Jump to content

Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Dictum universitatis cuiusdam[fontem recensere]

Curiosus. In CFA stat universitas quaedam cuius dictum est "omnia extares" (transfert anglice iocose "let it all hang out"). Invenisne dictum esse ingrammaticale? Credo: extares < ex(s)to, extare, extiti. Nonne unica forma "extares" est in modo subiunctivo, tempore imperfecto? Quomodo grammaticaliter se agit? Possim intellegere: "(Utinam) omnia extes!" aut "(Vive ut) omnia extes!" Usor:T. Gnaevus Faber

Roman Catholic[fontem recensere]

I totally agree. I don't consider Roman Catholic offensive in the least. I just added the fact that I had heard that the roman part came from the Protestants for one reason or another. Just a stray fact, in truth I can't really even remember the discussion in which I brought it up. Just to rephrase though, I do not think the term is offensive. I just use "catholic" usually because its easier, and most people know what you are talking about. Alexanderr 06:45, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula: Bellum[fontem recensere]

Possisne inspicere hanc paginam?

Non certus de verbis sum. De casu: I use "casus" in two ways. And I don't like it. "Casus belli" is the right expression here, so I'm not too worried. But Smith and Hall say "casus" is also the word for casualty: mind you, I don't want to say "dead", but "dead and wounded." Because I think the numbers are figured that way. De vi: Is this really the word I want to show stregth of force? Or might "numerus militum" be better? I can live with the rest.

Also, do you think we should say "anno" and "loco" or "annus" and "locus"?

This has been very tricky from the formula syntax side to figure out which end is up, but the thing does work. I'm interested in the choice of words. Since it is so tricky, please don't go tinkering with the formula (unless you *know* how these things work). Once word choice is ironed out, I'll put it on a few pages and see how it looks for real, and maybe write a usage section so other people can figure out how to use it. Sinister Petrus 00:47, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to re-ask a question I posed on another article's talk page (Obiectum pro consolando) can you use adjectives such as "ranaform(us)" in latin? Are they common? Or easily understood? Alexanderr 23:32, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mea culpa, Iustine[fontem recensere]

I bow to your greater knowledge, Justin. My Latin master treated histrio as a male actor and mima as an actress, but perhaps he was a porcus Chauvinensius. It seems the thing has hidden depths.

With regard to cinematographicorum, I flinch at my mistake. I'm afraid I was blinded by the -r- which had to be extracted from cinematorgraphicorum.

One problem I had with histrio as a common gender term was that every single name in that list was in fact female. If the separation is useful, which I think it is, can we both live with actrix? So should that be Index Actricum mundi cinematographicarum? Xn4 05:42, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula: Bellum[fontem recensere]

Ecce mutationes! Dic mihi, quaeso, sententias tuas apud hanc paginam.Sinister Petrus 00:58, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just a quick question. What are the "modern" latin openings for letters. Like "Dear" or "To whom it may concern" (Cui pertinet)? What about closings how would "yours sincerely" go? Alexanderr 01:13, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Hebrides[fontem recensere]

I need a translation for this name if you happen to know it. Thank you, Alexanderr 04:14, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recte me monuisti, mi Iustine, sic ad fontes ivi et nomen est ut putasti scribendum rectius Immè ut apparet in titulis commentariorum MAS, tamen ubique aliter legi.

Nella lingua italiana è vero che l'accento non sia lo stesso che nella lingua francese, in italiano è piu tosto un accento di tipo tonico (o ornamentale) che purrtroppo si può scrivere (o si puó scrivere) nelle due modi.

Accentus (apex) quo utimur in sermone italico duplici modo (nonnunquam secundum usum peculiarem typographi) exarari potest. Inspicias quaeso veteres libros saeculi vicesimi et videbis variationes usus.

Tamen tibi, pro tua acerrima navitate et perspicuitate, hac in re valde assentior: nomina personarum sunt magis respicienda Scribamus igitur uniformiter Immè.

Cura ut semper optime valeas.


De Vicipaedia Latina[fontem recensere]

Salve Iustine,

Scribere volo relationem de Vicipaedia latina (pro commentario periodico nomine "vox latina"). Mihi gaudio est, si alias quaestiones respondere vis:

  • 1) Quid est Vicipaedia?
  • 2) Quomodo Vicipaedia differt ab lexicis aliis?
  • 3) Quomodo Vicipaedia latina differt ab Vicipaediis aliarum linguarum?
  • 4) a) Quomodo lemmata cum argumento falso vel ficto scripta prohiberi possunt? b) Quomodo lemmata in falsa lingua latina scripta prohiberi possunt?
  • 5) Quam utilitatem Vicipaedia mihi dat?
  • 6) Quas alias paginas latinas in interrete commendare potes?
  • 7) Ullam quaestionem desideras? Aliquas annotationes facere vis?

Gratias tibi ago pro labore tuo, --Lupambulus 16:25, 15 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Know of good ways to say "eye to eye" and "flip a coin"?--Ioshus (disp) 04:43, 17 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are for the Pong cervisiale article. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the game, but one way intial possession is determined is: players from opposing teams shoot simultaneously while looking in each other's eyes. the first team to make a shot gets initial possession.--Ioshus (disp) 17:21, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lupambuli gratiae agendae[fontem recensere]

Salve Iustine,

Maximas gratias tibi ago pro responsis tuis. Quia tu multis verbis diligens atque accurate respondisti, a te quaerere volo, num cum me auctor relationis pro commentario periodico nomine vox Latina esse velis. Necesse autem est te nomen tuum (rectum totumque) mihi dare. Ego ipse studeo linguae Latinae et Graecae et historiae in Germania (in urbe, quae appellatur Monasterium (Germania) et in regione Rhenania Septentrionalis-Vestfalia sita est). Ceterum sententiam tuam "Regimen vici non est..." grammatice non comprehendi. Nonne regimen genitivum esse debet? Ita recte mihi videtur: "Regiminis vici non est (scil. officium)..." Etiam sententiam "...pauca facienda erunt." grammatice non comprehendi. "Pauca" non pertinet ad verbum "error", quia "error" genus masculinum est. Recte mihi videtur: "...pauca errata facienda erunt." Iterum nonnullas quaestiones habeo, quas tu arbitrio tuo respondere potes.

  • 1) Cur dua lemmata Vicipaedia et Vici sunt? Nonne idem sunt?
  • 2) Quando Vicipaedia condita est et quando Vicipaedia Latina condita est? Qui est conditor Vicipaedia Latinae?
  • 3) Quot usores in praesenti in Vicipaedia laborant?
  • 4) Quae est tua opinio de Sergio (vide:Disputatio Usoris:Sergius), qui scripsit: "Latina autem vicipaedia ludus usorum esse mihi videtur. Usores latinas paginas constituentes non omnia, quae sciant, scribunt, sed omnia, quae sciant ET quae latine exprimere possint. Itaque se lingua latina exercent, sed encyclopadiam non condunt."
  • 5) Cur tu scribis in Vicipaedia? Nemo tibi pecuniam pro tuis scriptis dat. Nonne idealismus est?
  • 6) Quae est tua opinio de conditore Vicipaediae, qui dixit: "In posterum solum qui inscripti sunt scribere debent" (tum anonymus non iam scribere potest)?
  • 7) In relatione pro commentario periodico unum vel dua exempla lemmatorum dare volo. In aliis verbis: Volo lemma quoddam totum praebere. Potesne commendare lemma, quod placet, sed etiam breve est?
  • 8) Quae lemmata optima utillimaque esse putas?
  • 9) Cognoscisne lemmata, qua solum in Vicipaedia Latina et non in aliis Vicipaediis adsunt?
  • 10) Cognoscisne alia incepta Vicipaediae Latinae (e.g.Victionarium...), quae lectoribus commendare potes (et cur)?
  • 11) Nonne putas discrimen grave Vicipaediae Latinae ad Vicipaedias alias esse, quod fere omnes nationes inter se communicare possunt?
  • 12) Suntne cogitationes hoc modo, ut Vicipaedia Graeca (antiqua) condatur?

--Lupambulus 16:24, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look over the Disputatio of the Cocanus page? Alexanderr 07:41, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly for the same reason as we don't use "physicus" for all scientists these days. A "tone" is properly "tonus", but we now use tones and semitones to mean a specific frequential interval (be it well tempered or otherwise). As far as do re mi, I wouldn't be opposed to them over the a b c nomenclature, as long as we kept the redirects.--Ioshus (disp) 03:03, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ocd didn't have an entry...--Ioshus (disp) 03:15, 27 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bold text[fontem recensere]

Litterae fortificata? Any better ideas? See Disputatio MediaWiki:Bold sample‎.--Ioshus (disp) 19:08, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sermo stercoralis[fontem recensere]

Maledictum?--Ioshus (disp) 16:56, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's more to sermo stercoralis than cursing. I'd say it's closer to "bluster." --Iustinus 18:35, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
declamito, declamitare, declamitavi, declamitatus  V     1 1 [XGXCO]  
declaim (oratoric exercise) continually/habitually; practice rhetoric; bluster;

I don't know If I like that, though...--Ioshus (disp) 18:48, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fremitus? tumultus? irrisio? derisus? IacobusAmor 18:56, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh :/ --Iustinus 20:15, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paginae mensis[fontem recensere]

You have any you'd like to see up there? We should work a bit on Scacchi (or however it's spelled =]) and propose that one too.--Ioshus (disp) 03:20, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. I had been looking for a good page to nominate, but so far haven't really found anything that's ready. --Iustinus 03:36, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well most of the articles proposed now aren't exactly ready. I think we should pick cool articles, and then we'll work them up once we determine an order. With that in mind, we might want to pick Imperium Cossanum as January's article, because if memory serves, it's the most ready.--Ioshus (disp) 03:57, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public service announcement reminding the receiver to actually remember something for once in his life. =]--Ioshus (disp) 13:02, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeelll, I did start working on the article last night. I just didn't end up doing anything visible or significant. I got thrown out a little early. --Iustinus 21:10, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to ask you to give the article Res Publica Cispandana a look over. Alexanderr 02:03, 27 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Alex, I haven't had time to get involved with your work lately. And things are only going to get worse :( --Iustinus 17:07, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Periodica Latina - definition[fontem recensere]

I do not understand your comment in the summary. Why shall periodicum be defined on page Periodica Latina, when it is defined on page periodicum and when the page Periodica Latina is about Latin periodica? On page Periodica Latina the term periodicum Latinum sould be defined, because it could be e. g. a proper name (Eigenname) and not noun + adjective. Maybe the solution is to move page Periodica Latina to Index periodicorum Latinorum? It is my feeling that indices do not need a definition. Moreover, the plural Periodica Latina indicates that this page is an index in fact. --Rolandus 10:45, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC) P.S.: I wish you a happy New Year![reply]

I think you are right. The page really is meant to be a list more than anything, though I suppose we could write an introductory paragraph if we wanted to keep it as an article. It just seems silly to say "A latin periodical is a periodical written in Latin," if you see what I mean. But I suppose we could write "Latin periodicals are rare in this day and age, but there are some. ===Latinitas===Latinitas is a blablablabla" Otherwise, it's best just to move it to index. Happy newyear to you too: I confess that I am very pleased to have Imperium Cossanum make it to the front page: I'm very fond of that article. --Iustinus 17:07, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Periodica Latina - external links[fontem recensere]

Concerning the use of external links in the body of a page (e. g. links to webpages), I think we should not do that, especially where the terms have pages yet. Where we do not have a page, the link would be ok I think, however, it might be technically better to use a <ref>...</ref> construct. Your reasons for providing the external links for each periodicum might be convenience. Maybe we should move the page to Index periodicorum Latinorum, then again the (better to say my) no-external-links-in-the-body-suggestion would not count so much. I think we generally should not have external links in the body, we should have them on the pages of the topic, we should not have translations in the body, we should have them just in the definition section of a lemma, we should not have information about a topic in the body of a page, when we have a page of its own about this topic etc. Ideally each snippet of information we should have just once. So we will have no redundancy. There are exceptions, e. g. when Ioshus suggests to have the translation of city names in brackets behind the lemma, and additionally in the interwiki links of the page. My reasons for this exception are, that an author cannot controll interwiki links, which may be changed by bots, so this is the reason why he might want to put the translation into brackets after the lemma. I think we do not have talked about "redundancy" until now. We should have suggestions where we want redundancy and where not. You know, I am not a deletionist, but for theoretical reasons I do not like redundancy, which sometimes happens when we create a page. Example: When an article says ... xxx sive yyy ..., we should (re)move (not copy) the "sive yyy" part after we have created page xxx. The information "sive yyy" should ideally be on just one page, on the page xxx. I hope I was able to explain my intentions, this is hard to explain and I am a bit limited by my English, so you might think I am drunken. But today I am not. ;-) --Rolandus 10:45, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I confess that I do have trouble following your argument here, but maybe I am the one who is drunk ;) [Actually I didn't manage to get a drink last night, so I have no excuse]. As I recall, though, the external links were left on for some of the periodicals and removed for others, and it didn't seem to correspond exactly to which ones had their own articles. I guess I see merit in your system, but I also don't see harm in leaving the links in. Do you think the links would be more appropriate if we switched to the Index... formulation? --Iustinus 17:07, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got the points: 1) We should have a system. 2) The list did not perfectly mirror "the system", so the system was not that obvious. 3) Indices have other rules than articles, they are - in my opinion - made for convenience, so redundancy would be "more" ok. 4) Yes, it is not harmful to leave the links in the list, but naming the page "Index ..." would make it clearer, that we have a "system" for ordinary "pages" and - maybe - another system for indices. 5) However, it would be nice to have an explicit set of rules where and how much redundancy we want. What I fear is, that we have different versions of information on several places and that the unawares like me make the wrong changes when they try to consolidate different versions. So avoiding redundancy means that someone has to correct things just in one place. That's the main intention behind my proposal. We should decide that we do not want redundancy and then we should think about the different forms of redundancy: the same external links in places other than the nexus external sections or ref constructs, sive-constructs (ppp sive yyy) and translations (ppp, Italice zzz) which are not on page ppp, etc. This might be convenient but it is error-prone. Ok, it is not that bad, but we should think about it and maybe write down some recommendations. ;-) --Rolandus 18:12, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki localization[fontem recensere]

Hi, please feel free to edit Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary if there are any remarks you would like to make. Greetings, --UV 01:24, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an effort to start a discussion on how to get our special page names translated (e. g. the link to our nuper mutata page is Specialis:Recentchanges, where "Recentchanges" is English [well, sort of]). If you have some time, please see the proposal at mw:Special page names and mw:Talk:Special page names/la and comment there. Thanks! --UV 14:50, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started this page so that we could refer to it in the future. While you were on leave, we had account creation of Usor:Nigger and Usor:Fatfuck as well.--Ioshus (disp) 20:53, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edittools[fontem recensere]

Hello Iustinus: I think it would be fine to have edit tools as other wikis below de recensere page. Usually they are included in the MediaWiki:Edittools , (but I found it is'nt here) , with useful symbols for editing as "[[ ]]" , "|" and many others. These contents are often in the same page than the alert text below the editing window, (Nobis etiam spondes te esse ipsum horum verborum scriptorem primum, aut ex opere in "dominio publico" exscripsisse. NOLI OPERIBUS SUB IURE DIVULGANDI UTI SINE POTESTATE!). If you know where is it, perhaps I can help with these tools. Yours truly --Antur 04:53, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made that page in the spanish Wikiversity, see here. I cant´t try in Vicipaedia because "Haec pagina dat textum interfaciei pro logiciali, et est protecta ad vandalismum vetandum" :-). The contents I think can be:
  1. Wiki symbols:
  1. Latin symbols

I´ll look now for the icons tools, and answer you soon. --Antur 05:35, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding buttons to the edit tools[fontem recensere]

Salve Iustinus: in my discussion page, UV wrote something about this. Moreover,to include a new button it's neccesary the edition of MediaWiki:monobook.js with code to fill the array mwCustomEditButtons defined in wikibits.js.

For example, to add a button for the tag <ref></ref> the code would be:

mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/es/3/34/Btn_nota.png", /*url of image */
     "speedTip": "Author´s note",                                                /*Tool tip */
     "tagOpen": "<ref>",                                                         /*Initial text */
     "tagClose": "</ref>",                                                       /*Final text */
     "sampleText": "Insert reference"};                                          /*Intermediate text*/

I hope this will help: for some reason these pages are here protected, then, I can´t do it directly. However, in wich button are you thinking ?. Best wishes --Antur 05:23, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD: of course, the edittools´symbols works well.

Hi Antur...I encourage you to write any comments regarding mediawiki in the disputatio of the mediawikipage itself. While the page may be protected, the disputatio won't. That way we can keep discussions localized in the appropriate disputatio pages. Thanks!--Ioshus (disp) 06:53, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Iustine, this was meant for Antur's page.--Ioshus (disp) 06:56, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See MediaWiki:onlyifediting.js. You may have to force-refresh your browser cache before you see the new buttons. --UV 15:50, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, under Gulielmus I listed Mr. of Tyre as a Guillelmus. But this was before I was regularly listing my sources, so I can't remember why I used that spelling... and now is not a good timr for me to research. But you obviously have a source on Willelmus. If I find my source, perhaps we could add a footnote about the variation, or something. --Iustinus 21:37, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this till now! The Migne edition (which I have) calls him Guillelmus; the more recent Latin edition cited in the article calls him Willelmus. What are we to do? Follow the more recent edition, I suppose: that was my conclusion, anyway. I'll add a note on the variation. (Incidentally, you put this message on a user subpage talk-page which I am now blanking. Don't be cross!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:42, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on making that template I've been talking about tonight. {{attestatur}} --Ioshus (disp) 18:52, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you, Iustine. I'm flattered that you think I'm worth all that Latin! I particularly like your versions of The Oxford Companion to Food and Dangerous Tastes. Very snappy. In the former case I might not have dared to use Comes, but there you are with a nice precedent from 1716. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Adnotatiunculae is very neat, too. Le mot juste. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence to say that I began contributing to Vicipaedia last year, and that I did so originally at the suggestion of Iustinus Mansfield. This seemed worth recording. It creates a redlink which soon ought to turn blue ...

inceptum/incepta[fontem recensere]

Should our idiom for project be plural? I think of annuit coeptis...--Ioshus (disp) 19:09, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westmonasterium /Vestmonasterium[fontem recensere]

Dear Iustinus, no problem I understand the English language. I agree with you that if the University uses a Latin name it does not make sense to use an other version, but at the same time it seems strange to write a Latin name with a litter "W" which was unknown in the Latin Language. Ciao --Massimo Macconi 16:14, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the latin word for stroke, as in a painting, is? Alexanderr 03:41, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know—but the stroke of a pen is a ductus pennae, and maybe that idiom supplies a pattern for the use of a brush. IacobusAmor 04:34, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iacobus. Alexanderr 05:28, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ductus is normally used when we're talking about the shape of penstrokes (both now and in antiquity), so it is probably the mot juste if you're talking about different brush strokes and how they define styles of painting. If on the other hand you're talking about strokes just for the sake of it, I'm not sure what the best word would be. Ductus, by the way, is fourth declention, so be sure to brush up on that paradigm! --Iustinus 06:19, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haec vox deist...[fontem recensere]

...et vis te opus verum facturum esse. Ioshus (disp) 20:37, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC) --Deus[reply]

Vere Dominus est in situ isto et ego nesciebam! --Iustinus 22:24, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the page according your suggestion. Thank you very much for your precious work--Massimo Macconi 09:12, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inscrutable messages[fontem recensere]

Our librarian, at Cambridge, was once on a visit to China. While he was away, someone (whose name cannot be revealed) posted a message, on the librarian's usual notice board, entirely in Chinese, in the usual memo format and signed with a perfect copy of his usual signature. It remained there for hours, and the whole staff had plenty of time to admire it -- presumably the deputy didn't dare to remove it before having phoned China just to make sure.

Actually I sell well in the Far East. Japanese, Chinese, Korean. God knows why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:12, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see from the history that you originally designed Formula:Taxobox, is that right? I also noticed that on one page you may have had a hand in, a barren

Vide "Iustinus" apud Vicispecies.

appears. Finally, the third thing I have noticed today is that the Hebrew Wikipedia incorporates the Wikispecies link into its taxobox. I haven't noticed any other Wikipedia that does this; yet it seems a neat and logical thing to do.

I don't hold out much hope that I could edit our taxobox successfully yet, and certainly I couldn't penetrate the Hebrew template system well enough to see how they perform this particular trick. I just thought, if you felt like it and had time (!), you might be able to. What do you think?

You can see examples in use at he:סולניים (a family) and at he:עגבנייה (a species). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not too busy...[fontem recensere]

Iustinus, if you're not to busy can you give a few of my recent articles a look over? The two I'd really like you to look at are Lucerna incandens, and Buenaventura River. Thanks, Alexanderr 01:19, 6 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassuvium[fontem recensere]

I turned Chris Acosta into a redlink -- I rewrote the English article on him, so I might as well do a Latin one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:30, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look, I didn't really rewrite it. But I'm doing a Latin one anyway. About his work in Latin -- thanks for asking. Last time I searched, it wasn't available, but it is now! Selections from Acosta and from the earlier work by Garcia de Orta that he rewrote and got the credit for, also other sources of that period, all neatly put into Latin by the great Clusius: right here! Irresistible! [1] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pellicula[fontem recensere]

I assume one has to search around a bit to find it (I didn't). --Alex1011 09:14, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bloody hell. THis is what I get for trying to edit while half my brain is focussed pulling an all nighter for a school writing assignment, and the other half is sleeping. Grrrr.... yeah, I don't think Terentius or Caelestis are in that video. Sorry --Iustinus 09:56, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Remove organum—the reason it wasn't listed is that it's already mentioned as an ancient instrument."—There will need to be a discretiva page because organum is a late medieval style (or texture) of musical composition, and it has little or nothing to do with any ancient instrument called an organum. IacobusAmor 22:49, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organum already had several meanings in antiquity. It basically means the same thing as instrumentum, I think. That's why when I mentioned the ancient instruments I did so under their longer names. And don't forget the biological organa either! --Iustinus 23:26, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratulationes, Iustine! Propositus es praemio fasti vicipaediae! vide Vicipaedia:Praemia Vicipaedianis--Xaverius 20:23, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:s Mea culpa! Ioshus told me he was going to give a prize, and I must have been thinking in something else, because I told you instead of Rolandus! Nevertheless, with the amount of prizes we have, you will be proposed for a prize sooner or later... verecundia capiat me!--Xaverius 09:46, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you were saying something...[fontem recensere]

...about a papyrus?--Ioshus (disp) 16:05, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I was supposed to remind you to respond to two points on a recent discussion page...can't remember which...--Ioshus (disp) 16:06, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't we like to share with the group now? or are these matters too private for words? IacobusAmor 16:45, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as for the discussion, I won't be ready for that until the afternoon, and maybe not even then, because by the time I've recovered from my work, I'll be at a (much needed) wine tasting ;) As for the papyrus, it was just an amusing payrus from the paper I'm writing (oh, that's interesting: "a papyrus" ... "a paper") But now that you've got everyone curious:

UPZ I 148, Second Century BCE
πυνθανομένη μανθά-
νειν σε Αἰγύπτια
γράμματα συνεχάρην σοι
καὶ ἐμαυτῆι, ὅτι
νῦν γε παραγενόμενος
εἰς τὴν πόλιν διδάξεις
παρα Φαλου..ῆτι ἰατροκλύστηι τὰ
παιδάρια καὶ ἕξεις
ἐφόδιον εἰς τὸ γῆρας.

Of course, as is often the case, I wrote a word-for-word Latin translation to help me understand it. That comes in useful here:

Cetior facta dis-
cere te Aegyptias
litteras congratulata sum tibi
et mihi ipsi, quod
nunc quidem ingressus
in civitatem docebis
apud Phalu..etem iatroclysten
puerulos et habebis
viaticum in senectutem.

What does iatroclysten mean? Um... take a look at the greek roots and see if you can figure it out yourself ;) --Iustinus 16:51, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hieroglyphics[fontem recensere]

I find I can't read your Egyptian at coriandrum. Do you have any good advice for me? Incidentally, can you read my Sanskrit at Asvaghosa and my Burmese at Iangon? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:44, 10 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really tricky, but here's how it works: [2]. --UV 09:33, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotofredus[fontem recensere]

Sorry, I didn't mean to do anything wrong. There where links in Vicipaedia to both Ioannes and Iohannes (vide Usor:Iustinus/Scribenda Titulos Iaponicos) and since there is no article at all, I thought I could start one (which I haven't yet :S)... and I thought Iohannes would fit, because he was German. What do you think? Greetings --Alexis Hellmer 07:14, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athenaeus[fontem recensere]

Ave! I thought you'd like to know that someone has added a brief article for one of our favourite authors Athenaeus Naucratita, and I have made a stub for Deipnosophistae. Note the spelling I have used -- I know it isn't quite the classically preferred one, or the one that you prefer, but it is used on at least some of the Latin title pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago[fontem recensere]

in a galaxy far, far away, you moved David Hume to David Humius. The name in the body of the article remains David Hume. Do you stick by your decision? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 21 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Just checking. And thanks for the reference to Humelbergius on Apicius. I didn't know it.
On that Spanish site, I can't manage to use the navigation box for choosing a particular page. Can you? All I can do is flip to "pag. seguinte" etc. Still, a very useful site. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinus Lutherus Rex[fontem recensere]

Hi I'm kinda new on Vicipaedia Latina, but I like it very much. I created my page just yesterday >> usor:Marcus Venetivs. I am a great fan of Martin Luther King jr. so I looked him up in here. I found your article and had some questions to it. Hope that you can answer them and that they're not to silly for ya!! I wrote wrote them on the disputatio page of the article about Martin Luther King

scilicet Communitas Ragusina, Respublica Ragusina ? I find them on it.wiki. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 14:27, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declinatio "asteroidae" sive "asteroidis"[fontem recensere]

Scire velim, amabo, quae sit opinio tua de declinatione vocabuli “asteroides”. Vide et commentare, sis, quod scripsi hac de re in pagina Disputatio:Asteroides#Declination. Vale, --Fabullus 15:25, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de figura paginae primaede figura paginae primae[fontem recensere]

Salve Iustine. 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) 20:36, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be right to say "iacula" would be the right way to say Darts (as in the game) from the singular iaculum and could I have some suggestions for the terms: dartboard, bullseye, score (verb and noun) e.g. He scored 60 and The maximum possible score is 180? The article would probably need grammar attention afterwards as well...

This is what I wrote in the taberna. Ioshus said you could help with the words "score" and "dartboard"? ----Harrissimo 17:16, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just occured to me that maybe Spiculudium or Spiculudus (like Pediludium) might be a quicker way of saying "Darts" which isn't as long as Spiculorum Ludus (which I will write about soon) and which doesn't obscure too much of the original word. From there could come Spiculusor etc. What do you think? --Harrissimo 22:45, 3 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Situs etc.[fontem recensere]

So would "tabula situs Suecia" be correct if the English translation was "A map of the location of Sweden."? --Harrissimo 21:55, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. --Harrissimo 22:14, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago, Iustine, quod pro me Harrissimo respondisti! --Neander 22:36, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cider, sir?[fontem recensere]

Greetings, Iustine. Would you have a glance at Disputatio:Somersetensis comitatus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio:Translitteratio Linguae Graecae[fontem recensere]

In Disputatione de Translitteratione Linguae Graecae scripsi nonnulla quae interesse tuā posse videntur. Fac valeas, --Fabullus 12:24, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulaanbataar/Ulan Bator(is)[fontem recensere]

Does Mr. Egger have a word for the Mongolian capital city, Ulaanbataar/Ulan Bator in his Lexicon? The catholic diocese name is Ulaanbaatarensis, but they've got to be having a laugh. --Harrissimo 21:33, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diminutivum[fontem recensere]

Notulam addidi in disputatione de suffixo diminutivo. Opinionem tuam libenter legam! --Fabullus 14:34, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

praecepta[fontem recensere]

praecepta culinaria quaerebam, e.g. pullum Parthicum. et valde me nihil abs te scriptum invenire miratus sum. quaeso, mi amice, praecepta Romana nobis utilia tua addas huic encyclopaediae. --Andreas 02:36, 20 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-koski/torrens[fontem recensere]

Salve! I seem to remember you quoting kalevala latina somewhere. Do you still have it? If so, please could you look up the translation of Katrakoski (see here for its location in kalevala). Vicipaedia:Taberna#Xkoski = Xae torrens. Vale! Harrissimo 00:02, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Salve iterum! Admoneo te nunc (ut rogavisti). Harrissimo 03:47, 27 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

imago Stephani Berard[fontem recensere]

UV Iustino s.p.d.

Iustine, a long while ago you uploaded this image. Do you happen to remember who took this picture? It would be great if we had a freely licensed image of Berard that we could add to the gallery of people at commons:Category:Modern Latin. Please see Vicipaedia:Taberna#Locally uploaded images: status report and question as well. Vale! --22:15, 18 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It would be great if you could find a picture of him that is under a free license. wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy says that we “may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals” (and Berard is a notable individual by definition, otherwise we should not have an entry about him in our encyclopedia). --UV 11:06, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry! I'll call UV... unless you can fix it? I'm not really sure what I did wrong. Harrissimo 20:56, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Oh! You've rescued it. Sorry again, Harrissimo 20:57, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Propositio[fontem recensere]

Proposui delendam esse paginam " vectigal ad mortandum". Si vis, potest appellari "vectigal mortis" vel "vectigal mortuorum"--Marc mage 22:32, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liber Prosopographicus (?)[fontem recensere]

Me quaero, care Iustine, esne Justin Mansfield, ut credo? Puto me te invenisse hodie apud librum prosopographicum (facebook)! --Xaverius 23:08, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina militum scaccorum[fontem recensere]

Hi Iustinus,

Welcome back! In my quest for Latin words of Arabic origin I have also stumbled upon such beauties as rochus and alfinus, which bring me to wonder about the sources for your purely Latin translations turris and episcopus. Please answer on Disputatio:scacci#names of pieces. --Fabullus 13:02, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vale, carissime !!![fontem recensere]

Vidi quae primus ad rem creare Sinuthium III fuisti. I made a little important change. I hope to made better. If not, tell me, so I'll come back to the old page.

Quod valeas mihi pergratum erit

Rex Momo 21:33, 14 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, very sorry[fontem recensere]

My old memory of 41 y.o. (!!!) doesn' permit me to remember where I founf this Abnoub, sorry, can you forgive me?

Please: you are Americano from...?


Rex Momo 22:07, 7 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. And ...[fontem recensere]

The section from Gastropoda was removed by Hendricus on 21 October 2007: one of his oldest edits. He was never the most reflective of editors. You might want to glance through his earliest edits to see if any other pages of yours are among them! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future perfect[fontem recensere]

Right, but are you sure about the form? I think the u may be wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 14 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much[fontem recensere]

I have always doubts how to translate Luigi, Louis etc. Now you have given me a good tip for the case the original language does a difference between the two. Thank you --Massimo Macconi 21:31, 20 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Holera[fontem recensere]

In pagina quae de Apio scripsisti Categoriam:Holera addidisti. De holeribus tamen ambigitur, quae species plantarum holera sint dicenda. Quae, tua sententia, sunt holera? --Fabullus 20:43, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placeat mihi huic categoriae omnes plantas et partes plantarum includi quae communiter in culinis adhibeantur, etiam fructus ut lycopersica et melongenas. Id quoque facit categoria correspondens Anglica Vegetables et, ut linguam meam maternam exemplum adhibeo, Nederlandica Groente. Nemo enim nos vetat lycopersica etc. duabus categoriis attribuere: et holera et fructus. --Fabullus 14:24, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possumus duo categorias novas facere: unam quae respicit ad fructus dulces quae statim edi possunt (Categoria:fructus dulces?), et unam quae respicit ad fructus quae cocti eduntur (Categoria:fructus coquendi aut Categoria:fructus culinarii?). --Fabullus 15:33, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro patata (e.g.), vicipaedia Anglica habet categorias "Potatoes," "Quechua loanwords," "Staple foods," "Native crops of Peru," et "Native crops of Bolivia." Quid est Latinum pro staple food? IacobusAmor 15:52, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vale, carissime Iustine, quomodo te habeas?

Can you watch a little this page, if I have written something wrong in my not good Latin?

Gratias ago

Rex Momo 10:46, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas de André[fontem recensere]

André non habeo, sed D'Arcy Thompson habeo! Ibi reperio piscem nomine "aspis" apud Aristotelem HA 532b22: Thompson identificationem cum Pennatula rubra suggerit sed adsimilationem scuto minime intellegit. Salve optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 4 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vale, carissime Iustine, 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 16:51, 18 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?[fontem recensere]

Iustine, amice, could you by any chance look at en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosetta Stone/archive1 if you have a moment -- the recent comment by Thanatosimii -- and either help us to answer, or, if the article does indeed want correction, correct it? Any assistance welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As that discussion is archived, where shall I respond? --Iustinus 19:57, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really, it just has that name. Don't ask me why :) It is an active page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have replied. Hope I do not sound uninformative or rude. --Iustinus 22:34, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Iustine. Far from it, you said exactly what was needed :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:41, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translating a shell description[fontem recensere]

Salve! I work on the English Wikipedia. My user page is here [3]. A number of us over there are working on the Gastropoda. Do you know anyone who can perhaps do us a favor by translating a Latin phrase written by an 18th century biologist (they did not always use very correct Latin)? It's a short description of the shell of the Dog conch pictures here, as written by Carolus Linnaeus. In fact it's his original description of the shell of that species from his book Systema Naturae published in 1758. It reads as follows:

S. testae labro rotundato brevi retuso, spiraque laevi.

Many thanks, my talk page is here [4], I am User:INvertzoo on the English Wikipedia, 18:21, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[fontem recensere]

Hi Iustinus,

I have left you a message at your English talk page. I hope you can help me. --Jose77 01:04, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same again[fontem recensere]

Iustine, amice, could you glance at Disputatio:Universitas Virginiae when (if) you have a moment to spare? I get the impression anonymus wants us to do something, and I know the names of American universities fascinate you ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 16 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not any more. Well, I have tried to prod the anonym into making a positive suggestion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the names of Egyptian pharaohs fascinate you even more. If so, you might like to look at Chronicon Lipsiense and see whether it's possible to link the kings' names with otherwise known monarchs. And, by the way, happy Christmas! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 23 Decembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. Is "alio" ruled out? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs in Plautus of course, but you already know that. See my comments there. --Iustinus 16:37, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pantocrator added a redirect at Amygdala, which was reasonable, but I think a discretiva is even better, so I've put that there now. If you intend to turn Amygdala into a page about the fruit/nut, you're still free to do that of course. I guess you could use {{Videhom}} at the head of the page; or else you could preserve the redirect page but move it to "Amygdala (discretiva)". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you've guessed, I'd much prefer for Amygdala to be about the plant/fruit/nut, but I'll take a discretiva for the time being. Given our recent discussion, it was nice of you to let me know. --Iustinus 16:36, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we already have a page about the fruit started at Amygdalus. The nut itself, though, seems to have been originally fem., so perhaps Amygdala (nux) might be appropriate for the fruit, as distinct from the tree. Pantocrator 20:57, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I never saw that. Thanks, Pantocrator. Well, for the present I have linked them with a redirect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:08, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this painting Reditus Ciceronis (Franciabigio), in which the scene is Rome, is the obelisk a representation of a real one, and if so which? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 31 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain. It certainly looks loosely based on something real. I could swear this very image is discussed in one of my books, but I'm not sure where I've put it. --Iustinus 22:02, 31 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia's list is complete, that obelisk has to be anachronistic, though perhaps by only a couple of decades (the Vaticano, brought to Rome in 30–28 BCE). See en:List of obelisks in Rome. IacobusAmor 00:15, 1 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Franciabigio was unable to consult Wikipedia :) Yes, indeed, I suspected it would be slightly anachronistic -- thanks for confirming -- but I thought he still might have a real obelisk in view. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 1 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, the book I'm remembering is The Story of Decipherment. I remember I recommended it to you before, do you still have it by any chance? My dim memory is that this is thought to be a real obelisk, but one which is no longer extant. I really need to track that down.
PS, this question, as well as the conventiculum, seems to have inspired a dream I was having this morning, which involved, among other things, reading Late egyptian inscriptions, and a discussion (in Latin) of word-play in Egyptian literature. --Iustinus 15:58, 1 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question on en[fontem recensere]

Hi Iustinus. I asked a question here on en's Language Reference Desk, and Adam Bishop suggested that you might be well suited to answer it. If you get a chance, would you mind looking at my question there and responding if you can? If you would respond there, so anyone else who reads that refdesk can learn, that would be great. Thanks! 18:11, 29 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question on en[fontem recensere]

Salve optime, mi amice. Do you have any comment on the etymology for falafel proposed at en:Talk:Falafel? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 3 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response. For me, you answered exactly the right question -- "Is the grammar right?" -- and also directed attention to the remaining nagging issue -- "Why the connection with pepper and not with beans?" Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 4 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hieroglyphs[fontem recensere]

Hello, just a quick note: you might enjoy the newly introduced special page Special:Hieroglyphs. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 1 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago! But why is that page not editable? There are a couple instances of humanus for humani for instance. --Iustinus (disputatio) 18:41, 8 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those errors are part of the user interface, they can be corrected on translatewiki: [5]. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:23, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De urbibus Sumeriis[fontem recensere]

Mi Iustine, I'm writting some articles on Sumerians and Near Eastern Archeology, but I'm using modern place-names to refer to cities such as Ur, Uruk, Agade and others which may have had Classical names (perhaps Greek, perhaps Roman...). In Gen. 10.10 I've found fuit autem principium regni eius Babylon et Arach et Archad et Chalanne in terra Sennaar, where Sennaar may be Sumer, but would Arach=Uruk and Archad=Agade/Akkad? Ur is easy to spot there, and Bad-tibira appears as Παντιβίβλος in en:wiki... Would I need to change Periodus Uruk for Periodus Arach? Any other further suggestions? Cheers!--Xaverius 10:36, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the way to Israel when you posted this, and have only just returned. Arach is indeed Uruk, but I prefer to use the more classical Orchoe. In general these vulgate forms... well I tend to fall off my usual rules there, because I don't like them. i mean Akkad should obviously be *Acchad, and Sennaar... well you know, it's so far off from our technical term. But I guess I'm being hypocritical. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:28, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply (and sorry for the immensly belated counter-reply). I've gone for Accad rather than Acchad, but the rest I've left untouched as yet. When I get to write about towns and so, I think I'll use the 2modern" name and mention that it may be identified with the given biblical probable equivalent ("Uruk (fortasse biblica urbs Arach, etiam vocata Orchoe) fuit urbs in Sumeria..."). What do you think?--Xaverius 10:16, 27 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to put it under Orchoe since it's a real Latin name. Arach is also an attested Latin form, but since it's an indeclinable transliteration of Hebrew it's less than preferable. --Iustinus (disputatio) 04:56, 29 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, cf. Omoroca --Iustinus (disputatio) 05:23, 29 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orchoe et Periodus Orchoensis (!!)--Xaverius 09:40, 29 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied ...[fontem recensere]

on my talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:51, 24 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and also at en:Talk:Linquo coax ranis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waitwhat? --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:04, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're around, do you have any view to express at Disputatio:Sicagum? E.g. a preference between Chicagum and Chicagia? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 27 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vale, carissime Iustine, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relectura istae parvae pagine que feci.

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:41, 10 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tibi gratias ago. Mea Lingua Latina non bona est sicut tuam. Please, correct me every time! Rex Momo (disputatio) 21:56, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faxecura Rocuyemon[fontem recensere]

Would you want to expand this article?Jondel (disputatio) 06:02, 29 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, I guess that's overdue for ... being written. But right now I have my hands full with a secret article I've been working on offline ;) --Iustinus (disputatio) 08:44, 29 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(That was, of course, Sisith, which just made Pagina Mensis, yay! --Iustinus (disputatio) 15:43, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Back to Rosetta[fontem recensere]

Happy New Year, mi amice! Would you care to comment at en:Talk:Rosetta Stone? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another question: care to write a short article about Apophis? The eponymous asteroid 99942 Apophis is getting rapidly closer as we speak, and will hit the news (but probably not the Earth) tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like fun! But I don't think I can get much, if anything, written in time for our not-quite-meteoric guest. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:09, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the Greek locus classicus, Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride 365d (quoting Eudoxus) spells the name Ἄποπις. Ἄπωφις and Ἄφωφις are also attested elsewhere, but only for the similarly-named Pharaoh. Fascinating, since everyone seems to pronounce the name of the Demon /ǝˈpoːfɪs/, rather than /ˈæpəpɪs/. For my money, Ἄφωφις is closest to the Egyptian, but that's not what Plutarch wrote. Anyway, I'll have to check for ancient Latin sources, but so far my hopes are not high. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:45, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons and Dragons[fontem recensere]

I proposed tho change the title of the article at the Taberna. --Phyrexian ɸ 21:39, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hastivibrax etc[fontem recensere]

I took down into footnotes the two names you added in the first sentence of Gulielmus Shakesperius. Hope that's OK. I try to limit the number of Latin names in the text of the first sentence to two (if it really must be more than one) and I try to persuade others to do the same. Whether the two that remain are the best choices, you might well disagree, but it's hard to take Hastivibrax totally seriously! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 22 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to stir you into action here ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:36, 21 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amenhotep III[fontem recensere]

Hi! (I do not know Latin, and My English is not very good). I wrote to you in the talk page of English, and then I saw that You use in Latin page.

I am user from Israel, and User:ijon Talk to you for me. I have Another question: you Know What does the names: Sitamun (daughter of Pharaoh Amenhotep III) and Isis (daughter of Pharaoh Amenhotep III)? I would be happy if you answer me מהר. Thank you very much! yair.Yair9a (disputatio) 19:12, 10 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

הי, אני רוצה לוודא שלא שכחת אותי...

Calendarium Hebraicum[fontem recensere]

Ave, Iustinus:

Andrew suggested that I consult you on this. I am creating a dual-calendar template for Vicipaedia (draft Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum). I'm mostly doing it "just because". You can see the live enwiki version at en:Template:Today/CE/AM, which I didn't actually create myself, and then using iw links there, see other versions I adapted.

Anyway, the one issue/question pending is: how to render Hebrew month names correctly in Latin. You apparently supplied these for Calendarium Hebraicum. If you look back at my draft, just above it you'll see a list of month names; these are the month names as the {{#time: ...}} parser function renders them on this wiki. As you'll see, they appear to be common as-in-English renderings. So to make my calendar template work, and look correct, either (a) I need to convert them, using a separate template or a big {{#ifeq: ...}} expression, or (b) we have to get them changed at the server (possibly appropriate, considering, but I don't know how to do that). For sure, (a) first, and in either case, I'd like to confirm:

  • You are comfortable with the names as you have listed them at Calendarium Hebraicum. (Would you make the leap-year versions I Adar/II Adar or Adar I/Adar II?)
  • You can confirm that either (a) these are nevertheless non-declining foreign nouns or (b) you can make them genitive for me.

Many thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:53, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you for one more look, then I'll leave you alone. (Thank you for your help.)[fontem recensere]

(This is transcluded from my talk page.) I want to summarize this to make it easy for anyone to comment:

  1. There is no dispute on Nisan, Iar, Ab, Elul, Tebeth, Adar. Three of those require correcting at translatewiki, and I have already done that. They are already in the system.
  2. There doesn't seem to be a justification for Shevat (English spelling) to be Sabath, with a -th at the end. Andrew Dalby's reasoning about allophones on the phoneme /t/ could play a role, but Schürer (see above) also cites tau, not theta, in ancient Greek. Iustinus already suggested making this Sabat. So absent objections, that's what it will be.
  3. Andrew wrote briefly about the convention on "u" vs. "v," and Sivan and [Mar-]chesuan both seem to fit the convention well. The last letter of Casleu is just strange in Latin, any way you cut it, and from Hebrew you could justify either approach. But sources that use the "u" convention in Latin all use it here, so we'll keep that as -u.
  4. On the "t"/"th" choice (Tishri/Tammuz), there is evidence to go either way. en:Biblical Hebrew cites Rabbi Saadia Gaon to the effect that even after the establishment of בג"ד כפ"ת spirantization, in initial position both sounds remained allophonic for a long while. That, plus what Iustinus said about Translitteratio linguae Hebraicae not reflecting spirantization anyway, leads me to lean (reluctantly) to Th, especially for Thammuz. (Side note: "mm," as this is geminate.)
    Only question, Iustinus: from where did you get the original "Tisri" in Calendarium Hebraicum? If that's the traditional spelling, notwithstanding the normal transliteration rules, it does appear to be justifiable.
  5. For the purpose of my template, I'd likely use Heshvan, not Marheshvan, as name in common practice. For that reason, I'm leaning to sticking with initial "h," not "ch" (Hesuan). "Ch" in Latin denotes a harder sound (toward "k"), and the letter ח at the beginning of Heshvan never goes there. English "h" or even a silent "h" are both closer. But based on traditional usage, I'd stick with Marchesuan when writing it out long. It's inconsistent; sue me.
  6. Finally, Casleu: Yes, Greek spells it with chi. But in Latin, "ch" mostly hardens c before "i" and "e," and isn't even necessary here. Iustinus had Casleu as a traditional spelling, and it's justifiable. So I propose we keep that as Casleu.

I hope to close this over the weekend, so thank you for your comments. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:04, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Kentucky[fontem recensere]

Hi, Justin. Are you able to verify a Latin name for the conventicle's host? In categories we have "Kentuckiana", in the conventicle article we have "Kentukiana", and in the English wiki "Kentuckiensis". This last is supported by the name of a manuscript, "Kentuckiensis VII", prominent on Google. Any thoughts? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that the suffix anus indicates possession (exercitus Sullanus, Sulla's army) or origin (Romanus, [out] of Rome), but ensis indicates location or place whence, probably leading here to Kentu[c]kiensis. Of course in the real world, though ensis seems seldom to be used with persons, anus can be used with places, and so these differentiations are hardly absolute & mutually exclusive, and Latinizing (biological) taxonomists and modern Latinists in general may have muddled the system beyond repair. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:11, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than three hundred years ago, the reactionaries of Connecticut gave us Yalensis for Yale, while Harvard had traditionally had Harvardianus. Maybe (the classically better formed, or not?) Yalianus looked too weird for them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:27, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or is (and always was) this a distinction without a difference? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:30, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is real but has never been so strict or absolute as you might think. Universities overwhelmingly prefer -ensis. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:10, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's because most of them, especially the public ones, are named for political or geographical entities. The ones in anus—e.g., Aristoteliana, Cornelliana, Creightoniana, Dukiana, Gregoriana, Harvardiana, Humboldtiana, Ludoviciana, Salesiana, Wellesleianum, Wesleiana, Xaveriana—tend to be named for persons. Likewise those named for cities named for persons; e.g., Universitas Claudiopolitana. So I'm thinking there's a tendency here, perhaps a strong one, but of course not absolute (see exceptions Texana on the one hand and Yalensis on the other). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:55, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Kentucky ... well Terentius pretty consistently uses Kentukiana, I believe. But you are right, en:Universtity of Kentucky does claim the Latin name is Universitas Kentuckiensis. I wish they cited a source on that... I have never found an official, in the sense we mean over at decreto adoptata, source for UK's Latin name, so I've always just gone with the Conventiculum-Latin name. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:10, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 1904, its official name, seen on its seal, was Academia Kentuckiensis. Click here. So according to the conventions that prevail in Kentucky, and in North America generally, you could call it the universitas Kentuckiensis (lowercased u for a generic term) if you like, but of course you wouldn't call it the Universitas Kentuckiensis (capital U for a proper term) unless it called itself that. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which we see it does. So it's the Universitas Kentuckiensis, pace Tunbergo. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:01, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even (unofficially) in relation to the Conventiculum ! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:04, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Et in situ Stephani Beard, Tunbergum ipsum attingens ! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:13, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds, Iacobe. Gratias multas tibi ago. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:16, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we can track down that name, then I would argue we should use Universitas Kentuckiensis for the name of the article, but prefer Universtas Kentukiana in Tunberg- and Conventiculum-related articles, just as I did, for example, with Universitas Torontonensis (official) vs. Universitas Torontina (Tunbergian). --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:10, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean his noun is Torontum, -i, not Toronto, -onis? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:02, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, Iustine. I agree there is no need for us to be superficially consistent in text: we are free to adopt the deeper consistency (!) that you suggest. And I agree it would be so nice to have a truly-official attestation of "Universitas Kentuckiensis", although the choice of names "here" must surely be based on some at least semi-official source ...
To Iacobe: add into the list of examples (if you care to do so!) the names of Catholic dioceses found via this page. The great majority are in -ensis, but a significant minority in -anus, -inus, -ius and other forms. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the suffixes -anus and -ensis is that the former encodes a pertinentive relation, whereas the latter "indicates location or place whence", as Iacobus put it. In place names, the meaning relations 'related to' and 'coming from' overlap, and so the choice is practically free; witness e.g. Melitanus ~ Melitensis, Sardinianus ~ Sardiniensis, even insulanus ~ insulensis. ¶ For what it's worth, Kentukia (adj. Kentukiana) is attested also in Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta (Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum. Societas Litterarum Finnicarum, 2006) and also in Ephemeris 2013 et Epistula Leonina LXXXII, which also gives Kentukiensis. Neander (disputatio) 18:47, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

  • Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
  • Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
  • Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:36, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potiones fortes[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iustine, how are you? I started a page to sum up the contents of the category you created many years ago, and then realised that there was a simpler Latin term "temetum" (which I think you yourself used in text). Should we move the category? Please comment at Disputatio Categoriae:Potiones fortes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:27, 23 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I have a strong opinion here. I guess potio fortis sounds more Classical to me, but that could be an illusion.
Randomly, the Talmudic Hebrew word תמד (perhaps tåmådh), roughly equivalent to Latin lorum, is sometimes cited as a possibly related word. This winds up in modern Hebrew was tǝmád "mead,"—I'm guessing just because of the sound.
--Iustinus (disputatio) 00:24, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq (name of)[fontem recensere]

Hi again ... Have you a moment to look in at Disputatio:Iracum? Some interesting new attestations have turned up. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:37, 19 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite 100[fontem recensere]

I guess you had too much else to do? Bad luck. But your indirect success is that you tempted me, and I'm still going ... so far ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 1 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I do plan to return to this eventually, and have still been adding to my ideas list, but you're right, the pace was exhausting and time consuming and I had to let it slide for now. --Iustinus (disputatio) 21:53, 4 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also dropped out. I thought I was on top of them, but then somehow a week slipped by! And I still have some pages in progressu to finish. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:09, 6 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vide lemma novum: Sahawiq. Melius annon? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:18, 30 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dissentior. Re vera figura quam pepegi componit vocales Hebraicos cum consonantibus Arabicis — nam neque apud Hebraice loquentes constant quae sint consonantes. At si formam pure Arabicam usurpaverimus multo difficilius erit versionem Latinam ratam proponere. Non habeo fontem Mediaevalem neque Vicipaedia:Translitteratio/en isto uti volo, ergo magis convenit nomine plerumque Hebraico uti.
Quod maius est, usor qui mutationem, neque Latinitatem neque mores nostros sciens, per omnes Vicipaedias id faciebat ne gloria huius pulmenti Israelenis primum daretur, sicut isti qui queruntur utrum "Turcicum" an "Graecum" primum dici debeat lucumium. Tales rixas nobis absint. --Iustinus (disputatio) 13:43, 5 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix them all by hand?[fontem recensere]

Unless all those new formulas are actually useful, today would be a good time to have handy a reset button so the entire enterprise could be restored to its condition at 02:36, just before the English-language additions began. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:57, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iuppiter grammaticus[fontem recensere]

An anonymus Olympian has made some changes to what were originally your texts at Apium graveolens. I think he was right, but I'd be really glad if you would check for yourself. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:14, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homophylophilia[fontem recensere]

Hi there. In 2006, you moved Homosexualitas to Homophylophilia. I was never against the fully Hellenicised forms (I have even pushed for diphylophilia at some point), but now IacobusAmor has created Heterosexualitas and Bisexualitas, which appear to be consensual. For the sake of consistency (my motivation) and because most sources justify it (some other people's motivation), I therefore intend to move it back. Please see the Taberna for further explanations and in case you want to comment. Sigur (disputatio) 14:32, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this. I was probably too harsh: homosexualitas is questionable coinage, but it does appear in neo-Latin texts, and is basically universal. If people want to move it, I won't stand in the way. --Iustinus (disputatio) 21:34, 19 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesius, -a, -um &c[fontem recensere]

Hi! Care to have a look at a discussion you might be interested in? Sigur (disputatio) 16:59, 11 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was always fated to do this, but I did relatively little until now. I am now developing pages about local food traditions and specific foods. I'm starting from a source or two and going where they take me. If you have time, please look at what I'm doing and correct or make suggestions.

I am using primarily Apicius, the Latin text with Sally's translation, to help me with vocabulary. But of course I sometimes need terms that Apicius didn't yet dream of or didn't define. Looking at your relatively recent page Erise, and wanting a general term for a paste (thick fluid used as an ingredient or sauce or dip) and a general term for a dip (currently called en:dipping sauce in English) my current thought is to use pulmentum for "paste" and embamma for a "dip". This meant a couple of small changes on your page. If you think I am mistaken here, please say.

As to the names of specific dishes, if there is a source for a Latin name (as with Erise), fine. If there isn't, I'm inclined not to hurry to translate them, because in the real world people often don't. Hence, for the moment, in the illustration at Pullina you see the English name "Buffalo wings" (a speciality I first encountered on Wilshire Boulevard at Santa Monica, oddly enough). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 30 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your position as an admin in the Latin Wikipedia. In particular, we want to learn about your experience, the issues you encounter with articles created with Content translation.

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Latin Wikipedia to ensure standard and quality articles are not compromised. However, it is a big task to encounter content that is not standard daily, and a difficult decision to delete them because they fall below standard.

Our observations

We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more frequently than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool. 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. Therefore, the tool's low usage and the deletion rate signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to your Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will give us insight into how we can improve the tool to get quality articles and reduce the number of deletion, hence making your work easier.

Please follow this link to the Survey:

Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback in this thread or via email on the following questions:

  • What makes the articles created with content translation fall below standard in your Wikipedia?
  • What are the common mistakes that editors that use content translation make?
  • How do you think we can improve the  Content Translation tool that will help you with your work or make your task easier and reduce deletion of articles in Latin Wikipedia?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF language team.[reply]

Reminder: Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend!

The WMF Language team earlier reached out to you to participate in a survey to give us insight into improving the Content Translation tool to make your work as an admin easier. Towards improving the quality of content in your Wikipedia and avoiding the case of content deletion.

Again, we are reaching out to you as a reminder to Take the Survey as the survey will close on 9th July 2021 (23:59 UTC). The survey will only take you between 10 to 15 minutes. Please read the Privacy Statement to know how the information collected from the survey will be used.

If you already took the survey- thank you! You don't need to retake it.

Thank you, as we look forward to your response.

UOzurumba (WMF) 19:17, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF Language team.[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[fontem recensere]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:17, 4 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)

Inactivity policy[fontem recensere]

Hi, Justin. I hope you're OK.

In accord with general Wikimedia security, we have to suspend admin rights for magistratus who have been inactive for a certain period: we have defined this period as 12 months. If you want to retain your admin rights without interruption, the simplest thing to do is to make an edit on Vicipaedia within one month from now (before 20 January 2023). If you don't do this, your admin tools will be suspended on that date.

I don't need to say that you are always welcome to Vicipaedia, now and later. Your account remains active, and if after 20 January you want to take up your magistracy again, there's no formality: just ask (on my talk page for example) and your tools will be restored.

Have a happy holiday period and a good New Year! (And I hope we meet again soon ...) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 20 Decembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]