Disputatio Usoris:Kedemus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Salve, Kedeme!

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

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

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

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


--Ioshus (disp) 23:38, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have no page to see, as it were...[fontem recensere]

Furthermore, no offense, but the Latinitas of that article is actually worse than -3...there is nothing dubium about it... Hollywood? Ellen? Erat? Filmae? Expeditae? I do not at all see why you have removed the Latinitas label. Surely you do not think this is good Latin?--Ioshus (disp) 18:02, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood and Ellen are proper names, and as a result do not need to be translated. Use almost any other language in the world and these names will not be translated or highly altered either, so why should it be done with Latin? Latin was not widely used at any time during the age of film, especially not by people discussing movies. As a result, I took liberties in forming Latin words for film terms. I know the Wikipedia says to use "pellicula", but "filma" is closer to the words used by most languages, and both words come from Latin. "Expeditae" is simply the feminine plural of "expeditus"- "released", as in a film being released. I'll admit it, my Latin isn't perfect, but I still think I have some good translations, such as "editio sonoris" for sound editing and "documentarium optimum, longitudo plena" for "best documentary, feature (lit. full length)". The translations of the film titles are either literal translations of the English or based on the way they were translated into other languages. For example The Departed was known as "Infiltrados" in Spanish so I named it "Infiltrati". I will admit that I am likely off in my grammar and word selection in some places, so you make some corrections to them. As for why I do not have a page, I am not sure of how to make one.
""Expeditae" is simply the feminine plural of "expeditus"- "released", as in a film being released."—This expedio is a fun word, but there's nothing simple about it. Its basic sense (break it down into its elements) is 'to free the feet from a snare'. By extension, that became 'disengage, let loose, set free, liberate'. Perhaps the best single English word for all this is 'extricate'. Referring to a film's release is basically referring to its publication, for which Latin has several perfectly good words, usable in many contexts. ¶ An editio is a 'putting forth, a publishing', so editio sonoris would seem to be 'a publishing of sound'. IacobusAmor 00:39, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elena is Latin for Helen. See our policy on praenomina. Hollywood, I don't know, I'm sure that's not what Traupman would give. It's a proper name, sure, but so is Ohium, too... I full well recognize the form of expedita, but this means released as in, if I had you tied up, and untied you. Which brings me to filma... Now we get to Infiltrati...why do you want to translate The Departed, but not Ellen, or Hollywood?? Not to mention that infiltrati isn't a word to begin with.
Latin is not Spanish, it is not English, it's not even, and I know this pains many people, Italian. You can't trust every modern Latinization you see, but man you've got to go a bit further than you have.
Furthermore Vicipaedia is not Wikipedia. This is an important point. For instance, we are the only wiki whose article is Robertus Zimmerman, and not Bob Dylan (although, I really ought to make a redirect). We are ok with this. You should try to make yourself ok with this, too, or contribute to policy development before creating pages. We don't want to have an argument over our principles and mores which were developed by some fine Wiki/Vicipaediani, and some fine Latinists too, every time we prefer to have a perfectly well Latinized name stand for an English one, or that a spade be called a pala and not a spadum.
No one has labeled your creativity -3, just your Latinitas.
As for your page, click on the red link that says Kedemus at the top of your screen, or, well, just click the red link right there...
--Ioshus (disp) 22:28, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of standards to be read, there is of course VP:TNP, as has already been pointed out to you. Latinizing given names is a tradition of long standing, not something we are simply inventing to be pedantic. On that note, I recommend my page (but then I am biased).
So take pellicula as a example: it is pretty well established as the Latin word for "film" and/or "movie." Furthermore, whereas *filma is an invented neologism, pellicula is technically a classical word. Yes, the classical meaning is different ("little pelt"), but this word is the root of Romance terms such as Italian pellicola, Spanish película and so on, which can mean "film" in the chemical, photographic, and cinematic senses. You can definitely find modern Latin sources where pellicula is used in the cinematic and photographic senses (if you insist I can bring you citations), and almost certainly you can find Renaissance sources where it refers to a chemical term (something we should look for).
The nice thing about writing in Latin is that you can have continuity to sources from Ancient times, continuing all the way up to the present day (granted, not nearly as much in the 20th century). Why woudl you want to reinvent the wheel, and thereby make things harder for yourself and your readers?
As for "to release," you want one of the many Latin expressions for "to publish," which include:
  • edere
  • divulgare
  • in medium proferre
  • luci dare
--Iustinus 07:11, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you complain I don't Latinize enough names, why do you have to change Nickelodeum to Nickelodeon? The name of the channel ultimately comes from the Greek word "odeion", whose Latin version is "odeum". Plus, as is the case with movies, Nickodeon shows did not exist at any time when Latin was used, so there is no standard translation of them into Latin.

Signing[fontem recensere]

Kedemus, please sign your postings (on talk pages) using 4 tildes (~~~~). These tildes expand to your username after saving. --Rolandus 23:35, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Kareem Abdul-Jaffar[fontem recensere]

Kedemus, I left a comment at Disputatio:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I just want to add that Massimo evidently put in some work on getting the names and links right within the article, and correcting typos. You might want to thank him for that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:13, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also commented on this. --Rolandus 09:34, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Via Litoris Pacifici[fontem recensere]

Xaverius Kedemo s.p.d. Please, be more careful whenever you are redirecting a page. You had redirected Via Californiae 1 to "Via Littoris Pacificl" when we already had a redirection Via Litoris Pacifici; surely you knew that it is Litoris and not "Littoris", whereas "Pacificl" is just a typo. Please make sure that you type the redirections properly, because we colud have a big confusion of re-redirections.--Xaverius 10:56, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kareem[fontem recensere]

I have said before, Kedame, we are 'not like other wikis. I told you before, compare Robertus Zimmerman to ANY other wikipedia. Here we list authors by their birth names, and list their show names second. If there are exceptions to this, they are mistakes. Furthermore, there are better ways to Latinize Kareem. Listen to the pronunciation of this in Latin: ka-RAY-aim. Surely a beter way is Karim.

Furthermore you seem to be missing a huge point when you say, time and time again, that "these subjects were invented after Latin was used". Sir that is entirely untrue, we're using Latin now!!! And man, we need to use dictionaries, and know what we're talking about. You can't just "prefer" to talk a certain way, or you run the risk of destroying this language and making it Esperanto. Compare it to a computer language: if you prefer C, when programming in Java, you run the risk of your computer not having any idea what you're talking about. You need to know Java to program in it.

Same here: you need to know Latin, and at the very least not try so hard to resist when people who know a great deal about this language try to correct you.

I have viewed your edits lately with growing concern. You seem to flaunt past some of our rules and policies in favor of, sorry if I offend, uneducated, and hardly thought out "preferences". This is not how we are supposed to act around here.

--Ioshus (disp) 11:06, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wonder years[fontem recensere]

Add what you wan, but please do not uncorrect my corrections to your syntax and vocabulary. I have reverted you in this instance, so I don't have to make the same corrections again. I've already done it once.--Ioscius (disp) 15:29, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As For Fred/Fredericus, Fredericus has the obvious advantage of being declinable. Fred not so much. Further, note the English Wikipedia's first sentence: "Frederick Aaron Savage..." We do have the rule here that the lemma should match the title of the page. So we would have Frederick Savage, where en has Fred, so naturally we would have Fredericus as the title. No Frederick wasn't originally a Latin name, but it has such a history of being Latinized, as a quick search on google will amply demonstrate (I see as early as the 11th century).
Work with us, man, not against us. We can be really helpful people, but try and work within the guidelines that we try to abide by. Also take into account a lot of people spend a good deal of time here, whereas you pop in and out whenever you want to write an article (I'm speaking for others in a large way, certainly, as since classes started, I have considerably slowed down with respect to my contributions here). Naturally, therefore, you will have a harder time getting people to make large policy changing decisions, especially when you are in essence just repeating arguments. Again, please look at VP:TNP and try and effect change there, not when someone corrects an article you write in accordance with our established policies. Sorry if I sound pushy or curt, but we've had this conversation all before.--Ioscius (disp) 16:38, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]