you mentioned with the idea that we may one day want to distinguish, as "paginae bonae" or something, pages that have good information and are interesting all round but aren't long enough to be the featured article of the month. Listed twice? Must be really interesting then ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Media[fontem recensere]

Paginam delevi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:26, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Ita. Si historiam Mediarum omnium petis, videbis Alex olim Mediam nudam nomen regionis Berolinensis fecisse. Id mutavi, et pro certo habui nomen primarium ad regionem Asiaticam pertinere, sed nunquam perfeci. Fac igitur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

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 19:03, 29 Septembris 2009 (UTC)

De nominibus linguarum[fontem recensere]

Salve, Fabulle. Debeo tibi certiorem facere: nomina varia linguarum verificare citationesque respectivas addere coepi, nec usque adhuc perfeci. Alia nomina aliasque orthographias interdum reperio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 25 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire(s)[fontem recensere]

I have a feeling that the pages and categories we currently have would work more logically if Imperium Persarum and Categoria:Imperium Persarum were renamed "Imperia Persarum" or "Imperia et regna Iranica" or something like that. Does this make sense to you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the plural makes sense. By the way, what is a "Persian Empire"? en:Persian Empire (disambiguation) seems to count as such only the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires which were both ruled by "Ethnic" Persian (i.e. Persian-/Farsi-speaking) dynasties. In other sources later Persia-based islamic Empires such as those of the Samanids and Ghasnavids are also called Persian empires. But what about the Median and Parthian empires, which were both Iranian and largely coextensive with earlier and later Persian empires. In this case your "Imperia et regna Iranica" would be useful. And then there is the Seleucid Empire, which - though largely ruled by Greeks and Macedonians - could be considered the successor of the Achaemenid Empire. After all, the Ptolemies in Egypt are also counted as an Egyptian dynasty. I find these matters extremely difficult. --Fabullus 09:23, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, ethnicity doesn't make it any easier. Perhaps we should focus more on geography and go for "Imperia et regna Iraniae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the precise link to "Eber-Nari". I failed to discover it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Zuidermeer[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Fabulle, quomodo te habes? Sorry, but my written Latin stops here!!! :-) I have true friends in Zuidermeer, that breed the same dog I breed, Italian Bracco. If you go on my site www.reimomo.it on Dutch Page, you can see me in the Zuidermeer fields with a Bracco of them.

I was hoping that a Dutch User was correcting this little work I made! Dank u, or... tibi gratias ago causa adiuti tui.

See you soon

Rex Momo 14:27, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

De infinitivo[fontem recensere]

Salve Fabulle! Primo videas, sodes, disputationem, in qua "fervere est alteratio ..." dixi constructionem syntactice infelicem esse. Collocutor autem nere symbolá exemplo adhibitá meum iudicium in dubium vocavit, et alibi quoque hac constructione usus est. Quia hoc submolestum mihi videtur periculum, tuam opinionem rogare statui. Intellego quidem te "nere" infinitivo usum esse, cum "netio" et "netus,-us", etsi quam facillime e verbo derivari possint, philologicá attestatione carere videantur. (Non ignoro "netum" ἅπαξ λεγόμενον reperiri 'filum' significantem, qui sensus mihi quidem fortuitus et contextu provocatus videtur.) Nihilo minus equidem lemmatis loco vel "netionem" vel "netum" praetulerim infinitivo, quippe quae cum "derivatione voluntaria" a Varrone proposita (i.e. salvo sensu) congruant atque infinitivo melius "A est B" generis constructionem expleant. An forsitan hac in re nimis puristicus videar? --Neander 11:35, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, Neander, salve! Tamquam cum principio tuo - infinitivos evitandos esse - consentio, a verbis novis quae sunt netus et netio abhorreo. Placeatne ars nendi? --Fabullus 14:59, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Mihi quidem netus non eo mirior videtur quam, puta, nutus (< nuere). Grammatice enim nomina in -tus cadentia nomina et actionis et acti esse possunt. Netus apud Mart. Capellam (2.114) nomen acti est, at potentialiter (grammaticá permittente) etiam nomen actionis est, licet (fortuito, ut credo) attestatione philologica careat. Sed fortasse hic potius linguista quam philologus loquor. Si netus tibi displicet, meam opinionem (grammaticá generativá imbutam) ingerere nolens facile adducor, ut lemma q.e. ars nendi (vel actio nendi) approbem. --Neander 19:46, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC) (modificavi) --Neander 12:41, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Equidem non ausim uno tantum exemplo nisus netum nominis actionis vice adhibere. Itaque, pace tua, artem nendi praefero. --Fabullus 13:50, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Sit ita. --Neander 15:05, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Obiectionem meam contra netionem retraxi: vide nunc paginam de netione agentem. --Fabullus 19:04, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
(Hanc disputationem nunc ad Disputatio:Netio movebo.) --Fabullus 19:04, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

On alkali[fontem recensere]

You reverted me with the comment 'vide disp.', but you wrote nothing there, and there is nothing on Disputatio:Alkali that relates to it. It would have been polite to at least make some reply, given that I had explained myself there. Pantocrator 10:03, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Imagines Zuidermeer[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Fabulle. Duas imagines in hac pagina misi. Videre ptes si bonae sunt? Tibi gratias ago.

Rex Momo 22:20, 8 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Peto adiutum tuum[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Fabulle, I need your help, please, if you are agree. I know that Afrikaans in similar to Dutch, really? I need you translate for me this page af:Ian Herman, or create an English page.

I asked to who created the page in Afrikaans but I didn't have answer. As I translated in Italian the other two people of the Trio Tananas, I would like to translate also Mr Ian Herman. The translation will keep you no more than 5 minutes, the page in Afrikaans is short!!!

Dank u if you can help me..... and also if you cannot!!! Rex Momo 10:17, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Ecce: Ioannes Herman. IacobusAmor 13:04, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Mae'n amlwg foti di meddwl am hyn felly ddywedwn i ddim bod y sefyllfa hon yn broblem fawr. Fe ddawn ni o hyd i ffordd o weithio o'i chwmpas!

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thanks, Fabulle. I will delete and lock that family-name page so that it can't be recreated. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Satrapies[fontem recensere]

I was looking for a possibly reliable list of Achaemenid satrapies, didn't find any such thing on the Wikipedias, and have now adapted a list from the recent article by Bruno Jacobs that I found at Encyclopaedia Iranica. See Satrapiae Imperii Achaemenidarum. My aim would be to add references to various sources, including Herodotus. You know about Persia, Fabulle, and I would be very interested in your opinion of the reliability of the article by Jacobs that I have used as a basis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I applaud you for having started this article on a topic which - as you rightly observe - interests me very much. I am afraid, however, that you make me too much of an expert. I have no special qualifications in this field (and except for the alphabet, which I cannot exactly read but at least decipher, I know virtually nothing of Persian - or Arabic, for that matter), and everything I have written on matters Persian and Iranian I have collected from the internet, mainly the English wikipedia and also Jona Lenderink's beautiful site Livius.org, and of course the Encyclopedia Iranica (I have noticed, by the way, that you have found a shorter way to cite their articles). Of course I will read Jacobs' article, not as an expert but as a fellow dilettante (?), but give me a couple of days. As for Livius.org, have you seen the table in Lenderink's article on 'Satraps and satrapies'? I get the impression that that is what you are looking for. One more thing: In your new article you have made read links to articles referring specifically to the satrapies, e.g. Persis (satrapia). Perhaps we could redirect these read links to more general articles, e.g. Persis, until someone gets round to writing a more specific article. --Fabullus 09:34, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense; on the other hand I might start those seven articles for the "great satrapies" (as Jacobs calls them), if we feel that he is not travelling in the realms of fantasy. Meanwhile I'll look at the article at livius.org.
It seems to me that Encyclopaedia Iranica has just recently been reorganising its files; reference is now easier. It is an excellent resource. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:22, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I have read Jacobs’ article on Achaemenid satrapies, and I must say I am impressed. The picture Jacobs offers seems to be very consistent and to solve most of the contradictions in the source material. I think you are right in adopting its conclusions in your article. However, just as in the primary sources, so in our articles the ambiguity of names (e.g. Persis designating both a Great Satrapy, a Main Satrapy and a Minor Satrapy – not to mention the ancient kingdom and the present Iranian province), will be a source of much confusion. I will be away for the next two weeks, but I wish you luck on the article! --Fabullus 08:56, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

De Lugduno Batavorum[fontem recensere]

Salve, mi Fabulle. Mense septembre ibo ad Lugdunum Batavorum, quia erit in universitate Conventum pro Antiquitate Posteriore. Hoc in convento egomet parvam adlocutionem dabo de archaeologia in agro circum urbes Visigothicas Toleti et Reccopolis, inter saecula V et VIII. Te auxilium peto, quia nunquam Nederlandiam commeavi etiam linguam ignoro: Batavi saepe anglicam linguam loquuntur? Estne Lugdunum urbs magna? Fortasse scis universitatem aut urbem ipsam? Quomodo ab Amstelodamo ad Lugdunum ire? Aut, breviter, habes consilium pro peregrino Hispanico in Nederlandia? Gratias permultas ago--Xaverius 17:17, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Gratias iterum ago, Fabulle. Conventum recte dicitur Authority and control in the countryside, part of the NWO project Late Antiquity and Early Islam: Continuity and Change in the Mediterranean. Caret conventum nexum proprium, sed invenias descriptionem hic [4] et hic [5]. De adlocutione mea, hic invenias summarium [6], et si vis indicem expletum adlocutionum, eum etiam tibi mittere possum. Vale --Xaverius 08:46, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Help:English to Latin Translation[fontem recensere]

Hello! I need help on English to Latin translation. Please visit the page User:Amit6/c-en2la14 and translate that following list of english words to Latin. If you do the translations, please do not write those here and prefer to write those on the latin section of User:Amit6/c-en2la14. --Amit6 (talk) 14:02, 18 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Lingua Italica/Italiana[fontem recensere]

Salve Fabulle! In hac pagina iudicium meum scripsi. Cura ut legas, quaeso. Ave atque vale. Ariel 11:46, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Linguae Afganiae[fontem recensere]

Salve optime, Fabulle! Vide s.t.p. hanc disputationem et placita tua adde. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 24 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Hope you're well, Fabulle. Nice to see you back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 30 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, Fabulle. I guessed you were busy about something, but I didn't guess what it was! I wish you the very best of luck with your dissertation -- I feel sure that all will go well. Vince et vale -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Narthex[fontem recensere]

Salve, Neander. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I just created narthex and I decline it as a normal 3rd declension noun (narthex, narthicis), but I do not know if as it is a Greek noun it should take a special declension (and I could not find -ηξ endings in your guide for Greek declension in Latin). Cura ut valeas! --Xaverius 13:44, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Salve Xaveri, as a rule Greek nouns in Latin retain the stem of the original Greek word (in this case narthēc-) and are declined according to the corresponding Latin declension, in this case the third. To this rule there are many exceptions and some of these I have expounded in my ‘guide’, as you call it. To find the declension of a particular word in Latin, you could also check Lewis & Short, A Latin dictionary, which is online at Perseus. This is what is says about 'narthex'. By the way, my 'nom de plume' here is Fabullus, not Neander. --Fabullus 19:40, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. Very sorry for the name confusion, I knew I was writting to you (knowing you were Fabullus, otherwise I wouldn't have made reference to you guide)... I must have been thinking on something else when typing. And, obviously, thank you for the answer on narthex!--Xaverius 20:08, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Barnabitae[fontem recensere]

Carissime Fabullus, quomodo te habes? Tibi parvum adiutum peto: si in hac pagina ire potes, et in eadem Wiki.NL ire. Can you transalte in Dutch the modification I put in English?

Damk u!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 12:21, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

De conventu[fontem recensere]

Salutem tibi, Fabulle! Ante menses tibi de Amstelodami Athenaeo Illustri scripsi quo solemus singulis Saturni diebus convenire atque te quippe studiosum libentissime quidem accipiamus. Credisne tibi venisse placere? Aguntur omnia Latine a nobis hominibus quinque solemusque loqui, legere et cetera quemadmodum inter conventus decet parare. Ergo proximo Saturni die, mane novissimus erit conventus noster. Si facultas est tibi veniendi ut facias expectatissimus suadeo... Si non, forsitan proximo anno. Vale! Quaeso scribas ad abel@athenaeumillustre.org Artaynte (disputatio) 17:25, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you[fontem recensere]

It's good to see your name in the "Nuper mutata" again. Hope you are OK. We need you more than ever, but I know there's so much to do and so little time :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 4 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Et mihi iucundum est verba tua legere! Non tamen exspecta me saepius hic adesse. Nobis, ut scribis, nimium laboris parum temporis. Cum tamen aliquid incurram, quod utile videatur, addam. Fac valeas! --Fabullus (disputatio) 11:27, 4 Maii 2015 (UTC)