Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus/Archive2

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus/Archive

quid est "lorrum" ?[fontem recensere]

Usor sine nomine quidam paginam Londini hoc modo emdendavit:

Cornelius Tacitus lorrum in aqua fuit et narrat (annalium liber quartus decimus): At Suetonius mira constantia medios inter hostes Londinium perrexit, cognomento quidem coloniae non insigne, sed copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre.

Quid est "lorrum in aqua"? (Ex pagina delebam.) Doops 19:43 sep 16, 2005 (UTC)

Omnino nescio. Potestne fortasse in animo habere vocem Italicam loro, Francogallicam leur, id est "illorum; eorum"? --Iustinus 02:35 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)

Brema[fontem recensere]

I sent a screenshot of the Brema stub to Radio Brema, perhaps they will use it for a story in their latin radio news.--Kresspahl 21:51 oct 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Too bad there's not much on that page. Did you tell them anything else about Wikipedia? --Iustinus 02:23 oct 11, 2005 (UTC) I thought their team of about ten latin teachers working for their latin broadcast might get involved to write about Brema. Since they are probably the only German radio station broadcasting in latin someone should write an article on Radio Brema (?) for la:wikipedia, I myself do not feel secure enough for this task. At least their webpage provides for users suggestions, how to translate actual issues and topics into latin language.--Kresspahl 11:20 oct 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thanks for the corrections to my grammar. I get sloppy sometimes. --Tbook 21:01 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)

Salzgitter?[fontem recensere]

Salve Iustine, habetne Egger nomen Latinum pro urbi Germanica Salzgitter? Gitter theodisce "cancelli" sive "clatri" valet, ita posses "Salis Cancelli" sive "Salis Clatri" Latine reddere, sed melius esset nomine noto uti. --Angr/loquere 16:00 oct 14, 2005 (UTC)

Non habet, neque proh dolor id nomen invenio apud alios fontes nominum locorum --Iustinus 17:00 oct 14, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. Wasn't more than a village until after WWII. Maybe if I e-mail one of the Catholic churches there, they'll know (and will tell me, boringly enough, that it's Salzgitterum or something). --Angr/loquere 21:16 oct 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

May I propose that you pick a new Pagina Mensis for us? There doesn't seem to be enough interest to have a discussion about it. --Tbook 16:27, 10 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Most spoken[fontem recensere]

Could I ask your favor? Is this the correct way to say sixth most spoken in the US: In Uniti Status Americae sextus maximus parlantus est. Gratias ago.--Jondel 06:16, 16 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this will need to be rephrased somehow. There is no such verb as *parlare in Latin, the Romance word being derived from vulgar Latin parabolare (which is not exactly fit for encyclopedic style in any case). The standard classical verb for "to speak" is loqui, which is deponant, and there for has no passive form! There's also the issue of whether or not sextus maximus (for instance) can mean "sixth greatest." As I don't have time to check on that, let's just assume it can. In that case here are my suggestions:
  1. "X lingua sexta est Civitatum Foederatarum Americae, secundum numerum eorum que ea loquuntur"
  2. "In numero eorum qui ea loquuntur, X tenet locum sextum"
  3. "X sexta maxime in usu est."
Or something like that. --Iustinus 18:06, 16 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Latina est lingua sexta latissime locuta. ? Doops 20:59, 16 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Latissime is good, but because loqui is deponent, it has no semantically passive forms. In other words, Latina est locuta does not mean "Latin is spoken" but "A Latin woman has spoken." A further issue is that in the active you don't say Latinam loquor but latine loquor, so even if there were a passive form, "latin" couldn't be its subject. --Iustinus 23:52, 16 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Me in angulum mittam gementem incontinenter. Stultius loqui vix possem. O tempora o mores. Doops 01:34, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
It's a REALLY common mistake ;) Hmm... instead of "is spoken" we could say adhibetur "is used." That is passive, and can take a nominative, buuuuut... I'm stilly iffy on "sexta latissime"... I've been looking into the question of how to say this, and I'll let you know if I come up with something good.
P.S. Another possibility: "Lingua X locum sextum tenet" --Iustinus 01:52, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Here are some loci classici that could be relevant:

  • potentiâ secundus a rege -Hirt. B. Alex. 66 -> Usu sexta ab Anglica??
Nonne sexta latione [si verbum est] usus ab Anglica ? But the "ab" seems clunkly. Doops 05:00, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
latio means "bringing, carying" not "broadness." Broadness is latitudo, but I don't think we can use it to mean what we want it to mean. Some other possibilities: diffusione (Cicero speaks of an error longe lateque diffusus), populi favore, frequentia. As for the ab, that doesn't seem clunky to me in itself, but the fact that we can't really seem to express "sixth most spoken language" without mentioning what the first one is. Note that I said usu not usus: that makes a big difference. --Iustinus 16:43, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
right; my latione was paralell to your usu. Substituting the proper word, I'd get sexta diffusione usus ab Anglica. Doops 20:08, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
  • maxime vellem...secundo autem loco... -Cic. Phil. 8.10.31 -> Anglice latissime adhibetur, X autem est sexto loco?? (of course maxime/secundo loco means something else in Cicero, but this might still work)
Am I misreading? Surely the maxime is irrelevant altogether? Doops 05:00, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Maxime is in contrast with secundo loco in the Cicero passage: "What I would most like to do is X, but secondly Y" --Iustinus 16:43, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You trimmed it down so much that I didn't realize the Cicero was a two-parter. Doops 20:08, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
  • Likewise me maxime consolatur spes....facile secundo loco me consolatur recordatio... Cic. Fam. 1.6.1
  • cotes Creticae diu maximam laudem habuere, secundam Laconicae Plin. NH 36.22.47 §164 -> Lingua Anglica primum tenet locum, sextum X
This is transparently correct grammatically. But we have to answer "first/sixth with respect to what?" e.g. primum latione usus locum or something Doops 05:00, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's 100% necessary, but I think if it is specified, the most logical way to do so is secundum numerum eorum que ea loquuntur or quod attinet ad numerum... I wonder if we could even do numero.
  • nulli Campanorum secundus vinctus ad mortem rapior Liv. 23.10.7 -> Lingua X sexta est Anglicae (though in English we can say "second to none" but not "sixth to English" so this might not work in Latin either)
just out of curiosity, why genitive? As a preposition, "secundum" takes accusative, almost as if it were just plain sequentem. Doops 05:00, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
It's not a genitive, it's a dative. The originally quote quite literally means "Second to none."
again, stultus sum. nullus, nullius, nulli, etc. Doops 20:08, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility might be a derivative adjective like sextanus or sextarius but I'm a little unsure of that. --Iustinus 02:16, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)


Exemplum omne verbum "secundum" nobis ostendit. Suntne species verbi illius et verborum aliorum dissimiles? Doops 04:49, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
There may be, but secundum is the easiest to find them for ;) --Iustinus 16:43, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear; what I meant was that the word "secundum" could, conceivably, behave differently from the other ordinals -- either because of its semantics or its etymology. Doops 04:54, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Gratias ago. This is for the Tagalog language (sixth most spoken)--Jondel 08:55, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

petitio copiarum[fontem recensere]

Salve. Titulum summum paginae omnis Latine non Anglice scribi debet. Hic incipere conatus sum. Lege, quaeso, et emende. Doops 04:44, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Sorry[fontem recensere]

I know the rules now. Is this Latinization okay? I'm still a beginner in Latin, but I checked Google and "Gulielmus Shakespeare" had more hits than the ones for William you listed on your translator's guide. Revolutio (disputatio) 00:49, 19 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

I've seen several different Latinizations of his name, none of which has felt "authoritative." I can't really look up my citations right now though. --02:01, 19 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Collaboratio hebdomadis[fontem recensere]

Doesn't that mean "Collaboration of the Week"? Do you think the Latin Wikipedia should start one? I don't have the level of Latin necessary to translate everything from en:Wikipedia:Collaboration of the Week Revolutio (disputatio) 23:51, 23 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea, espeially in light of all the trouble we've had with Pagina Mensis. In fact that's kind of what I was getting at in the disputatio page --Iustinus 02:04, 24 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Categories for politicians and military leaders[fontem recensere]

Salve. In what category should I put politicians like Joschka Fischer or military leaders like Alcibiades or Hasdrubal? Thanks. --Roland2 23:10, 26 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Politicians are categoria:viri publici. For military leaders we should probably likewise put them into a new categoria:viri militares and perhaps later worry about distinguishing generals from rank and file &c. --Iustinus 03:13, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
I had the idea that viri publici just means politicians but - since there are just Romans there - I feared vir publicus (?) might be a special term in the Roman Empire. (Please see my talk page as well.) --Roland2 12:11, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Hello[fontem recensere]

My latin is limited, or nonexistant (take your pick), but I attempted to make the Sancta Monica, California article for this wikipedia so I was wondering if you could look it over and make a few (or alot if I screwed up) changes. Thanks Alexanderr 07:25, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Double Entry[fontem recensere]

Hey I wanted to tell you that I think Fridericus_II and Ferdinandus II are two different articles of the same guy. They might not be, but if they are might we merge them. I personally would prefere doing so under the former name if we do merge them.

As an aside I wanted to thank you for your help with the Sancta Monica article, and your correction of "In latinae" (I saw it in a book). Thanks, Alexanderr 06:21, 7 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to suspect these are the same people. --Iustinus 08:20, 7 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask if you could spell check my Formica article. Alexanderr 03:53, 8 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

A word[fontem recensere]

I wanted to know if you could tell me the word "declare" (as in customs) in latin. Or maybe even a full phrase like "Do you have anything to declare". It would be most appreciated if you could. Thanks, Alexanderr 01:24, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry if some of my articles have caused you trouble. I really am trying to contribute and think I will get better....eventually. (g)

Hmmm, honestly I am unsure what the mot juste would be. I suppose you could just go with declaro, or maybe renuntio.
Latin is a tricky language, and it is difficult to leap straight into writing in it without some previous study. You might try looking for an online course... I am especially fond of Latin for Gamers, which is quick and dirty but fun (MGE). --Iustinus 01:41, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if it is not too rude of me to ask, until you have a handle on your Latin grammar would you mind automatically slapping a {{maxcorrigenda}} on your pages? I cannot promise I'll always be around to proofread your contributions, and this wiki being as small as it is, I cannot even guarantee that someone else will get around to it! --Iustinus 01:47, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

{{pagmen}}[fontem recensere]

Thanks! That explains it. I was wondering why the pages weren't showing up in the Paginae Mensis Category --Tbook 17:45, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

purge[fontem recensere]

Hi, the wiki software has an action which updates the content of a page which uses templates. It is "purge". When you click on "recensere" the url shows:

http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Iustinus&action=edit

If you manually substitute "edit" with "purge" (and then press ENTER), this will refresh the page without editing:

http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Iustinus&action=purge

As I know, a page which uses changed templates will automatically show the correct content some time later (without manually purging the page cache).

--Roland2 00:11, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Iustinus 00:13, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

index articulorum de nominibus[fontem recensere]

Cur non simplicius dicamus: index articulorum nominum? W. B. 18 Kal Febr. 2006 19.01 UTC

Fieri potest, sed non mihi placet. Congeries genitivorum nisi inter se congruentium habetur esse evitanda, dein aliud est "articulus de re" aliud "articulus rei", nonne? --Iustinus 22:06, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

numbers[fontem recensere]

Thanks, I'm still getting the hang of protocols for here.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:57, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of asking, what do you say for "powers of two"? Is it as simple as potestates duorum, that seems too literal. I do intend on writing more articles on mathematics and the history of math, so thanks for pointing out those lists of names.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:19, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
oh, and ullae sunt rationes numerandi sicut octalis et hexadecimalis, should say there are other systems of numeration, or counting, in juxtaposition to the first half of the sentence suggesting we are used to only counting in decimal system.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:23, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Gauss is a wuss, using an arabic numeral, from Demonstratio Nova Theorematis: Quum hi duo factores reales ipsius X sint gradus mti atque m potestas numeri 2. Mersenne uses the substantive exponens, from chap. xix of the preface of the Cogitata Physico-Mathematica], nisi superes exponentem numerum 62, progressionis duplæ ab 1 incipientis. Nonus enim perfectus est potestas exponentis 68 minus 1. Leibniz unfortunately wrote his binary paper in french, not Latin, so he isn't very helpful, either. I'm going to go with Gauss, untill I find a better source. Keep you posted--Ioshus Rocchio 01:42, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Wow...should have been alterae, not ullae...--Ioshus Rocchio 18:36, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Cases[fontem recensere]

I've looked over the links you gave me a little bit, but there is one subject that I find hard to find. It's difficult to explain so I will give you a demonstration...

"It's raining" stated Gregor, when he came into the forum from the building.
"Pluit" Gregor dixit, cum in foro ab aedificio ibat.
"Pluit" Gregor dixit, cum in forum ab aedificio ibat.

Are either of those right? I think it would be the latter, but I'm not positive. Alexanderr 01:26, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

{{Experimentum}}[fontem recensere]

Hello Iustinus, I thought about the {{Experimentum}} template. I suppose it is just for anonymous users. In this case the template should be followed by a note like this text from the English WP:

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. If you're concerned with privacy, registering also hides your IP address.

And maybe we could add something like:

If you have any questions, feel free to visit the taberna and ask your question there.

--Roland2 15:41, 20 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, though maybe we should split it into two versions, as I could see it being used for registered users at some point.
... or maybe a second template for the second aspect: {{Incognitus}} (?) which keeps the information above. This second template could be used for anonymous users as an indirect invitation to log in or just to inform them about the situation which the template explains. In case we have an experimenting anonymous user, he then will get both templates: {{Experimentum}}{{Incognitus}}. Just an idea ... --Roland2 17:28, 20 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Usor:84.231.242.141 is a vandal[fontem recensere]

He has blanked some pages. --Roland2 18:51, 20 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Anaximander[fontem recensere]

Lacertus Iustino. Iure correxisti correctiones meas de nomine Anaximandri. Gratias tibi ago.

Vermaporta[fontem recensere]

Would you mind looking over this article? Alexanderr 19:33, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Iustinus 18:26, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

IM[fontem recensere]

I'm sorry to say I don't, but I can put my e-mail up if you'd like...Alexanderr 07:09, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, DonJuanDeRocchio on aim, per your email.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:33, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

De Viris Illustribus Urbis Romae[fontem recensere]

Iustinus, please have a look at De Viris Illustribus Urbis Romae. I know it's poor content but I have learnt enough Latin to know that genus and endings cannot be guessed and unfortunately I don't have access to my books from school and haven't found a good online substitute yet. Is there an article in the Vicipaedia which offers some links for re-starters? I think I'll find them myself, however, some hints could help and the topic would go well with the Vicipaedia namespace. --Roland2 13:41, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

The Latin is fine, but the page seems kind of pointless. It would be nice if we coudl add more information about the book and/or the author, but I have absolutely none :( --Iustinus 18:31, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you have just advanced Latiners in mind. ;-) In the German Wikipedia they say "Oma-Test" (grandma's test) if the content of an article is even understandable to grandmothers. Ok, in this case the grandmother has to know some Latin ... In English I would add some content like:

De Viris Illustribus Urbis Romae is a book written by Abbatis Lhomond in the year 1779 (?) in Paris. It covers the story of important men of Rome. It starts with Romulus, the first king of Rome and ends with OCTAVIUS CAESAR AUGUSTUS. Since there is no more a copyright on this text and it is available on many internet pages, it is copied with pleasure by other providers of Latin information in the internet.

(Maybe an index of the sections - linked to the Vicipaedia articles - could be added then.)

It's just that information people in the Latin scene have and people from outside don't have. I'd even vote for an article "Stowasser" [1] ... I do not know if it's just a local Austrian phanomenon. ;-) The name has another meaning, it is the real name of an Austrian artist [2]. I don't know if there is a relation between the artist and the author.

Ok, De Viris Illustribus Urbis Romae is trivial, however, it might be interesting in what style of Latin (classic/modern) it is written, what status (important/trivial) it has in the Latin scene now etc.

Maybe the section Vicipaedia Latina is not appropriate, this sort of information should be kept in the Vicipaedia: namespace and a link to there might suffice.

--Roland2 19:46, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Ne multis, point taken. Perhaps I will translate your English text and add it to that aritcle. (A note: it can be really difficult to translate gern into English. Certainly "with pleasure" sounds rather strange there. Fortunately it's easy to translate into Latin, as it is pretty close in meaning to libenter.)
As for Stowasser, I have not heard of that book, but certainly I would support the writing of articles about frequently used Latin textbooks. --Iustinus 19:52, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation! --Roland2 21:24, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

res multae est?[fontem recensere]

I have no problem with a verb being attracted to the number of its antecedent...but I want to make sure. If I am attempting to render "x is many things", does "x res multae est" work, or is it too English?--Ioshus Rocchio 04:24, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Silbermond[fontem recensere]

Am I getting any better??? Alexanderr 08:12, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

You're definitely getting better. But you still need a lot of corrections, I'm afraid. go take a look at the changes I made, and see what you think. --Iustinus 18:37, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Calabrese, Lucano, Pugliese, Molisan, Abruzzese[fontem recensere]

from en:Neapolitan language "Calabrese, Lucano, northern Pugliese, Molisan, and Abruzzese" (all dialects of Nnapulitano). I need to translate these towns for la: lingua Neapolitana, so far all I have is Calabria. I have no access to a lexicon locorum nominum of any sort, wondering if you could help.--Ioshus Rocchio 06:00, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried the online sources at Fontes nominum locorum?--Iustinus 06:23, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Helpful to a point. Thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:57, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

es-2[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iustinus ... look at your user page and see what happened to your usEr template which should be a usOr template. ;-) The two other templates do not exist yet. Maybe these two usEr templates which I have created today should be better deleted. You are the only user at the moment. --Roland2 21:58, 27 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

  1. I made that babel box knowing that many of the templates were missing, figuring we could add them in later.
  2. As for User vs. Usor, I figure the templates should be under usor, but there should be redirects from user. I believe this is already the case for a number of them. this has the advantage that people can C&P their babel boxes directly from English-speaking wikis without worrying about the spelling.
--Iustinus 22:11, 27 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is this advantage for some people of being able to simply C&P, however, if we would consequently use the Latin names, people would realize soon that they have to translate some things like template --> formula, stub --> stipula, user --> usor. I do not know what position I should prefer, these are just arguments for removing the english templates ... long-sighted. I was rather confused when I started and it took me some time to get an idea what variant seemed to be the preferred one. --Roland2 22:44, 27 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe it is really better to support the English templates automatically ... --Roland2 12:29, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias agere[fontem recensere]

Iustine, tibi gratias ago pro salutatione tua. Libenter conferam Vicipaediae Latinae!

KaeZar 15:12, 30 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

gratias maximas[fontem recensere]

Iustine, tibi ego quoque ago gratias plurrimas ob salutationem. felix sum qui inveniam amicos quibus latine scribere delectat. Kutkut16 16:19, 2 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Gratiae[fontem recensere]

per verbas salvandi tuas tibi gratias ago. haz (disputatio usoris) 20:05, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

ephemeris[fontem recensere]

I've noticed the word ephemeris being used as equivalent to newspaper or magazine. I always thought this word to mean journal more in the sense of diary, than in the sense of a published news source. Can you shed some light? Thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:28, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

It's used both ways, essentially just like the English word "journal." Note that the root meaning of both words is "daily." --Iustinus 20:34, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...I thought the prefix ep should make it mean more like "about the day" which is more accurately reflected by "diary" than "journal" in the sense of a daily (which is usually about the day before, due to obvious publicatory reasons). But if it's used both ways, I'll take your word for it.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:58, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Dance - Saltatio / Saltare[fontem recensere]

Salve Iustine, I have created an article Saltatio (Vicipaedia:Articuli quos omnes Vicipaediae habeant says Saltare). Please, could you verify the name of the article and add a definition? ... or even more ;-) Maybe you will be interested in some of the information which is provided by Tanz und Tanzen bei Augustinus. Thanks! --Roland2 18:38, 10 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is a question of how verbs should be represented in this wiki. In the English they seem to generally show up in the gerund/participle form, e.g. en:frying, en:running. In Latin one could make an argument for at least three different forms:
  1. The infinitive. In many languages this would be the prefered solution, c.f. German de:Frittieren.
  2. The first person singular present active indicative. It seems counterintuitive to list verbs this way, but it is afterall the form used in dictionaries!
  3. An abstract -tio noun.
My preference, I would say, would be for number three, with some exceptions. So I vote saltatio. (One possible problem: there are some rare instances where the -tio noun has a separate meaning. Saltatio is in fact ambiguous: it can mean either the act of dancing, or a "dance", in the sence of a party or ball where people go to dance. In this case, though, it doesn't seem like that big a deal). --Iustinus 21:45, 10 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Consentio. The gerund is sloppy Latin, and the infinitive should be more defined like 1.Find girl, 2.Turn on music, 3.Move to beat. More wiki-how than pedia. So, agreed, abstract noun is probably preferrable. Dance is more or less abstract in English, too.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:53, 10 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I have also got answers on Disputatio:Saltatio and you all tend towards Saltatio. --Roland2 23:02, 10 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Drunkenness and fog[fontem recensere]

ehm - I speak no Latin - but I do need a translation of some English text into Latin. I do hope you would be so kind as to help me in this regard.

This is what I got:

  • Hic sunt ebriositas et caligo

This is what I need:

  • Here be drunkenness and fog

I don't have an account on latin Wiki and I just picked you because you made recent changes - could you possibly reply here or simply delete it if you do not wish to be of assistance.

Regards Celcius - English Wiki

I moved this here from Usor talk:Iustinus, where Celcius originally put it. I will reply to it later on, either here, or on Celcius' english talk page. --Iustinus 17:58, 14 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
That would be great - thanks. Celcius
OK, here's the deal: what you have is actually pretty good, but we can probably do better.
  1. Ebriositas means "drunkenness" in the sense of "tendency to be a drunk." Ebrietas means "a state of drunkennes," and imho rolls off the tongue easier. Better yet might be crapula "crapulence, drunkenness; hangover," which is a much more common word than either of them. This last one also has the advantage of alliterating with caligo.
  2. Caligo is not bad, though I seem to most fequently encounter it as a poetic word for "darkness." It does definitely also mean fog though, and the only other good word I can think of is nebula. One possible advantage of that word would be that nebulo means something like "good for nothing," which may be something you'd like to suggest here ;)
I guess I'm leaning towards Hic sunt crapula et caligo (or move the sunt to the end if you like). --Iustinus 20:35, 14 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
It's great - much appreciated. Celcius

Exemplum (-i n.)[fontem recensere]

What, if any, is the current theory on vicipaedia for formatting articles the way of this subject heading? A user and I were discussing the format of an article, and the question arose, as to whether or not articles should include the genitive and gender of the entry.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:23, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Not wikipedia policy, but my opinion: Article titles should of course not have the genitive in them (though that might be useful in some limited cases to distinguish homonyms). But the information can go in the article. In fact I frequently do put it in. Typycially in this format:
Exemplum -i, n. est alicuius rei specimen, vel exemplar.
Some Wikipedians prefer instead to link to the appropriate declension table on wiktionary.
--Iustinus 04:18, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)
And I prefer to get the best of both worlds by both including the genitive ending+gender and linking to the appropriate declension table (or where one will be in the future if such an entry is created on Wiktionary) like so:
Exemplum (-i, n.) est alicuius rei specimen, vel exemplar.
Some people use a similar method, but italicize both the genitive ending and the gender; the only reason I don't like that is because I think it should be instantly obvious, at a glance, what the gender is and what the genitive is, so if we don't italicize on and de-italicize the other, we should do something format-wise to make the words blatantly distinct (so that it's obvious that they aren't the same thing or directly related or anything), even without having to read the letters.
Anyway, I really don't see a drawback to this method; even the English Wikipedia sometimes mentions plurals and other grammatical matters at the start of an article about a word with an unusual plural or whatnot, and English is a much more predictable language than Latin. Plus, due to the limited and often dated vocabulary of Classical Latin, Vicipaedia is forced to frequently draw on archaic, medieval, humanist, and even neo-latinisms (and of course latinized greekisms) to properly express concepts (like interrete); without providing our readers with basic gender and declension information, we'll be leaving the vast majority of even the most advanced Latin scholars in the dark, because there are just too many archaic/obscure or novel/coined words that will be used somewhere or other. We should link to Victionarium frequently and rely on it for detailed schematics and definitions of words, but we shouldn't force our readers to visit a whole other page for such an essential and fundamental aspect of word usage, especially considering that the vast majority of Vicipaedia articles don't yet have corresponding Victionarium articles. Additionally, in many ways such a simple system (include the gender+genitive+link to Wiktionary at the start of article) is vastly superior to what the English Wikipedia has, and would improve both layout and accessibility enormously, vs. a generic grey box that will be a hassle to include and won't work layout-wise on numerous pages and will be ambiguous on many others and just a broken link on many more. It's just simpler, methinks. Also, I of course agree that article titles shouldn't use the genitive except in very unusual circumstances (like if we latinize "McDonald's" to 'McDonaldi" or something); that would be silly. -Adamas 06:29, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)


Nuntius Vicipaediae anglicae[fontem recensere]

Iustine, salve! Vicipaedia anglica super decies centenea milia articulorum est. Te, qui administrator es, hortor ut hunc nuntium in paginam primam ponas. Hoc factus est in Vicipedia italica.

Quid putas?

Vale

KaeZar 12:49, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)

trisceles[fontem recensere]

Once again, we seem to think likemindedly. I was just about to start Trisceles, but you have beaten me to it. I might add or tweak a thing or two, to add more of what the Sicilian article says. Great start, though, thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 06:13, 14 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Well, I originally did it because it was a translation of the week ;) --Iustinus 16:50, 14 Martii 2006 (UTC)

halos[fontem recensere]

One more thing, dude...I know you are preoccupied and not checking vici often...but I need a declension pattern for halos. Even the OLD only says halos, acc halos!!! Figured you'd know...--Ioshus Rocchio 04:18, 15 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question
  1. The actual Greek declension seems to be Nom. halōs, gen. halō or halōos, dat. halō (Iota subscript normally being ignored in Latin transcription), acc. halō, halōn, halōa, nom/acc pl. halōs
  2. The similar word Athōs is declined thus in Latin: Nom. Athōs, gen. Athō or Athōnis, dat. Athō, acc. Athō, Athōn, Athōnem, voc. Athōs, Abl. Athōne (at least according to Gildersleeve and Lodge)
While these two paradigms seem to be largely in agreement, I would point out that the actual locus classicus for this word mentions that the pure Latin equivalent is corona. Now, assuming that you are talking about the glory around an eclipsed sun, we still call that a "corona" in English. If, on the other had, you are talking about the radience around a holy person's head, I beleive the usual Latin word is actually nimbus. --Iustinus 19:31, 15 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Sen. nat. scripsit halos, alii corona, lucem circum solem vel lunam significantes. --usor:Bohmhammel 20.26 (UTC) 8 Kal. Apr. 2006

‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ and ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎[fontem recensere]

Musica Rockica[fontem recensere]

I was perusing this page, and I stumbled upon our discussion of the stupidity of the term. But, neither here nor there, I wanted to ask about your Carmina Saxosa tape. Who are these bands who have modern music with latin lyrics?--Ioshus Rocchio 14:29, 30 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Salve Ioshe. The pieces I included, as I recall, were:
  1. Andrew Lloyd-Webber "Hosanna" from Requiem (specifically the version on The Premiere Collection Encore, which is done in a very non-classical style)
  2. "Hail Holy Queen" from Sister Act. (mostly in English)
  3. Cranberries—"Electric Blue Eyes" (mostly in English, but the chorus is Domine adiuva me)
  4. Some track (I don't recall what I finally settled on) from Ray Manzarek's 80s rock version of Carmina Burana.
I really should recreate that playlist again (I had it at one point, but lost it in a computer glitch, actually). Got any further suggestions? --Iustinus 08:07, 3 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

[Mediawiki-i18n] Internationalisation news[fontem recensere]

  • Ave Iustinus! We have started a new campaign to update the localization files. If you can help improuving the "{{int:Allmessages}}" – ‎"Nuntia systematis"‎ files "LanguageLa.php" and "MessagesLa.php" to run the Latin projects please log in at [3], change the interface to the language of your prefrence at [4], go to Betawiki:LanguageLa.php and MessagesLa.php at section "contact persons" and list your name. We can start with the new messages translated already and continue step by step.‎
  • If you are on IRC please visit the channel #wikipedia-BiDi.‎
  • For other "LanguageXx.php" and "MessagesXx.php" files please see Betawiki:category:Internationalization. Thanks in advance! Best regards Gangleri · T · m: Th · T 00:30, 13 Maii 2006 (UTC)

valuistin?[fontem recensere]

Salve, Iustine, te visi opera aliquot hodie scripsisse...regressus apud nos esne? Ita spero, vale!--Ioshus Rocchio 05:16, 7 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Ita, in animo est ut paulatim inter vos reveniam. Sed paulatim ut dixi. --Iustinus 06:42, 7 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

vulgo[fontem recensere]

It is not my intention to fix every instance of vulgo. If you look at Usor:Roland2/temp, you'll see what I've been up to. For instance scacci...chess isn't nation specific, so no need for vulgo. But then Cattus Petasatus, this is clearly from "The Cat in the Hat" which was written in english, with an english title, by an english speaking author, so we can make a more intelligent/encyclopaedic entry by having: Cattus Petasatus (Anglice: The Cat in the Hat) as the opening line, as opposed to Cattus Petasatus (vulgo The Cat in the Hat). Immediately a user can navigate to Lingua Anglica to learn about the language in which the book was written, and read about the book in its original language. I realize this deviates a bit from latin precedent, but then again, many things on wiki if not necessitate, desire a deviation from traditional writing practices. We should definitely not seek to eradicate the strand vulgo, for instance I would reserve it for something like: Guilelmus Clinton (Anglice: William Clinton vulgo Bill). This has been discussed between myself and a few other users, Roland2, UV, and a few others, and seems to have gained a bit of favor. It is more or less standard practice on it:Pagina principale. Again, I would like to iterate that I know this more or less to be a deviation from the standards of latin writing, but I argue in articles the subject of which is clearly characterized by one language this procedure might be more encyclopaedic. Take Henricus Valor i Vives...without specifying, it is not immediately clear from what language his name is originated, it looks like it could be spanish or portuguese, except for the i instead of y, but, with the emend, the second word in the article now tells you where its from. I found myself wanting this information immediately in articles not just here but in all wikipedias, and that is why I started to effect this. Furthermore it corrects a problem I think you also have addressed in the Enchiridion, how to say "in x language" which most people don't know how to say. With a bit of browsing, now it will be clear that one should say "Batave" for "in Dutch". What do you think?--Ioshus Rocchio 19:29, 7 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

de usu verbi "ecce"[fontem recensere]

Every author I've can recall besides Traupman uses nominative after "ecce"

  • Plautus, Menaechmi, 784: "SEN. Ecce autem litigium."
    • 840: "MEN. Ecce, Apollo mi ex oraclo imperat" (no indirect discourse, either)
  • Dante, Epistola: "4. Redditur, ecce, sermo Calliopeus inferius"
  • Matthew: "Ecce ego vobiscum sum in omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi"
  • Mirabilis Urbis Romae, 15: "Exite foras et interficite omnem exercitum regis quia ecce ipsum teneo captivum". (if accusative, would read, "quia ecce me ipsum tenere captivum")
  • Silius, 1:131: "fluit ecce cruentus Eridanus."
  • Satyricon, XVI: "Ecce ipsa venit ad stabulum petitque "

etc...

Not to mention the infamous text, Ecce Romani!...can you shed some light? Are there classical authors who use accusative after ecce? Do neolatin conversationalists? Thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:55, 16 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

permissiones imaginum oneratarum?[fontem recensere]

UV Iustino magistratui salutem dicit. Gratias ago ut imaginem oneravisti. Quaeso te ut permissiones imaginum a te oneratarum indicas. Vide Vicipaedia:Imago#Imagines onerare. Salve! --UV 12:36, 25 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias ago! --UV 22:45, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Gades Athenaeque[fontem recensere]

Iustine, fortasse bene scis. Dicere debeam "Gades sunt urbs" an "Gades est urbs"? Bene scio dicere "Gades pulchrae..." et "Athenae clarae...". I'm really curious, because I'd like to write about Cadiz, but don't want to screw up the verb form. Sinister Petrus 18:44, 11 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias proper responsum tuum tibi ago. Sinister Petrus 00:31, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

magnus fragor[fontem recensere]

Know what they call the big bang? Romance languages don't help. They're all Il Big Bang, or La teoria del Big Bang, or the like...--Ioshus Rocchio 04:24, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Nice, hope y'all have fun. Thanks for making the inquiry.--Ioshus Rocchio 06:05, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't thought to use a superlative. Let's go with Fragor Maximus, as it captures some of the simplicity, and irony of the english term. I think the Calvin and Hobbes quote goes something like this:
C:You find it strange that scientists can imagine something as farfetched as all the matter in the universe exploding out of something the size of of the head of a pin, but can't imagine a more creative name than the big bang?!
H:Well, what would you call it?
C:THE HORRENDOUS SPACE KABLOOEY!
Thanks for asking.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:23, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

auctor imaginis?[fontem recensere]

Estne a te capta haec imago? Auctorem indicare nam necesse est. Gratias ago. --UV 01:33, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

gratias ago (and sorry for me being a bit picky about image copyright issues …) --UV 11:20, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

small[fontem recensere]

See Disputatio_Usoris:UV#.references-small ;-) --Roland (disp.) 20:33, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Clavus[fontem recensere]

Sorry if the second sentence is obscure, I was just trying to expand the article so I wanted to add in which way the instrument is used - as the en, and de wikipedias do. Alexanderr 22:01, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well what I meant by "Clavi ergo in operis abietarii exercere sunt." is "Therefore nails are used/employed in the work of carpenter/joiners." I'm pretty sure that abietarius is a proper latin word though (if that contributed to you being thrown off) because it is in the Vulgata... Alexanderr 22:24, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

A carpenter is faber lignarius. (A blacksmith is faber ferrarius.) Carpentry is ars fabrilis. To work carpenter's work is fabricare. IacobusAmor 00:27, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Is that the only acceptable word though, because it says that abietarius means "timber merchant; carpenter, joiner". Why and I personally think so long as it is understandable one word is better than two. Alexanderr 00:30, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Beats me. This abietarius isn't in either of my dictionaries. What's its source? It appears to be ab + ietarius, but I can't think of a word from which any ietarius derives. Are you sure you don't have a typo in there somewhere? [After writing the preceding:] Ah. The light dawns! It has to be from abies, abietis 'a fir tree; hence by metonymy a ship, a plank, a board, etc.'; so the word rightly breaks down as abiet- 'having to do with fir trees, etc.' + -arius (the same suffix you see above in faber lignarius, 'a workman who has something to do with wood (lignum)'). That seems to be a rather strained way of referring to a carpenter, but if it's attested and it fits your style, there's no good reason not to use it. IacobusAmor 00:53, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
L&S lists it in Paulus ex Festo, and Exodus. That may not be an exhaustive listing, but surely those are the "best sources they could come up with." As such it seems rather recherché to me, but hey, it's a real Latin word, so if Alexanderr really wants it... --Iustinus 00:55, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

to teach about[fontem recensere]

I was wondering if by chance you knew the latin verb and preposition for a sentence such as "it teaches so&so about something" and if by chance you do what case so&so would be. Thanks in advance, Alexanderr 00:14, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

So in the "Pater me de vita sua docuit" version the both the direct object and the indirect object are accusative? Alexanderr 00:32, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
To teach is doceo (2nd conjugation); according to Lewis & Short, both the person and the thing taught are in the accusative. In your example, the person taught is accusative, but the thing taught is in the ablative after the preposition de. Does that example come from a postclassical source? IacobusAmor 00:37, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Doceo normally takes the accusative. I don't have a locus classicus for de + abl, at least not to hand, but I assumed it would be possible for instances where an accusative would be inappropriate: afterall, father is not teachign his life, he's informing about his life. As I said, I didn't confirm this in a dictionary, or anything, so take it with a grain of salt. (That is, of course, also why I included certiorem facere) --Iustinus 00:48, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, here's a locus classicus: "de ejus injuriis judices docere," Cic. Verr. 2.4. --Iustinus 00:52, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Epicurus "docuit de rerum natura"..--Ioshus Rocchio 00:55, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm confused. I decided to use the preposition de even though it might not have been used in clasical times - maybe I'm just medaevil :P Anyways the article I am/was working on is Aktion Leben. 00:58, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Examples from Bradley's Arnold, which confirms that doceo, celo, posco, flagito, rogo, and interrogo, "may take two accusatives, one of the person, another of the thing."
Quis musicam docuit Epaminondam? Who taught Epaminondas music?
Nihil nos celat. He conceals nothing from us.
Verres parentes pretium pro sepultura liberum poscebat. Verres used to demand of parents a payment for the burial of their children.
Meliora deos flagito. I implore better things of the gods.
Racilius me primum rogavit sententiam. I was the first whom Racilius asked for his opinion.
Bradley's Arnold goes on to add that the pattern with de plus ablative is "commonest when the thing is indicated by a neuter pronoun, hoc, illud, or by nihil; otherwise very frequently (and with some verbs always) either the person or the thing is indicated by an ablative with a preposition." There's more, but I'm out of time. IacobusAmor 01:08, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that the Cicero quote (which I gave above) pretty much proves that de is fine in this case. --Iustinus 01:12, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Olympia aestiva[fontem recensere]

Iustine, aliquis, quem nescio, de Olympia (sic)(peius quam ego) scribit. Ego autem vitia facillime invenire possum.
So anyway, I thought that if there are any more articles written about the games that I might make a formula to simplify navigation. But to do that I need to know: Is it Olympia, -ae or Olympia, -orum? I saw a note you wrote about it in passing, but didn't notice whether Olympia is n. pl. or f. s (hey, I'm catching moments when the computer is working on other stuff at work). You can look at my personal sandbox, if you like, to see what I'm planning. But when I want to say "Olympic games", do I say (as I strongly suspect) "Ludi Olympici" with an adjective of Olympic? or "Ludi Olympiae" (sic) with Olympic as a noun in the genetive?
Obviously, the winter games are "Olympia Hiemalis" (or Hiemalia as the case may be. Feel free to make changes to the Olympic navigation you see fit. Or you can direct me to where I can see how "Olympica" is most properly used. Sinister Petrus 17:07, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Here are some classical terms, in case they help:
Olympia, -ae, f. 'Olympia, sacred region in Elis Pisatis, where Olympic games were held'
Olympiacus, -a, -um, adj.
Olympicus, -a, -um, adj.
Olympium, -i, n. 'the temple of the Olympic Jupiter'
Olympia, -orum, n.pl. 'the Olympic games, held every four years at Olympia'
Olympias, -adis, f. 'an Olympiad (the four-year period between Olympic games)'; poetically, '(for lustrum) a period of five years'
Olympionices, -ae, m. 'a victor at the Olympic games' (used by Cicero)
Olympus, -i, n. 'any of several mountains (including the famous one); heaven'
Dare Vicipaedia use Olympia instead of, say, Ludi Olympici? IacobusAmor 18:43, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Thus far I have been using Olympia -orum, and I believe the neuter plural was understood to agree with an invisible certamina. I suppose Ludi Olympi(c)i is not impossible. Horace, in verse of course, referred to them as the Olympiorum ludicrum, but that hardly seems to be the most natural name for them. I believe in prose Olympia -orum is the usual. (cf. Disputatio:Olympia_(certamina)) --Iustinus 00:46, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Gratias vobis ambobus ago. Sinister Petrus 04:56, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)



Etiam plus: I've doubts about the word medalium for medal (as in Olympic Gold medal). In my dictionary, I found the word encolpium (though it is indicated as medieval). Do you have anything? I'm not entirely satisfied with either one, and Smith and Hall don't have anything to suggest. Sinister Petrus 19:06, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I've been using Nomisma, which I originally got from the old, online draft of David Morgan's lexicon. He gives a couple citations for it there, too:
  • .mtrl medal, medallion / Medaille: nomisma, atis n.; nummus memoriale [Bauer]; medalia+ (Helf.)
  • .sprt bronze medal / nomisa aereum [Eichenseer] (Helf.)
  • .sprt gold medal / nomisma aureum [Latinitas] (Helf.)
  • .sprt medal nomisma, insigne (Lev.)
He also gives aurisma, and in the newer draft I have (I'm not allowed to share it, alas), he has apparently dropped nomisma entirely (no idea why):
  • 25 medal (gold, silver, bronze) aurisma (aureum, argenteum, aeneum) (Egger D.L. 14)
Sorry it took me so long to notice this question. --Iustinus 04:25, 19 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
But it seems that in the latest draft he's dropped that word (I don't know why), in favor of

Gryllus[fontem recensere]

I'm sorry for the problems with the article grylllus (esp. the thing about the sheep :P) but I am confused by the words for "because" and "because of" in Latin. I've seen quia, and while doing a search for "because" at whitaker's words the prepositions per and ab came up as well. Is there any way you could quickly explain this so I won't make the same mistake again? Alexanderr 18:31, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for that comment, it seems useful even though I haven't the faintest idea what a "noun clause" and an "ablative absolute" is. Maybe one day I'll figure it out. Alexanderr 18:43, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Iustinus, I'll give the article us directed me to a good long look, and thank you for your help with noun clauses and verb clauses. At least that is making sense now. Alexanderr 19:12, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Iustinus, I tried using the ablative absolute in the sentence "Pelliculis prosperatis Wolfgang Hohlbein et Rebecca Hohlbein libros pro pelliculis theodisce scriptant." Is this right? Alexanderr 17:22, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Dunno. What were you trying to say? The ablative absolute looks legal. but here's what the sentence means to me: "Since the films succeeded ("The films having been rendered successful"), W. H. and R. H. often write books in German for the benefit of films." I'm taking scriptant as an obvious typo for scriptitant 'they often write'. IacobusAmor 19:56, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps just scribunt. But I suspect the abl abs was meant to mean "now that the films have succeeded" or "after the films succeeded", rather than "since the films." Any of those would be a fair translation though. --Iustinus 19:59, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Quies Caroli[fontem recensere]

Gratias ago pro nomine latino universitatis litterarum Carolsruhae. Ubi autem nomen latinum invenisti? Egomet in vicipaedia Germanica solummodo Fridericiana (sc. universitas seu academia) inveni. SPD Alex1011 07:02, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Egomet aliquid inveni, vide: http://www.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de/fakultaet/sonstiges/salve.html. Alex1011 09:24, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Dryococelus australis[fontem recensere]

I noticed that you took a look at the locusta page, and am thankful for that, but I wanted to ask you for any help you can give to the dryococelus australis page, which is quite a bit longer, and presumably quite a bit more error ridden. Again if you can help it'd be most appreciated, Alexanderr 07:32, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

The beauty of wikipedia - you can also read the text in the edit mode. I do admit though that while the image on the Dryococelus page didn't disturb me the de:Zecken was/is really uncomfortable to look at. Alexanderr 07:44, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Persin[fontem recensere]

Well you said to ask if I had any questions...and I do. What is the latin word for the toxin persin? Alexanderr 04:14, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well I made the article persinum and I think it turned out all right. I was going to add a section of the effect of the toxin (btw I used "toxicum" for toxin? Is that right? I know it referes to a poison put onto the head of an arrow, but it seems to be the root of toxin.) on some birds per information on the German wikipedia, however I didn't know how to translate the even the first effect - a faster heart beat. If you want to look it over that'd be appreciated.

Also I have two questions is there a website which contains many of the common latin names (not the scientific ones) and if not how do you work with the ending -dae as in Oteriidae? And how would you translate the name Gweek (its the name of a city in corwall) into latin? Thanks, Alexanderr 07:07, 24 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well while I'm still waiting on the other bit of information (mutations of -dae) I also need to know how to write "tunnel" in latin. Thanks, Alexanderr 03:04, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Myces[fontem recensere]

No need to bother him. I'm pretty sure that I found the latin name for Gweek - Vicus. Or at least that is what this website says. Alexanderr 19:51, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Disputatio Usoris:Baronnet[fontem recensere]

We should find a way to communicate your intentions behind pages like mathematicus or - maybe better - create corresponding pages which indicate these intentions in their titles, like Index universitatum nominibus latinis constitutis does for universitas. Moreover, I think it is good to have the word "index" in the title where the content is in fact an index. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 20:46, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to have several pages in parallel:
An extra advantage would be, that we could find the "nominibus latinis constitutis" pages via the template. In the template we could have the link to your translator's guide and the explanation of "nomen sollemnis/constitutum". I like the idea of this template ... so there is a chance that the red links will be more "safe" against inappropriate changes. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 21:15, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Poincaré[fontem recensere]

I am largely responsible for the mathematicus page (as well as the similar astronomus, chemicus, pictor and index philosophorum). The purpose of that page isn't to list every important mathematician, but the ones for whom an "official" Latin name can be found. The vast majority of the names on that list were found in the titles or bibliographical information of various books, preferably ones written by that mathematician himself. Obviously if there is to be an article on Henri Poincaré, it should go under exactly that form, based on the wikipedia naming policy, but his name shouldn't be listed on that page unless you have a source. Do you? (I reverted your change on the assumption that you didn't, which was probably too hasty, so I apologize for that) --Iustinus 14:11, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDVM: The same goes for Index universitatum nominibus latinis constitutis: you added Universitas Nanceiensis, but googlando I don't find any sure evidence of this form. Do you have an "official" source on this form of the name, or did you just guess it? --Iustinus 14:17, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

OK for Poincaré (for now at least !). But please leave Universitas Nanceiensis, the official source is the official seal of the fr:Université de Nancy 2 itself. Baronnet 13:25, 27 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Sixtus[fontem recensere]

gratia tibi ago propter correctionem. Certe Sixtus et non Sixtux

you speak italian? parli italiano? hablas italiano? ??? --Iulius Caesar 22:26, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Homosexualitas[fontem recensere]

I just noticed that you protected homosexualitas, and vowed to rewrite the article, so am going to quickly say that I find that mildly unfair because I worked hard on the intro (in response to IacobusAmor's pointing out that it was wrong to say that it was an action and not a state of mind), and the article in general. And while there was dispute there wasn't really an edit war. My plea is then, is that you unprotect it so that we all may colaborate, or at least that you do not to change too much of the article and disregard my edits, but instead to add information to the article so that all parties may find it neutral, and the religious information not to be overpowering. I'm don't want you to take this as me commanding you because I know you are the administrator and hold the power, but I just don't want to see my work bulldozed. Thanks, Alexanderr 05:24, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'll agree with the greco-roman content you will add, but I don't mind it being added so long as it is neutrally worded. That is all that I was trying to say. But what exactly is wrong with the opening sentence? Personally I think it sums it up pretty well and is non-biased. Alexanderr 06:42, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Your OP[fontem recensere]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble could you provide an english translation of the Opening Paragraph of the Homosexuality article. My comprehention is worse than my spelling. :-) Alexanderr 19:32, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Cricetus[fontem recensere]

I just wanted to inquire about your edits on the cricetus page. Why was qui changed to quod, are we not refering to the subject of the article - cricetus? Why change roditor to rodens? Is roditor (dispite whatever usage it may or may not have recieved throughout history) incorrect? Is it not understandable to meant "one who gnaws" or "gnawer" or whatever? It follows the same format as eruditor, and doctor - why would those be correct but not roditor? Also why change custodare? That is a legitamate word which (I believe) I found in the vulgate. And quasi...??? If you could reply it'd be most appreciated. Alexanderr 05:11, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're comments were helpful, and I don't really dispute any of them - except maybe for the roditor bit, because I'm fond of the word. I know, because I made it up improvising, but really would it be breaking the rules? Is it that improper? Alexanderr 05:37, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Making up words on the fly to describe things is hideously inappropriate ('improper', if you like) for an encyclopedia. —Myces Tiberinus 06:24, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Curious, why would you even want to reinvent a word for rodent when there already is one? Save neologism for something that the romans (or any of the people who continued to use latin for a millenium after the fall of rome) did not have a word for.--Ioshus (disp) 14:53, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Okay, and leaving the word in English is so much better? Anyways, I'll use rodens. By the way, what does Roditor mean in latin then Iustinus (you said there were some google results?) Alexanderr 06:29, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I certainly hope I shall not be gnawed. Anyways thanks, Alexanderr 07:00, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Homophylophilia[fontem recensere]

I left a comment on the talk page. I just wanted to add though, please don't revert me. Can't you just tell me the bits that are wrong so I can make changes? Alexanderr 07:29, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Alexanderr, sorry, but I cannot resist. I sometimes have the feeling that you are testing what will be accepted here and then make a drawback, step by step. Maybe you think this were the best method to place as much of your beliefs here as possible. But I think we should not deal with information here like in a bazar. I say 500, you say 5 and we will both be happy with 50. You could even try it from the other side of the limits: Write something that will not irritate anybody and then develope it towards the result you had initially in mind. Start with 50, if you think it is 50. I think this Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias. For example, the people are more interested in creating correct articles, written in good Latin, but less interested in transporting opinions. The Latin Wikipedia cannot change opinions or make opinions, like the big Wikipedias might be able to. I like this, because this makes this Wikipedia a place with a good climate. This Wikipedia is the wrong place to start revolutions. It will not work. I even think that the average user in this Wikipedia is more settled than the average user in other Wikipedias. If users are reacting emotionally on some of your edits, it might be not because of the content you are transporting, but because of the fact, that it seems that you want to transport something. That you try to do that at all. The intention behind it. This is not good for the climate here. I had my discussions about religion ... ahem ... years ago and if someone wants to give me real new input, this needs more than just citing the Bible. Maybe others feel similar. You asked Iustinus not to revert you. Just be conservative (please read on ...) and sensitive when placing your opinions. You might have realized that I am an inclusionist. I am mostly always against deleting information. But - frankly speeking - I would not care if someone "bulldozed" someone's "work" here if that user just wanted to place his opinion. Someone can place opinions and beliefs, but they should be clearly classified as opinions and beliefs. I like several POVs, I am against a NPOV which has been just settled by the majority. I think you have helped to evolve that article and it was sometimes funny to follow the discussion. In fact Iustinus wrote it. This is good for us, but maybe he also wants to write an article when he is in the mood and not when there is a need. ;-) If you think, something you want to add could offend someone, I'd suggest to just ask on the talk page first and then wait some hours or days. Mostly nobody will react and then you have all the right of the world to add that information to the page. Ok, maybe then they will wake up, but this constellation will be better for the climate. ;-) Sometimes it is better to be patient than to be bold (en:Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages) ... ;-) I like your work, but you can do it even better. :-) --Roland (disp.) 13:23, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Roland, I appreciate your comments, but I don't know exactly what you meant by "testing what will be accepted here and then make a drawback, step by step." I mean, I don't think any of my edits (aside from maybe those most recently) have been controversial, or would appear that I'm testing anything. And while it is true that I do want to add articles on my beliefs to wikipedia the majority of things I've written about (if you can go through my special contributions) isn't religious in nature. Just articles I found, that I thought were interesting at the time, or posed a certain amount of challenge in translating (because when I'm translating an article from German -> Latin I'm working on two language which I'm learning ;-)). Anyways, I guess that's all I can say. Alexanderr 15:03, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Alexanderr, as I said, I appreciate your work and you are right that you are mostly writing about things which are not controversial. But when it comes to religious topics you seem to be personally engaged. Of course. As you said, these are two foreign languages for you, as is English (and Latin) for me. But then you should be aware, that choosing the "wrong" word could cause more reactions when writing about controversial themes than about e. g. "Nagetiere" and how they are kept. ;-) BTW, at the moment I am just doing what I should not do: Writing about a controversial theme, using a foreign language. My nervousness can be measured by the number of smileys I use ;-) I could do it better in German. --Roland (disp.) 15:29, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess with politics, and religion I do get a bit carried away, but my only point was that most of my contributions are neutral in nature. Also while you might be able to do it better in german I don't think I'd understand to well :-) Alexanderr 15:36, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I'd really like to read an offending article about Nagetiere. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 15:57, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Iustinus: Sorry to carry on a general conversation on your talk page, but I wanted to comment on what Roland2 had to say. It does seem that the general level of civility on la: has dropped over the last few months, but I don't think it can all be ascribed to Alexanderr, who, I know has made a number of good contributions along with some controversial ones. I haven't been following the dispute closely, except to be amazed at how many edits show up on Mutationes Recentes, but all across the site, there seems to be less charity and more personal attacks. Just a moment ago, I noticed on Disputatio:Pagina Prima how a user was insulting a visitor admirably (if poorly) trying to ask a question in Latin. I don't think making a call that we all "just get along" would have much impact, but I do regret the lack of decorum and personally intend to avoid personal criticisms when I see what I consider to be poor latin or biased or erroneous opinions. Not only does it make for a more pleasant environment, but I also believe it to be a precondition to any worthwhile discussion. --Tbook 14:28, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Tbook, I confess that one of the reasons I freaked out last night was precisely that: I have been trying so hard to keep the peace on homophylophilia, and I felt that Alexanderr's edits were going to get him eaten alive. But apparently I did such a good job of it that Ioshus didn't even have to say anything :p --Iustinus 14:55, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I thought about it, but the whole situation wearies me. As I said, we are dealing with homophobia, not homosexuality. And in this case, the font of this homophobia is the fervor for a religion (were that in itself not egregious enough) of a religion which I find particularly unappealing and frankly malintentioned. I find it difficult to come up with useful words to sway the minds of men of faith, as the mere suggestion that they might be wrong brings their piety raging to the surface. If you'd like to talk explicitly about what is "natural" in humans, it is most certainly sex, sex, and more sex. "natural law" is eating, sleeping, excreting, and reproducing. It is most unnatural to hide behind a religious symbol and fling stones at people.--Ioshus (disp) 15:06, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sex is natural, but is homosexual sex? That is what we are talking about. And anyway I don't have a "pious rage" in me :) Alexanderr 15:09, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Yes, same-sex genital play is rife in nature. See Wikipedia:
"The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread among insects, birds and mammals, particularly the apes. Many male penguins that apparently mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance [4].
"One report on sheep cited below states:
""Approximately eight percent of [male] rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..." [citation needed]
"Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored."
It's surprising that the article does't mention porpoises. American television (PBS) a couple of years ago showed the equivalent of male porpoise teenagers engaged in this sort of activity: you could see that they were rubbing their (erect) penises against each other, and you could see the streams of semen in the water. Do you need more proof than that? I hope you haven't been taken in by that Roman Catholic cardinal, northern Italian, I think, who a few months ago declared that it "does not occur in nature." (That's the English translation; I don't know what the Italian was.) IacobusAmor 16:19, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Iacobe, would you undertake this passage's translation? Maybe <::grumble, grumble::> Alexanderr is right that what this article needs is more truly factual information about what is and isn't "natural law". You could put in some porpoisal information as well =]. Also includable would be a report of this cardinal of whom you spake. This way Alexanderr could include his doctrinal parts, but they might be framed within the context of, excuse my pov, real science.--Ioshus (disp) 16:34, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Ioshus, from my understanding "natural law" doesn't necessarily mean a law which is present in nature, but a law which is outside the jurisdiction of the state. In the relgious sense a natural law is a law defined by god for his people - one that can't be added to or subtracted from by any jusidiction on earth no matter what they allow or don't allow. Alexanderr 16:41, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Ioshe, I might if I had more time and felt more comfortable with prose composition, but I'm constitutionally an editor, so it's much easier & quicker for me to go to a random page and correct the grammar & style. And we should all be in favor of facts! and real science! IacobusAmor 16:53, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Tbook, I did not want to express all of that what you seemingly found in my words. ;-) I just wanted to comment this "please don't revert me". On the other hand you are right, there are more things which could be done better. I tried to handle some problematic topics by providing pages in the Vicipaedia namespace, like Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani etc. Unfortunately it does not seem to work very well. I think we are entering a new era: We are getting bigger and there will be a need for more written information about our culture or the culture we want to have. Especially, when we want a different culture than other Wikipedias have. Do we? I think we have a better culture now, but we have to explain our way, at least where it differs from other Wikipedias. I think, what we are discussing now, should be moved to a page in the Viciapedia namespace (but not the taberna). --Roland (disp.) 15:04, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you are welcome to use this page to continue your discussion. Just be warned I am headed out of town for about a day, and will likely not get a chance to read this til I come back. --Iustinus 15:17, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Iustinus. One of the reasons that I have been contributing to the Latin Wikipedia, aside from the fact that I enjoy Latin, is that I did feel that we had a somewhat more elevated level of discourse. I think you may be right that some of that will change or is changing as we get bigger. I suppose it is inevitable that we should come across topics where individuals have very strong and differing opinions, and given human nature, the sort of personal attacks that we have seen are probably hard to avoid, as well. On en:, working through those conflicts has produced good results - one of the things that helped to sell me on the merits of this sort of project is the quality of the en:abortion article on en - which surely was the result of a long battle between proponents of different views. Perhaps this current debate will help us to achieve a greater level of objectivity, although I don't see any immediate signs of that. So I don't have any particular solution - deleting the whole page wouldn't be a very satisfactory answer; protecting it might require the parties to come to some sort of consensus before posting it - but the real question isn't just about that page. As I mentioned above, I would like to exhort everyone to civility, but probably we just have to wade through it all. --Tbook 15:26, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that it was Roland who said this, and he is absolutely right. This topic merits discussion, but I am this close to archiving my disputatio page. So if we're going to have the discussion on my talk page, we should do it after I do that ;) --Iustinus 03:09, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

piget + acc. + gen.[fontem recensere]

Iustinus, if you do not seem to remember that the so-called verba impersonalia paenitet, pudet, miseret, piget, taedet are always constructed (construed!?) with the person in the accusative and the matter in the genitive case, then do not undo the corrections of those who do remember. It is always: Eum paenitet alicuius rei, never: Is paenitet aliquam rem. That's why they are called verba impersonalia. Please undo your edit.--Iovis Fulmen 05:08, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. You are of course right. Good to know that there are people who "seem to remember" the irregular verbs properly! Now I know how you had "no idea how I was construing this". Sorry for my sarcasm.--Iovis Fulmen 05:33, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC) - Oh dear me, I was so intrigued by the discussion of the aptitude of the word homosexualitas that I expected something like "he loathed the word" and did not even consider the possibility of the sentence meaning "the word was coined by"... Again, sorry for the trouble.--Iovis Fulmen 06:11, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Help with names[fontem recensere]

There are two articles which I really want to translate, one being en:Sanday (not the one in orkney but the other) and part of the en:Snail article. Can you help with either of these names? Thanks, Alexanderr 16:34, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)