Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles/Tabularium I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia
Vide etiam paginam disputationis principalem.

Salve, Les!

Gratus aut grata 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" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle! Donatello (disputatio) 13:29, 30 Maii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Propter salutationem gratias ago. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:37, 30 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Calcutta[fontem recensere]

We unknowingly conflicted at Calcutta. We were both writing about the same thing -- the name. Please check whether I have included the information you wanted to add! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 29 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wanted to add the English name and shorten the Google link, but the name looks good down in the paragraph you added. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:44, 29 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Calungsod[fontem recensere]

Thanks for your improvements! I made some improvements and would like to ask if there are more improvements needed. If none, I would like to remove the Latinatis noticias. Thanks.Jondel (disputatio) 12:43, 12 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Jondel. I made a few more edits. I can't be sure to have caught everything, but I went ahead and removed the notice. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:41, 12 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ut and ad[fontem recensere]

Thanks for those grammar tips!--Jondel (disputatio) 15:49, 25 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I still have a lot to learn myself. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 15:52, 25 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q[fontem recensere]

Here's a different grammar problem. I thought I'd try the 10000 lists of cities and countries. You'd think there might be a way to make those links show the Latin label of the Wikidata page (if there is a Latin label), or even directly link to the Latin page, rather than the Q number. Did you wonder that? Is there? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 10 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder that, but I couldn't find a way, so that's why I chose the smallest category! Responded there. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:04, 10 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nosocomus[fontem recensere]

Lesgles, Hi! Could you I ask for your help for what you find ambiguous in the page? Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 19:07, 6 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responsum tuum[fontem recensere]

Si nominationem ad magistratum accipis, tibi oportet in paginam VP:PM verbis brevibus (vel longissimis si vis!) respondere. Salve optime, Lesgles! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 27 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amplitudo fasciae[fontem recensere]

Lesgles, could you help me out with this article? Could you identify what is ambiguous? I will try to put a source although I really think the title should be Fascia latitas. Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:08, 7 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declining neuters[fontem recensere]

Lesgles, that's good of you to correct nominem. If you'd like to continue on this quest, you'll find examples of capitem and capites and cordem and maybe others. As new authors add contributions, these kinds of misperceptions will recur, so it might be useful to check for them every few months. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:46, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that you've done similar mass corrections. I do so partly in penance for having committed similar mistakes in the past (and sometimes still today). ;) Lesgles (disputatio) 20:33, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo pro Merito Melitensi[fontem recensere]

Hello Lesgles - thank you for tidying up the grammar in the Donaldus Adamson article & I should be grateful if you could advise on two issues: 1. Adamson is a not a Knight of Malta as it states now, but is a Knight of the Most Venerable Order of St John, as conferred by HM Queen Elizabeth II (qv. The London Gazette, 22 July 1998, p. 7984, col. 1): could an accurate translation be introduced in the article (eques Venerabilem Ordinis Sancti Ioannis perhaps)?

Why use the accusative (venerabilem)? and the positive (nonsuperlative)? Try: Eques Venerabilissimi Ordinis Sancti Ioannis. (Some editors might abolish two or three of those initial capitals.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:53, 17 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. My version of Ordo pro Merito Melitensi was recently marked down as -5 by Latinatus. Could you possibly guide me as to where it goes wrong? Many thanks indeed. M

PS. since it states Honoré de Balzac under Versiones in Donaldus Adamson shouldn't it also read Guy de Maupassant?
I think I've fixed the points you mentioned in the Adamson article. I also had ago at the Ordo pro merito Melitensi, but I do not understand the last sentence: "Honores per decretum Summo Consilii sunt concessit motu proprio pro Magno Magistro ordinis." What did you want to say there?
La condecoración pro Merito Melitensi es concedida tanto por Decreto del Soberano Consejo como, motu proprio, por el Gran Maestre M
By the way, to sign your posts on discussion pages, you should use four tildes (~~~~). I also urge you to look through the links in the welcome message I posted on your talk page; they explain a lot of our conventions. Vale, Lesgles (disputatio) 18:49, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Sr Lesgles y muchas gracias por su ayuda con respecto a Donaldus Adamson.
Como en el artículo http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Adamson él es un Caballero de la Justicia de la venerable Orden de San Juan: eques Venerabilissimi ordinis Sancti Ioannis, pero tiene la Cruz pro Merito Melitensi: Cruce pro Merito Melitensi. Eso es correcto. Él no es un Caballero de Malta: eques Ordinis fratrum hospitalis Sancti Ioannis. ¿Es posible corregir esta? M
PS. ruego acepte mis disculpas: Crux pro Merito Melitensi.
Factum est. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:29, 19 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lesgles and just to correct Donaldus Adamson I think it should read: Etiam est eques Venerabilissimi ordinis Sancti Ioannis et Ordinis palmarum academicarum Francici; atque crucem Ordinis pro Merito Melitensi recepit. Many thanks M
Oops, OK now? Lesgles (disputatio) 23:04, 19 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi M~~~~
You're welcome. For the signature, I should have been clearer: you use the four tildes without the <nowiki> (which I just used to show you what they look like). The system will then automatically replace the tildes with your username and the time and date, which is very helpful when reading discussions. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:21, 20 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

de Hercynia silva[fontem recensere]

Responso tuo de illa re perlecto plurimas tibi iterum atque iterum opem ferenti dico gratias. Bavarese (disputatio) 20:06, 26 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De psalmo 1[fontem recensere]

I moved it to the incipit, Beatus vir qui non abiit, because that was the quick way to give it an incoming link. They are all linked that way at Liber Psalmorum. I think myself that for single poems that don't have a title the incipit makes the best heading, and is certainly a traditional way to do it, but if you prefer to use the number, say so!

I don't know what you were aiming at with the Wikisource link. It didn't seem to relate to anything Latin. Since Wikisource is divided by language, a Wikisource link intended to lead to an English Wikisource page has to specify "English", this way : s:en:Psalms. But that page "Psalms" is a disambig, anyway, so I changed it again to s:en:Psalms (Bible) which offers a series of English translations. That seems useful enough. But maybe even more reason to link to the Latin, or indeed the Hebrew? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with using the incipit is which translation to use (en:Latin Psalters). This psalm is mostly not a problem, though the Versio Piana uses "Beatus vir, qui non sequitur". A more extreme example is Psalm 41/42 (As the hart panteth), which is either "Quemadmodum desiderat cervus", "Sicut cervus desiderat", or "Sicut areola praeparata". On the other hand, the problem with using the numbers is whether to use the Septuagint (Catholic) or Masoretic (Protestant) numbering. Tricky! Either way, redirects and disambiguation links should be created.
I think the Wikisource link was just a remnant of what I copied over from English. There seems to be one version of the Psalms on Wikisource, so I linked to that instead. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:55, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

en:Do not buy Russian goods![fontem recensere]

Hello! Could you translate an article about boycott of Russian goods in Ukraine for the Latin and Italian Wikipedia? Thanks for the help.--Trydence (disputatio) 20:13, 23 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[fontem recensere]

Dear Leagles I remarked the problem with INSEE and I'm correcting it slowly. The sense of my observations was exactly summed up by your last words on my discussion page "editors here should do the work that they want to do"--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 21:19, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you thanks for your edit on the Taberna -- mainly to test whether the "public" thanks I am invited to send today are any different in nature from the [private] thanks I was able to send hitherto :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 23 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the same on my end! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 23 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Rapidim (disputatio) 00:51, 30 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translating the interface in your language, we need your help[fontem recensere]

Hello Lesgles, thanks for working on this wiki in your language. We updated the list of priority translations and I write you to let you know. The language used by this wiki (or by you in your preferences) needs about 100 translations or less in the priority list. You're almost done!
To add or change translations for all wikis, please use translatewiki.net, the MediaWiki localisation project.

Please register on translatewiki.net if you didn't yet and then help complete priority translations (make sure to select your language in the language selector). With a couple hours' work or less, you can make sure that nearly all visitors see the wiki interface fully translated. Nemo 14:06, 26 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve[fontem recensere]

Salve potes adiuva me melius haec agite: Mythologia Guancha.--88.9.96.173 10:44, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, 88. Parece que está utilizando Google Translate, que no entiende la gramática latina y en general no funciona en absoluto. (Por ejemplo, lo que escribió es: "hóla! puedes ayúdame! mejor estos haced!"). Le recomiendo que tome un curso o que lea un libro sobre la gramática latina elemental. Sin embargo, voy a echar un vistazo a la página. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:11, 7 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew months (Last request, then I'll leave you alone. And 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]


Satyricon[fontem recensere]

Hi, Lesgles. I took away the "Non stipula" from Lichas Tarentinus. I assumed that it was a source question: if so, the Satyricon is cited in the text, with the range of surviving chapters in which Lichas appears.

Was that the issue? Do you think this solves it? If not, let's discuss! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 11 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, sorry! I was a little hasty there. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:08, 11 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Easy to miss. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:22, 11 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formulae[fontem recensere]

Salve, Lesgles!

I played around with a few administrative templates, and so as not to bother Andrew all the time, I thought I'd ask you for a quick review, since I read Latin much, much better than I write it. See my Harenarium:

  1. The sandbox template itself.
  2. The Wiktionary user-page template. Andrew helped me write the the user-page template for Vicipaedia originally; I just wanted to make sure the language shifts to reflect Victionarium were correct.
  3. The talk-page template. So far, I only shifted the language (and color) to reflect its use for talk pages. If you think we could/should add other language, such as you see in other talk page templates (see my enwiki talk page, for example), feel free.

Thank you! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:31, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Steven! Here are the main things I would fix, mostly involving noun-adjective agreement. Also, for possession Latin uses the possessive adjectives meus, tuus, etc. instead of the genitive of the personal pronoun (mei, tui); the exception is the third person, eius/eorum. Mei, tui, etc. are used mainly as objective genitives, e.g. "amor mei", "[someone else's] love of me". Lesgles (disputatio) 23:08, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc est harenarium usoris Vicipaediae Latinae.
Ecce harenarium personale mei. Ubi experiri et ludere sine ullo periculo potes. Non est commentatio enyclopaedica.
Paginam veram recentissimamque hic perlegere potes: http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Usor:StevenJ81/Harenarium.
Ecce harenarium meum. Non vestrum.
Haec est pagina usoris Victionarium Latinum.
Non est commentatio dictionaria. Si extra Victionarium repperisti, situm reflectivum paginamque exanimatam vides cuius auctor nihil cum situ isto habeat. Paginam veram recentissimamque hic perlegere potes: http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Usor:StevenJ81/Harenarium.
Haec est pagina disputationis usoris Vicipaediae Latinae.
Non est commentatio enyclopaedica. Si extra Vicipaediam repperisti, situm reflectivum paginamque exanimatam vides cuius auctor nihil cum situ isto habeat. Paginam veram recentissimamque hic perlegere potes: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:StevenJ81/Harenarium.
Lesgles (disputatio) 23:08, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do too badly, considering. Thank you.
A couple of follow-up questions:
  • Given what you said, why "Ecce harenarium personale mei" (instead of meum)?
  • Why "dictionaria"? The only forms of that word I see ending in -a are plural.
Thanks! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:36, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one other thing: though we share a name, I'm afraid I'm not an eagle. But three of my sons are. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:02, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed one; yes, that mei should be meum as well. Dictionary is more complicated. It is not a classical word, though the suffix -arius, -a, -um is a usual adjectival suffix. Here's what the OED has to say:
The post-classical Latin word dictionarius appears to have been coined by the English-born Parisian teacher John of Garland as a name for one of his elementary Latin textbooks... an introduction probably by John and certainly of the 13th cent. explains that the book ‘Dictionarius dicitur, non ab unica dictione i[d est] unico vocabulo, immo a dictione large sumpta i[d est] a sermone’ (is called Dictionarius, not from dictio in the sense ‘single word’ but from dictio in the sense ‘connected speech’): see T. Hunt Teaching & Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Cent. England (1991) 1:193. In classical Latin the suffix -ārius -ary suffix1 more normally formed adjectives, or nouns denoting kinds of person, than nouns denoting kinds of thing (but compare commentārius commentary n.), and this explains why J. A. H. Murray (in N.E.D. and The Evolution of English Lexicography (1900) 18) postulated the derivation of the noun from an adjective dictionarius or a phrase dictionarius liber; however, there seems to be no evidence for the currency of either before 1220, and the care with which the noun dictionarius is explained in the introduction to John of Garland’s work suggests a fresh coinage rather than the functional shift of an existing word. - [Lesgles]
I agree. I have come across JG's book. He was a good Latinist, so he surely knew perfectly well that the "-ius" termination, if used as a noun, would be the designation of a speaker (a teacher of Latin diction) rather than a book. Naming books and newspapers as if they are people speaking is not uncommon -- that's what a "guide" is, for example, and my favourite newspaper is another example. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:44, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionarius as adjective does appear later, though, e.g. "dictionariae expositionis". If you wanted to use the noun instead, you could say pagina dictionarii (or pagina lexici). Lesgles (disputatio) 16:35, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I myself was only ever a cub scout, so I guess my username is a bit presumptious. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 16:35, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. And I found (after some searching) some adjective declensions that apply here. So now I get it. Merci mille fois. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:20, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De malefactoribus[fontem recensere]

De te (non malefactore) in disputatione mea scripsi :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:14, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"e popula Wolayta" ?[fontem recensere]

Salve Aquila,

"Hailemariam Desalegn primum ministrum Aethiopiae e popula Wolayta ortum esse?" "e populo" erit corrigendum, puto. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 17:08, 14 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correctum est; gratias tibi ago! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:15, 14 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeographia Armeniaca[fontem recensere]

В русскоязычной Википедии эта статья имеет статус ИС. Для улучшения вашей статьи его данные могут быть полезными.--Taron Saharyan (disputatio) 19:30, 16 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо, именно эту статью я и перевожу. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 04:16, 17 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Projected "supplementum" space[fontem recensere]

I notice you haven't yet commented on this. If you've anything to add at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Spatium supplementorum -- positive or negative -- I'm sure it would be useful. Best wishes Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the Wikidata capsae[fontem recensere]

As you'll see, the issue raised by Helveticus on the Taberna and my user page relates to the links you added, which unavoidably sometimes produce confusing redlinks. I don't really have anything to add to earlier discussion -- it's a moot question whether to have some useful links and some confusion, or no confusion and no links ... -- but I guess, sooner or later, one of us will grasp the nettle and try to make the whole thing work better using Lua :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:48, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Lesgles/Tabularium_I&oldid=3266523"