Disputatio Usoris:Neander

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Salve, Neander!

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

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

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

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle! --Xaverius 08:20, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro tuis conlationibus bonis ad meas paginas, gratias tibi ago, Neander!Rafaelgarcia 03:08, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Et ego gratias pro gratiis tibi! --Neander 22:33, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Dundate, politico Anglico[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Si vultis, potestis corrigere meos errores huius paginae.Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 15:54, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Piaf[fontem recensere]

grazie mille per il suggerimento. Buona serata da Lugano--Massimo Macconi 20:18, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

auxilium pro[fontem recensere]

You have certainly missed Vergil.

nobis ad belli auxilium pro nomine tanto exiguae uires -8.473

--Ioshus (disp) 12:56, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for this construction, btw...I'm just arguing there is nothing about it that warrants us throwing it out a priori. I'm much more concerned with editio...--Ioshus (disp) 12:58, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ioshe. Sent my answer to your discussion page. Maybe I should've put it here. --Neander 21:05, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a good answer it seems to have been. I concede that I don't have a classical source besides this, and I nimis raptim read the Vergil, last night (I never had a taste for Vergil, I confess). Such as that is, let's indeed find a better construction. And let's do something about that editio, as well...--Ioshus (disp) 23:29, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker is the author of Words. Or was that question rhetorically meant? --Rolandus 06:54, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{latinitas}} template should stay in the page, however, according to the level of latinitas it might be {{latinitas|-7}} to {{latinitas|+5}}. You can change the level. We have no article with latinitas = +5 and just a few with +4: Categoria:Latinitas +4 (4). --21:41, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Done, recte I hope. Bureaucracy isn't my strong side. --Neander 22:37, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The effect is ok, although there is a "procedure" ... but don't mind in this case. The idea is to have a Vier-Augen-Prinzip. ;-) --Rolandus 04:47, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xaverius Neanderi s.p.d.

Thanks for your edits in the article on king Vamba and I had two coments about it. Firstly is about grammar, I understand all the edits except for the very last one, changing rexisset for regeret. As it is a ne clause, the verb has to go in the subjunctive and I used the pluperfect so it matche the rest of tenses in the sentence, and that is why I used rexisset. Why the imperfect?

The second matter is sort of related to what Rolandus was teling you above. Vamba had a {{latinitas}} template with non censa but with your edits, the grammar has been checked and you should have added {{latinitas|1}} which is "inspected once". The whole objective of the latinitas templates is to know the level of latinitas, so always remember to add the {{latinitas}} template whenever you create an article or rate the current {{latinitas}} when you do some edits!--Xaverius 08:47, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say Vambam totonderunt ..., ne Vamba rexisset, that would imply a retroactive cancelling of his kingship ('lest he could not have been king' - kind of damnatio memoriae), but insofar as I understand, Vamba was poisoned in order to prevent him from continuing his kingship. If this is the case (as I surmise it is), ne regeret is the right form. (By the way, I suggest you say ne regeret instead of ne Vamba regeret This would be better stylistically.)
Thanks for pointing out this bureaucratic shortcoming of mine. Trying to be better every day even in these technicalities. And congratulations for the anniversary! --Neander 15:17, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation!--Xaverius 10:40, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carolinae Veteris[fontem recensere]

Hi Neander! I was just wondering where the "eris" part came from? (Presuming you made that edit.) I would have thought it was just "veti" --Harrissimo 20:39, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respondi in pagina disputationis Harrissimi. --Neander 21:22, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very helpful (and interesting), so should I use situ or siti? --Harrissimo 21:33, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saravus/ foto dell'ansa del fiume[fontem recensere]

prego. L'ho trovata sulle altre wiki. Ciao --Massimo Macconi 04:59, 21 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very short stories[fontem recensere]

Sic: recte me monuisti. Restitui formam tuam "narratiunculas". Gratias, ut saepe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 30 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caro Neander,[fontem recensere]

perché hai tolto l'immagine dalla pagina Lingua Arabica, a me sembrava bella, non era corretta? Ciao--Massimo Macconi 04:13, 6 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

capita...[fontem recensere]

ogni tanto magari per la fretta, ciao --Massimo Macconi 20:02, 6 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Arabica[fontem recensere]

Neander, it looks as though you deleted some of the interwiki links on this page and also changed Categoria:Linguae Semiticae (which is correct) to Categoria:Linguae. Am I right there? I'm sure there must have been a good reason, but I can't guess it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:37, 6 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Strange things occasionally happen in editing. But I won't ever use the adjective "Neanderthalian" in connection with you ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 7 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratulationes, Neanderi! Propositus es Clipei Latinitatis. Vide Vicipaedia:Praemia Vicipaedianis--Xaverius 21:55, 6 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burgenland[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Gradiscia. Thanks! --UV 21:46, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Regions[fontem recensere]

Hyvää iltaa Neander! Thank you for making the effort of finding out those Etymologies and Sources, they will help me a lot in the upcoming weeks. Olet todella ystävällinen! --Harrissimo 22:03, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Neander, I couldn't understand... Puhun vain vähän suomea :( --Harrissimo 10:21, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhh, Thank you very much :) --Harrissimo 19:00, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suomalaiset paikannimet![fontem recensere]

Salve Neander! Would I be right to say that -koski on the end of a Finnish city name would mean river rapids, in Latin Catarrhactes? and in an example such as Jämsänkoski would I translate it as something along the lines of Catarrhactes Iamsae? --Harrissimo 23:04, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neander! I suggested Catarrhactes because William Whittaker said it was rapids. It's probably not a very suitable/widely used word though because it was in brackets at the end of the list. I posted something in the Taberna. I think you're probably right though about including non-latin letters if a source can't be found. --Harrissimo 21:30, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi pro tuo auxilio recenti ad paginam "frequentia" meliorandam! --Rafaelgarcia 02:23, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenni/Finni/Fennicus/Finnicus[fontem recensere]

Do you know the differences? You use Fennicus in your usor page, but there was usor:Finnicus. Are they adjectives - English: Finnish/Finnic? The internet says Fenni has links with the Sami people. Is Finni, therefore, better (eventhough Finnorum gets less Google hits than Fennorum)? --Harrissimo 23:51, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi. Multum disco e tuis mutationibus semper.--Rafaelgarcia 02:31, 1 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diminutivum[fontem recensere]

Notulam addidi in disputatione de suffixo diminutivo. Opinionem tuam libenter legam! --Fabullus 14:36, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quomodo te appellem diminutive? Neandellus an Neandrulus? Quid opinaris? In TLL neutrius formae exempla inveni. Videlicet quod scripsi pertinet ad nomina omnia in -ander exeuntia, ut Alexander, Menander, Leander, necnon nomen Meleager. Vale, --Fabullus 11:51, 8 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematica[fontem recensere]

Neander. the reference you added does not seem to support the translation of the greek μαθηματική as 'disciplina (artium liberalium)'. Since the reference only gives an ancient latin definition of mathematics not necessarily what the greek word means, it would seem to be better included as a reference supporting Isidorus's desciption of mathematics. Indeed it only seems to repeat what Isidorus says, or vice versa. (Does it indeed mean in greek the same as in ancient latin?) I put Isidorus' description in an historic context in the second paragraph because to my knowledge no one in a modern context would ever consider either astronomy or music as part of mathematics. Thus, it only makes sense to consider this information in a plainly historical context.--Rafaelgarcia 01:40, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De locis Finnicis... iterum[fontem recensere]

Salve! Do you have the Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum? I saw that you quoted it on a talk page somewhere and I have a question about it. In the Luettelo Suomen alueiden latinankielisistä nimistä, it says that this is one of te two sources for these cities. Please could you confirm (or deny) which ones I can use here with this as a source - if you have it of course. Vale gratiasque! Harrissimo.

This Sala-Salo affair is quite strange. On the Carta Marina and the Gustavus Horn map both have "Sala" as a settlement imbetween Kokkola and Oulu! Either they have made a huge mistake or this isn't the right Salo. Then again this says that it is... Do you know of anywhere that it could have been mistaken for? Thanks for the help, Harrissimo.

Salve! As you may know, Neander, there are two conventions: [ ] for phonetic and / / for phonemic transcriptions. So I did have a reason for using / /. However, you may be right that I didn't make the best choice. I'll change it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it. However, I notice that the English infobox en:Template:Infobox Language makes the same choice I did / /, no doubt for the same reason. We'll see if anyone else comments. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:17, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the conventions are as you say: [...] for phonetic and /.../ for phonemic representations. But quite obviously it is phonetic representations that we're out for, the purpose being, I take it, to give an idea of how the name is to be pronounced. Basically, the purpose of phonemic transcription is to suggest the optimal orthography for a language lacking alphabetic writing (which seems to be out of the question in the present context). Martinus Neander 22:28, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Martine, in this multilingual context it makes no sense to talk of a phonemic representation. Definitely [ ] is correct. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subregions[fontem recensere]

Salve! Do you know of a suitable latinisation for the third-level subregions of Finland? I thought maybe subregio could be pushing it and there are various ways of expressing it in the other languages which all seem slightly different. The Swedish, Italian (distretto = pagus), German (Verwaltungsgemeinschaften ≈ Comitatus (which I don't like myself because it could make confusion with the old counties) ) or the no-nonsense Czech seutukunta are these ways. From w:en:World administrative divisions third level, you get the impression that most third-level divisions across the range are municipia (but that is, of course, Finland's fourth level). The one which aren't give Districts (districti, pagi), Arrondissements (arrotundimenta), Communes (communia) and Elderships (just weird). Quid cogitas? Harrissimo 02:18, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not too good in matters geographical and administrative, but having done some research, I've come up with the following:
Divisiones administrativae Finniae 532 sunt:
  • Provinciae 6 (provincia: Fin. lääni; Sv. län)
  • Regiones 20 (Regio: Fin. maakunta; Sv. landskap)
  • Regiones oeconomicae 74 (Regio oeconomica: Fin. seutukunta; Sv. ekonomisk region)
  • Communia 432 (Commune: Fin. kunta; Sv. kommun)
Hope this helps! Martinus Neander 03:43, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does! Thanks a lot, Harrissimo 10:18, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gratias tibi ago pro parte articuli " pater noster" in graeca lingua.--Marc mage 23:13, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias etiam ago ego propter tua auxilia, Neander, specialiter recenter de pagina Analysis. Sola una sententia correxi quia sensum aliquanto perdidisti--Rafaelgarcia 02:16, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina de Andromeda[fontem recensere]

Salve, amice! Volo loqui latine (si memini latinum ex lyceo!). :-) Tibi dico me cepivisse textum ex pagina tua de Euripidis Andromeda, et scripsisse in pagina italiana (qua ipse creavi). Cepivi "Editiones" et "Alia scripta". Spero quaestiones non esse, de isto facto.

Quomodo loquor latine? :-)

Borgil, ex Vicipaedia Italiana

P.S.: Tibi scribendum est Euripidis Andromedam in pagina discretiva Latinae Vicipaediae.

Salve, Borgil! Aliis rebus occupatus nunc demum nuntium tuum legi. Videas quaeso responsum meum quod in tua pagina disputationis] scripsi. --Neander 18:39, 4 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De tabula dialectorum Graecarum[fontem recensere]

Noticing the improvements to the page Lingua Graeca antiqua I asked Harrissimo if he could improve the map of dialects, and he promises to work on it (see his talk page. So if you wanted to suggest to him how to letter it, or any other adjustments, now's the time! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 17 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been very busy a few days working on a paper. I now realise the map I inserted had German names for dialects. It would be nice indeed if Harrissimo could improve the map. As to how to letter the numbers, I suggest the following:
1-2: Aeolica || 3: Thessalica || 4: Boeotica || 5: Ionica || 6: Attica || 7-14: Dorica || 15-18: Caurina || 19-21: Arcado-Cypria.
Thessalica and Boeotica are of course Aeolic dialects, but because they're quite heavily mixed with NW dialects, it may be advisable to quote them by separate names. For "NW dialects", I use dialecti Caurinae, faute de mieux. I'm open for better suggestions. Martinus Neander 03:53, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De translatione terminologiae mathematicae[fontem recensere]

Hallå/Terve/Salve, φίλτατε Né-2nd-re. I finally got to reply to the message you left in paginam disputationis rei meae: incubator:Talk:Wp/grc/Θετόν. There you can also find a list of latin "neologistic" translations of mathematical notions I intend to use in my forthcoming Vicipaedian articles, so if you take a look at it and have any objections, you can make them known to me through any of my talk-pages. Thanks for your attention. Ἐς ἀεὶ εὐδαιμόνει! Omnipaedista 21:56, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulties with some specific terms such as membership and elementhood. Do you have any opinions on how these could be properly rendered to Latin? Or I should I rather try consulting Rafaelgarcia on matters of technical terminology? Omnipaedista 19:19, 17 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Χαῖρε, not being a mathematician, I feel almost total insufficiency in front of those abstractions. WRT "elementhood", I feel some temptation to say "elementitas, -atis" which is an unattested word, as far as I know. But because I favour dynamic translations, I'd rather see terms used in real sentences. For example, I snatced the following sentences (and edited them a bit) somewhere from the net: "Lavoisier's conception of elementhood is essentially the same as that of Mendeleev" which I'd render as "Lavoisier de natura elementorum reapse idem sensit ac Mendeleev." And "Lavoisier's conception of elementhood consisted of elements as simple substances and the rejection of elements as principles or basic substances" as "Lavoisier elementa intellexit simplices esse substantias eaque negavit principia esse vel substantias fundamentales." But maybe my translation loses some essential information? WRT "membership", the first word that comes into mind is "sodalitas" but I'm not at all sure about this loaded term. Maybe Rafael could indeed help? --Neander 20:59, 17 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sodalitas evokes personhood too; perhaps participatio would be better to catch the abstract sense of mere belonging; I like the way you avoid the abtract noun above, though. Ir would be better latin. --Rafaelgarcia 03:40, 18 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steppenwolf[fontem recensere]

Ave Neander, cur in pagina de Arminio Hesse conscripta Steppenwolf reddidisti 'canem latrantem'? Fac valeas. --Fabullus 05:43, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Fabulle! "Lupus desertorum camporum", licet e lexicis sit, mea quidem opinione aliquid incommodi habet; itaque breviorem elocutionem invenire conatus ad "canem latrantem" perveni (vel potius erravi), quo nomine (reapse ridiculo!) Steppenwolf a biologis appellatur. Sed facile concedo hoc nomen parum esse aptum ad librum Hesseanum Latine reddendum. Si melius nomen invenies, eo, amabo te, meá inventiunculá deletá utere. Fortasse "lupus desertorum"? --Neander 20:09, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nesciebam, fateor, hoc animal a biologis Canem Latrantem appellari. Tantum novi illud "canes latrantes non mordent", sed hoc animal latrare et mordere puto. Lupus desertorum placet. Vale, --Fabullus 12:48, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Vide etiam quod hac de re scriptum est hic. --Fabullus 14:41, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italianus[fontem recensere]

Dear Neander, I have changed again your sustitution of the verb Italicus with Italianus. Actually my dictionary gives for Italiano Italicus or Italus but never Italianus Castiglioni, Aloisius; Mariotti, Scaevola. Vocabolario della lingua latina, latino-italiano, italiano-latino. Quarta editio a Petro Georgio Parroni curata (Taurini, 2007).. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 18:24, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Massimo, I don't know the virtues of Castiglioni-Mariotti. Does it contain Neo-Latin vocabulary? Somewhat ironically, the article on Castiglioni-Mariotti is categorised as [[Categoria:Lexica Italiano-Latina]] and [[Categoria:Lexica Latino-Italiana]]. On the adjective Italianus, see this. And, by the way, the Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum by Reijo Pitkäranta does give Italianus. Vale, Neander 19:11, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Italianus is also often used in the Latin periodical Ephemeris [1] --Fabullus 19:26, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Massimo asked me to comment. It is true that older Latin does not seem to have the term Italianus, and a Google search for Italianus is not promising. However, if Ephemeris uses the word, we can permit ourselves to adopt it. In what senses, then?
The point was raised by Iacobus at Disputatio:Lingua Italica; in the discussion there, which turns on the likelihood of confusion with the ancient Linguae Italicae, I speculated on the acceptability of Lingua Italiana, and I can see the desirability of adopting such a name for the language.
Insofar as "adopting such a name for the language" entails the movement "Lingua Italica => Lingua Italiana", I fully endorse your desirability assessment. What worries me most is the homonymy that lacks a linguistic justification. --Neander 12:22, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recte dicis. Certe constat inter omnes linguam Italianam esse linguae (Proto)Italicae filiam. IacobusAmor 17:48, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... vel potius neptem.   :–)  --Neander 19:56, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you discussing also the appropriate term for Italian people? In that case, I feel doubtful whether there is a sufficient reason to change our usual term Italicus/Italici. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that quite a few of those "Ephemeridan" examples brought forward by Fabullus refer to Italian people, isn't it a bit precipitate to trumpet "Italianus non est verbum Latinum"? Given the drowsy coexistence between Francicus, Francogallicus and Gallicus in Vicipaedia, it's a bit surprising that Italianus should turn out to be such a nomen odiosum. Interesting. --Neander 12:41, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I already agreed, you and Fabullus have shown that Italianus is now a Latin word; therefore not odiosum. But I think, for such words that are used very frequently in biographical articles, it may be wise to try to agree on a preferred form: do you agree, or do you prefer free variation?
As regards "French", I think we try to use "Francicus" for people and things, "Francogallicus " for the language; no doubt some of us are drowsier than others! As regards "German", I think we try to use "Germanicus" for people and things, "Theodiscus" for the language; and I know that some don't follow this rule. As regards Italian, I think we have been using "Italicus" in all senses. Iacobus and I have hesitantly proposed "Italianus" for the language. And actually, up to this moment, I don't know what you are proposing! All I know is that you made some changes which Massimo reverted. I must admit I don't understand the practical implications of "What worries me most is the homonymy that lacks a linguistic justification". Can you put it a bit more simply? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made corrections to a few articles, the Latinity of which hardly did credit to Vicipaedia. When doing that, I also happened to change "Italicus" to "Italianus", without realising that I was thereby stirring up something. Yes, Massimo reverted those changes. In fact, he did quite a lot of changes to articles which obviously also had "Italianus" (not from my pen). When watching this spectacle, nomen odiosum was the expression that offered itself as a descriptive term. /// Re practical implications, could we agree on lingua Italiana, when talking about the Italian language? If "Italianus" is too hot as an ethnonym, I'm the last to insist on using it in Vicipaedia. (If I get an irresistible prurience to use it as an ethnonym, I can always do it in Ephemeris ... :–) I'm all for the functional differentiation between "Francicus" and "Francogallicus" (of which I wasn't aware), which proves that no variation is free in the long run. --Neander 16:54, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've now studied those pages -- and noticed numerous small improvements -- As far as I'm concerned, certainly I would agree on Lingua Italiana. As to Italianus as ethnonym, I don't see that it needs to be contentious. Never mind Ephemeris: write it here, Neander! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:09, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could he mean that, in reference works, polysemy is bad? or that distinctions without differences are bad? I do like the distinctions between Francicus (the people) and Francogallicus (the language) and between Germanicus (the people) and Theodiscus (the language), and that's why I'd prefer to distinguish between Italicus or Italius or Italus (the people; see below, posted earlier), and Italianus (the language)—but in the real world, people apparently ignore such distinctions. Oh well. IacobusAmor 14:13, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While agreeing with you, Iacobe, the thing I wish to emphasise is that I'm fond of polysemy and all the possibilities of expression that abundancy of forms in language affords. --Neander 17:08, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, me too: we wouldn't have poetry, or even superlative prose, without it; but one feels the nagging worry that reference works may be a special case, in which significant precisions take pride of place. IacobusAmor 17:43, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And let's remember that classically (secundum Cassell's) 'Italian' was Italicus, -a, um, and Italius, -a, -um, and Italus, -a, -um—so, with Italianus, -a, -um, we've got four possibilities. ¶ Also, for a noun, an Italian woman could be an Italis, -idis— so, Andrew, female Italian people could be Italides. :) ¶ For Austronesian languages whose names haven't previously been Latinized (or for which Latinizations exist but haven't been found), I'm using an -anus, -a, -um adjectival form of the indigenous name of the place; hence, Samoa est locus ubi homines lingua Samoana utuntur. IacobusAmor 22:09, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is what to call the italian language: obviously the roman's never had a word for it since it didn't yet exist. So either you can go with the classical "lingua italica hodierna", because lingua italica is too abiguous, or your avail yourself with the neolatin "lingua italiana" (sort of a borrowing from Romance languages). Iacobus gives a good, fairly convincing account of the precedent for such a preference of italianus over italicus when referring to modern variant at the place Disputatio:Lingua Italica noted by Neander above. --Rafaelgarcia 14:26, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you Neander for your remarks on the Italus/Italicus/Italianus question and for all other corrections . Ciao--Massimo Macconi 12:03, 18 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De locativo nominum compositorum[fontem recensere]

Salve Neander, in pagina de Alienora Roosevelt agente locativum "Novi Eburaci" scripsisti. Equidem iam diu dubito de locativis nominum compositorum. In libro grammatico meo legi locativo numquam adiectivum derecto addidi, sed hoc potius in appositione collocari, ut exempli gratia "Romae, in urbe pulchra". Liber meus nihil tamen dicit de casibus ubi adiectivum pars nominis sit, ut "Novum Eburacum". Ipse unum tantum exemplum antiquum invenire potui: "Carthago Nova", cuius locativus varie datur. Apud Suetonium inveni "Carthagine Nova", in Periochis Livii tamen "Carthagini Nova" aut "Carthagini Novae": editiones inter se differunt - ego nescio quae versio recta sit. --Fabullus 11:55, 27 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilominus, nomen in recto Vicipaediae casu est Novum Eboracum, non Novum Eburacum. Non scio an littera O aut littera U sit melior. IacobusAmor 14:09, 27 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iusto iure, mi Fabulle, de locativo quaesisti. Mihi quidem locativus videtur obsoletus esse casus, et ideo simulac locativo usus "Novi Eboraci" scripsi, subiit mihi mentem dubitatio, an recte scripserim necne. Reapse iam in eo eram, ut caute "Neo-Eboraci" scriberem, cum memineram Tullium nostrum locativo usum "domi meae" alicubi in epistulis scripsisse. Qua insolentia (si est) animum confirmavi ad "Novi Eboraci" scribendum. Verumtamen recte videris de "Roma pulchra" praemonere, ne "Romae pulchrae" in locativo scribamus. Sed ne "Roma pulchra" nominativus quidem commendari potest, nam cum de propriis nominibus agitur, collocatio appositiva valere videtur: "Roma, urbs pulchra". Equidem tamen "Novum Eboracum" iudicarim fixam esse compositionem; id est: interest inter "Novum Eboracum" et "Eboracum, urbem novum". His dictis usque manet dubitatiuncula: Quonam modo Tullius noster de hac re iudicarit? Sint ut sunt, "Carthagini Novae" locutio illa a te allata optime videtur cum "Novi Eboraci" locutione congruere. --Neander 18:35, 27 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dummodo illud "Carthagini Novae" ne sit commentum editorum recentioris aevi ... Aliane oppida, urbes, civitates scis quibus aetate classica nomina composita fuerint? --Fabullus 18:46, 27 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Siquidem "Novam Carthaginem" nomine composito, etiam "Novum Eboracum" dicere possumus. Quod ad locativum attinet, "Novi Eboraci" mihi peius non videtur quam "domi meae" locutio Tulliana (e.g. Fam. 10.25), quamquam facile concedo paene inusitatum esse locativis adiectiva attribui. Utcunque res se habet, iam dudum philologi recentioris aetatis consueverunt "Novi Eboraci" locativo uti, ut in recentioribus philologicorum librorum titulis apparet (si puta "Berolini et Novi Eboraci" googleitamus). --Neander 21:14, 27 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cedo, mihi persuasum est! --Fabullus 15:32, 28 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neander, thanks for your efforts on improving Gulielmum Wordsworth! Studying your changes is giving me great pleasure, as I learn at almost every turn. (After this project, we've got completely different sets of expected idioms in other long articles I've recently done: first Alanus Mathison Turing and then Polytheismus, whose English version contains phrases that hardly make sense in English!) A few errors, like typing eo for ei, would have been caught by almost anybody eventually, but many unidiomatic (though usually grammatical) expressions can be improved only by eruditi with deeper familiarity with the language than I have. ¶ One minor question: you changed valide instillavit to perseveranter inculcavit. I'd actually compared these verbs before posting the original draft, so I wonder why inculcavit is the preferable alternative. I chose instillavit because in Cassell's its example is praeceptum auriculis (which, if applied here, I'd take for "instilled [her] rules into [their] ears"), while the example for inculcare is se auribus nostris (which, if applied here, I'd take for "inculcated herself into our ears"). To instill precepts, rather than to inculcate oneself, seemed apter in the context, but maybe that's just an inaccuracy necessitated by the examples. IacobusAmor 15:15, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always rewarding to improve texts for people who know what they're doing and, thus, are able to learn from experience. ¶ When making the change, I was under the false impression that instillare contracts only nouns denoting liquids. Now I see that the verb can be used metaphorically as well. This being the case, the major semantic difference between praeceptum instillare animo and praeceptum inculcare animo is that the latter pictures the situation in stronger colours. There may be reason to cancel my change. --Neander 20:28, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger is usually better, so let's leave it as you made it! Incidentally, the pertinent passage in en:William Wordsworth is rough & obscure: "Ann Birkett, a woman who insisted on instilling tradition in her students that included pursuing both scholarly and local activities"; for this we now have Anna Birkett, magistra quae praecepta ad industriam et academicam et quotidianam pertinentia discipulorum animis perseveranter inculcavit. ¶ I may have other questions later, but today is a busy day. Thanks! IacobusAmor 14:36, 3 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias multas[fontem recensere]

Gratias multas tibi ago ob emendationes varias bonasque quas inseruisti articulis meis de Fenetro Progymnasmateque. Latinitatem meam tua sub tutela crescere opto. --Thesaurus 18:10, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iam admodum bene incepisti! --Neander 19:37, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necropolis[fontem recensere]

Xaverius Neadero s.p.d. Auxilium te peto, nescius sum de declinationibus Graecorum verborum. Vide dubium meum apud paginam Necropolis. Gratias ago!--Xaverius 22:48, 26 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radiophonia et televisio[fontem recensere]

Hallo Neander, ich habe gerade eine Kat für Hörfunk angelegt (Categoria:Radiophonia). Kannst du mal drüberschauen, ob ich alles richtig gemacht habe? Dazu zwei Fragen: Gibt es im Lateinischen einen Unterschied zwischen "Fernsehen" und "Fernseher" (Apparat), analog zu Radiophonia und Radiophonum? Und wie würdest du die Wissenschaft übersetzen, die sich mit Hörfunk und Fernsehen beschäftigt (Medienwissenschaft / simple:media studies). Danke & Gruß --Kolja21 14:28, 10 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Kolja, auf die Kategorienfrage kann ich leider nicht mit irgendeiner Auktorität antworten, weil ich kein Intresse gehabt habe, mich einen Überblick über unseres Kategoriensystem zu verschaffen. Gegen deine Kategorie habe ich jedoch nichts einzuwenden, möchte aber wissen, ob z.B. Usor:Andrew Dalby derselben Meinung ist. Deine erste Zusatzfrage ist leichter zu beantworten. Ja, es gibt einen Unterschied zwischen 'Fernsehen' (Televisio) und 'Fernseher' (Televisorium), nur verstehe ich aber nicht, warum der letztere auf den Artikel Televisio weitergeleitet worden ist, obschon Radiophonia und Radiophonum gebührendermaßen aus underschiedlichen Artikeln bestehen. Betr. Medienwissenschaft möchte ich etwas zögernd Studia communicatoria empfehlen. Gruß,Neander 08:01, 12 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Erklärung. Lesen müsste man können: "Instrumentum quod hos sonos imaginesque ostendit televisorium vocatur". Der Begriff steht ja sogar schon im Artikel, aber mein Schullatein ist etwas eingestaubt. Gruß --Kolja21 16:41, 12 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neander. Now I've happily ventured into the territory of Sexus, which bristles with (surely) horrifying attempts at scientific terminology, some of them marked with {{dubsig}}. Please enjoy this one, if you have time! IacobusAmor 15:27, 10 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about a translation correctness[fontem recensere]

Salve, Dr.Neader~ Recently I translated a Anglice motto 'Our path leads to the Kingdom.' to Latina as "Cursus Nostra Ad Regnum Caelorum Versus.", but I'm not sure whether it is applicable. So what's your sugestion..?

Gratias again for everything.. 07:04, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC) ..! It's me.. Gesalbte 07:06, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nostra via in regnum ducit? ~ fert? IacobusAmor 12:44, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Gesalbte. [I was just about to send this, but Iacobus was quicker.] Let's take morphology first: it should be "Cursus noster ad Regnum Caelorum Versus", because the gender of "cursus" is masculine. Notice that "ad ... versus" emphasises the direction: our "run" is to the direction of the Kingdom, or something like that. Because I do not know what this is all about, I'm not sure how "to" is to be understood. It may be of some thelogical importance, if you say "to the (gates of) Heaven" (in which case, the proper preposition is "ad") or "into the Kingdom" (through the gates, or something -- in which case, you should probably use "in" [+ accusative]). It may also be theologically significant, whether you say "Caeli" 'of the Heaven' or "Caelorum" 'of the Heavens', I don't know. But giving up hair-splitting, my proposal is: Noster ad Regnum Decursus. I prefer "decursus" which may better express the measures taken and the completion of a course. Hope this helps. --Neander 12:59, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As your gloss recognizes, "the kingdom" in English doesn't mention any heaven, but the original post implies that heaven is in someone's mind; and since it's usually conceived as being upward, in the sky, I wonder if decursus, which basically means 'a running downward' doesn't put the wrong slant on things, so to speak. Also, your gloss is a noun-phrase, but the querist wants it to be a complete sentence, with a verb equivalent to 'leads to', for which Cassell's says classical attestations support ducit in + acc. and fert in + acc. IacobusAmor 13:43, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having posted my reply I became aware of the fact you now make me aware of. Somehow I was stuck to the Latin phrase. If we have to translate "Our path leads to the Kingdom", your "Nostra via in regnum ducit / fert" looks fine. --Neander 14:20, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I see a typo half a millisecond after clicking the servare button—and there's nothing to be done but wait and watch as the typo gets published. These things happen! IacobusAmor 14:32, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, are 'ducit' et 'fert' the 3rd personal singular number form of 'duco' et 'fero'?
Now I've noticed that I formally paid less attention than I should to that the adjectives should be changed to the same gender as their nouns'. Little more about this point, in Subjective+Objective+Verb kind of sentences, should the objective switch to the same gender as the subjective's? E.g. Shall I say 'Mali(nt) fructus(m) sunt.' or 'Mali(nt) fructum(nt) sunt.'?
Gesalbte 17:35, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adjectives follow in gender the nouns to which they are attached. Nouns don't and can't normally change gender. Malus and fructus are both nouns.
When the verb is "est" there is no object. You have a subject and a complement, both in the nominative case.
When the verb is "est", the usually preferred word order is "A est B".
So, Mālī (nom. pl.) sunt fructūs (nom. pl.). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:47, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should be 'nostra via' instead of 'via nostra'? Gesalbte 17:40, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either is possible. Word order is fairly free in Latin and partly depends on the required emphasis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:47, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The emphasis...so 'nostra via' and 'via nostra', which is emphasizing 'via' and which is emphasizing 'nostra'??Gesalbte 19:10, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the gender..What gender should an adj. use when it attaches to 2 or more nouns?
E.g. Shall we say 'filii filiaeque lumines' or 'filii filiaeque luminae'? (google gives f.)..Gesalbte 18:34, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Google has to do with it. You need a dictionary that will tell you which words are adjectives. Lumen is not an adjective, and your phrases make no sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:57, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T T. Now I can only find Collins (Collins Latin Dictionary & Grammar)... up there I did it careless.. It should be 'filii filiaeque luces' or 'filii filiaeque luciae'?
Google sometimes can give the right anwser.. 'filii filiaeque nostrae' can find 3 results while 'filii filiaeque nosteri' can find none....Gesalbte 19:06, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Dear Gesalbte, it seems to me that what you need is a systematic course in Latin, which is something nobody of us can give you. Therefore, I strongly suggest you visit our Porta eruditionis which contains a lot of stuff that may be useful to you; for example, an internet-based Latin grammar. We heartily welcome people, such as you, who are interested in Latin. But the more you know Latin, the better questions you can ask. Optime valeas, Neander 20:14, 4 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superbia et Kantius[fontem recensere]

Salve Neander, Kantius de superbia aliquid dicit? --Rafaelgarcia 00:22, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protinus dicere nescio. Si quid invenero, certiorem te faciam. (Nescio an illud sapere aude! superbiam oleat. Kantius noster asseclas sibi parere noluit sed homines, qui ipse libere cogitare possint. Sed si hoc superbiam esse credimus, nescio an totum aevum illuminationis superbire dicamus.) --Neander 10:52, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neander, you're not only improving the Latinity of Cultura: you're improving the content too! Macte! IacobusAmor 04:13, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tante grazie! --Neander 21:14, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possum paginam Tibiae delere ut paginam meliorem immoveas. Placetne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sane placet! --Neander 21:12, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delevi igitur et movi. Vide Tibiae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Latinum urbis Czernowitz/Cernăuţi/... non possum reperire. Scisne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sed nunc verba tua in pagina disputationis vidi. O rem ridiculam! Sine dubio bonum nomen Latinum exstat, sed quomodo reperire? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för påpekandet om habitatium/habitantes i artikeln om Vänersborg. Mitt latin har rostat en hel del de senaste åren. --Julle 19:13, 14 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Att skriva i Vicipaedia utgör ett utmärkt avrostningsmedel. :-) Skriv gärna mer! --Neander 20:22, 14 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, det är lite det som är tanken. :) --Julle 20:45, 14 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! though the stub remains almost useless. As you saw, I left the Greek as I found it, hoping a Graecophile would come along and fix it. Other inadequate etymologies probably exist too, but how can they be found? IacobusAmor 17:44, 16 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, such a long edition history for a couple of lines. And yes, there are a lot of non-professional etymologies here and there, and Greek is often Modern Greek (ολίγο) or non-words (αρχία, which occurs only in compounds). --Neander 17:57, 16 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Babel number for ancient Greek is somewhere between zero and 1, so I'll trust you and others to be alert! IacobusAmor 18:02, 16 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questio de declinatione[fontem recensere]

Salve Neader, Gratias ob correctiones tuas ad paginam Ludovicus von Mises. Demiror autem: estne Randii (2da declinatione) melius genetivum quam Randis (3tia declinatione)? Antea egomet tertia declinatione usus sum, quia nomen Rand in d desinens mihi nomen David cuius declinatio est tertia recordatur.--Rafaelgarcia 23:43, 20 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sane iusto iure demiraris, Rafael. Verissimam veritatem nequeo "ex cathedra" dicere, nam deest mihi cathedra. :-) Sed solum id, quod ego de his rebus in opinionem accepi, explanabo: Primum, mea quidem sententia distinguendum est inter praenomina et gentilicia. Secundum, David, Michael ceteraque eiusdem generis praenomina alii, ut mihi videtur, declinant secundum tertiam classem, alii autem indeclinabilia esse censent. Norma fixa deesse videtur. Tertium, quod ad gentilicia attinet, saepe suffixo "pertinentivo" -ius (praesertim casibus obliquis) declinantur. Exempli causa dico Humium et Kantium, quorum nom.sg. nunc Hume, Kant nunc Humius, Kantius dicitur. Quae cum ita sint, equidem potius Rand (nom.sg.) et Randium, -ii, -io (casibus obliquis) declinari malim quam Kantium nostrum Kantem, Kantis, Kanti, Kante declinari. /// Hae sunt causae, quibus affectus ego Randium,-ii,-io praetuli. At ego non sum linguae Latinae papa: non dico, quomodo Rand declinari debeat; dico autem, quomodo mihi videatur declinari. Martinus Neander 01:07, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias, Neander, pro tua explanatione. Iuste exempla horum nominum mihi adhibes, quibus logica tua nunc mihi clara est. Plus nunc cogitabo de eo.--Rafaelgarcia 02:22, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ateste declinabilis est[fontem recensere]

Vide [2]. :)

Vide etiam it:Deserto (frazione): paroecia latine dicitur: ECCL. PAR. INVENTIONIS S. CRUCIS DE DESERTO ATESTIS.

Vale, --Achillus 22:50, 10 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ave, Achille, profecto videris recte dicere! Thesauro, potissimo et opulentissimo fonti philologico, tam firme confisus sum, ut notitiam allatam non scrutarer. Nunc autem quam diligentissime inspectis locis in Thesauro allatis mihi sane concludendum est hanc rem adeo esse ambiguam, ut "indecl. n." illud Thesauri defendi non possit. Apud antiquos enim solus nominativus testatus est; Plinius (nat. 17.122) solus ablativum praebet, sed Ateste genitus quoque ambiguum est, utrum declinabile an indeclinabile sit. Quae cum ita sint, me excusans confiteor me praeceps in errorem cecidisse. Restituatur res! --Neander 00:25, 11 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ave Neander. Nunc Ateste denuo declinatur et hoc refert. Immo gratias tibi ago propter inspectiones tuas rebus a me additis.
Vale, --Achillus 07:25, 11 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentilicius e genetivus[fontem recensere]

Ciao, Neander! ho visto che conosci l'italiano... Ho notato che in Aletrium (Latium) hai corretto Aletrii con Aletrinas, mi chiedevo in effetti come mai al posto del gentilicius in più o meno tutte le voci di città ci fosse il genetivus... ne ho prese alcune a caso: Roma, Mediolanum, Augusta Taurinorum... gentilicius e genetivus sono due cose diverse. Mi sono meravigliato che in tutte le voci si scambia l'uno con l'altro. Bisognerebbe correggere moltissime voci. --Luca P 01:38, 20 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Videte, s.v.p., id quod scripsi hic: Disputatio Usoris:Luca P. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 20 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao, Luca! Ho risposto in Disputatio Formulae:Commune Italianum, ma in poche parole direi che conoscere il nome degli abitanti mi sembra più importante di conoscere il genitivo di un toponimo. --Neander 11:32, 20 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sono d'accordo con te. Ho proposto, nella pagina di discussione che mi hai segnalato, di inserire il genitivo solo nel testo della voce. --Luca P 19:24, 20 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page[fontem recensere]

Salve! Thank you for fixing my user page. I'm still learning how to properly arrange Latin words in a sentence and what tense endings and case endings I should use for each word. -Meganmccarty 12:03, 26 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ave! Ausus sum nonnullas mutationes in hac pagina facere. Si tibi dignae videntur, quae retinentur, possumus eas (sive partes earum) administratoribus proponere. Sin aliter, eas delere facile est. S.V.B.E.E.V. ;-) --Vermondo 23:38, 8 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bene fecisti. Quod ad proverbium illud attinet, rationem, cur masculino genere usus sim, in symbola reddam, quam de Nulla dies sine linea adagio scribo (nondum finem feci). s.v.b.e.e.v. Neander 00:02, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
("Dies irae, dies illa" = dies sine linea?...) Credere volo tibi. Fortasse quod Nikitinski de genere "diei" scripsit verumst; attamen per saecula complura (non minus quinque) sententia foemininum genus habuit, quod in auribus (fere) omnium haduc manet. Si tunc sententiam scribere volo quae proverbium commemoret, stultum minime callidum mihi videtur forma sententiae perpaucis philologis nota, ignota autem multitudini, uti. :-) --Vermondo 15:36, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ita. Ipse quoque nunc puto me usitatá formulá usum nulla dies sine Vicipaedia scribere debuisse! Ita cogitavi quidem sed nescioquo purismo affectus formulae solitae renuntiavi. Itaque bene fecisti, cum sententiam mutasti. Per me nil obstat, quin eam (nec non alia a te mutata) administratoribus proponas. ¶ "Dies irae, dies illa" — ni fallor, de die constituta agitur (quamquam ne Filius quidem, quando sit, scit). Itaque "diem illam" puto etiam Plinio placere potuisse, licet, ut credo, "nullam diem (lineá carentem)" respuisset. --Neander 16:39, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inter disputationes, responsum feci quaestioni tuae de meliore forma verbi chronovistri sive chronovisorii. Vale.--Bruxellensis 15:15, 22 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibidem respondi. Rem recte iudicasti. --Neander 16:12, 22 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neander,

I remember that you helped translate the Fundraiser's "core messages" into Latin, so I was wondering if you wanted to work on the "supplementary messages" too. The supplementary messages request is for (1) strings that were missed when the first request was created, (2) new strings, and (3) pages that we just started translating.

If you'd like to translate them, just visit the page I linked above and click the "missing" next to la/Latina. If you have any questions, feel free to reply on my Meta talk page. Thanks! Cbrown1023 03:25, 24 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever find anyone to proofread the messages you translated? You finished translating them over a month ago, but they haven't been published yet because they're still marked as "proofread". :-( Cbrown1023 16:10, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does one mark things as "proofread" if one proofreads?-- 17:52, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as helpless in this as you. :-) Please, ask m:user talk:Cbrown1023. I did the same. --Neander 17:57, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Übersetzung gefragt[fontem recensere]

Hallo Neander, kannst Du mir den oberen lateinischen Text von File:2009-09-08-Theo-3b.JPG ins Deutsche übersetzen? Ich wäre Dir sehr dankbar. Ich habe in den vergangenen Monaten schon mehrere User (mit deutsch als Muttersprache und de:Kategorie:User la-4) gefragt, aber nie eine Antwort erhalten. Gruß, --R. Engelhardt 21:56, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Der lateinische Text ist keineswegs schwierig. Ich hoffe, daß es mir gelungen ist, den Text ohne zu viele Fehler auf Deutsch zu übersetzen. Also: "Diese (Männer), Theodor, hast du zur Liebe zum Gott und Vaterland aufgefordert. Mit Belehrung (od. Unterricht) hast du auch gelehrige Geister ausgebildet. In der Folge hat die Naturanlage und Tugend diese (Männer) in die Sterne geführt, und dir Nachkommenschaft geziemt und (dich) freut es, diesen (Männern) nachzufolgen." --Neander 23:14, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Neander! Vielen Dank für Deine Hilfe. Ich habe Text (mit meiner deutschen Muttersprache) noch etwas verändert. Aber ohne Deine Hilfe hätte ich das nie geschafft, obwohl ich auf eben diesem Theodorianum (deshalb: oh Theodor) 6 Jahre in Latein unterrichtet wurde. Bei allen aufgeführten Personen handelt es sich um ehemalige Schüler des Theodorianum. Ich nehme jetzt diesen Text:
"Diese Männer, oh Theodor, hast Du zur Liebe an Gott und das Vaterland berufen. Mit Wissenschaft hast Du ihr Leben zudem bereichert. So hast Du ihr Talent und ihre Kraft zur Sonne geführt. Ihnen zu folgen fördert und ehrt die Nachkommen."
Nochmals vielen Dank, --R. Engelhardt 18:22, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ὀστοῦν[fontem recensere]

Salve Neander, Du hast zwar Recht, aber ich denke, dass es trotzdem sinnvoll wäre, das Wort im Artikel stehen zu lassen, da die pathologische Nomenklatur hauptsächlich vom Griechischen abgeleitet ist (zB: Osteochondrosis, Osteomyelitis, Osteoporosis etc.).--Aylin 12:05, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu salva sis, Amphitrite! Du hast sicher Recht. Jetzt sehe ich ein, dass mein etymologischer Blickpunkt allzu einseitig war. Die griechische Form verdient seinen Platz (ich habe nur den Akzent korrigiert). --Neander 13:19, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, den Akzentfehler habe ich ja komplett - sogar beim Kopieren des Wortes auf deine Diskussionsseite! - übersehen. --Aylin 22:13, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, mi Neander. Gratias maximas tibi ago ob recensiones tuas multas in labores meos. Me confiteor nuper conantem varia corrigere apud nos agitatum quidem factum esse, neglegenter ergo multa scripsisse. Hanc ob viam, verba pauca tibi dicere velim de formula vel potius formulae usu {{citatio2}}: Cum hanc formulam finximus ego et Rolandus noster, nihil superbiae cogitavimus. Variabilis in formula interpreti apta modo monstrat quem rogandum sit, si quis interpretationem qualibet causa male intelligat, nullo pacto ut nomina nostra quasi interpretes famae gloriaeve videantur. Ergo te quaeso, si multa in interpretatione mea vel alicius (scilicet in formula {{citatio2}}) mutaveris, nomen interpretis quoque mutes. Si maneat meum nomen post recensiones meas, modo sollicitor ne cogar meos errores explicare, quod me posse plus minusve credo. Si maneat post tuas, timeo ne roget quis quomodo me (re vera te) quam pulchre scripsisse, ubi quidem falsus ero. ;] Valeas. --Ioscius 23:59, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve et tu, mi Iosci. Gratias ago ob admonitionem tuam. Confiteor me formulas Vicipaedianas paene omnino neglexisse et nequaquam nisi necessitate coactum novas addidicisse. Qua de causa mihi non subiit animum eam de qua me admonuisti rem satis respicere. Quod ad te attinet, mea quidem opinione in Latinitate magnopere progressus es. Itaque gratissimum est tuis intervenire scriptis, si quam interveniendi causam omnino praebent. Nisi tibi displicet, nomen auctoris non mutare praefero, nam ego textum potius melioravi quam converti. --Neander 15:36, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non vidi tuum responsum, sed eo nunc viso, gratias ago ob verba tua de me latinitate. Intelligo quoque rationem tuam in nomina in formulis non mutando. Vale! --Ioscius 12:21, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care Neander. Re vera forma ablativa recta matritensi est necnon matritense? Tunc permultae de cibis paginae mutandae sunt ob errorem puerilem meum. --Xaverius 12:07, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maeste dictu, Xavi, sed ita, recta forma (fere omnium, nonnullis exceptis) adiectivorum in casu ablativo est -i nec -e. --Ioscius 12:14, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tum Words mihi mentitur! Paginas omnes iam mutavi (aut credo)--Xaverius 12:46, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In medieval Latin the distinction between adjectival and substantival declensions was often neglected. Perhaps burgensis, which is a relatively late word, was actually so declined. --Fabullus 12:53, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's OK, Xaveri! From now on, you just have to speak up in favour of medieval Latin :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wink wink. ;) IacobusAmor 16:33, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may stay with Classical consensus for now. I've changed the pages now, and made a new one on delicious gazopsilacium --Xaverius 13:30, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iam antea notavi Word fidem non facere. --Neander 16:21, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De infinitivis evitandis[fontem recensere]

In pagina disputionis mea respondi. --Fabullus 15:03, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punctum glaciei is well attested on Google (= punctum gelationis aquae). In addition, on the taberna thread (Vicipaedia:Taberna#Freezing and glaciers) I said that I was intentionally avoiding the prefixed forms congelare and conglaciare and their derivatives when the meaning is simply 'freeze'. This is actually more classical; though punctum with any form I think is a modern idiom as the ancients did not have a scale of temperature. Punctum gelationis is also attested, though much less common than congelationis. I did leave one congelationis is the article though I would prefer to change it to gelationis for standardization. Pantocrator 19:16, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find "punctum glaciei" rather ambiguous, but the loci you've Googled up speak for themselves. So, I withdraw my scruples. I appreciate that you left one "punctum congelationis" in the text as a diplomatic gesture. --Neander 19:44, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much (as always) for your unobtrusive improvements to Tabula Rosettana! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 14 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of semi- or demi-semi-relevant pictures to Iosephus Schumpeter. Some people like pictures. But if you think they aren't sufficiently apposite, by all means remove them! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those pictures are like oases in the desert. Holocardiac thanks! --Neander 09:59, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment[fontem recensere]

... please glance at the Latin sentences I suggested at Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch#Nice to see .... They are intended to replace the hidden text in English that lurks behind the asteroid pages at present (for example 1000 Piazzia: click "recensere" to see the hidden text). Such messages ought really to be in Latin, and they had betteer be exactly right before Robert spreads them across all those pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 17 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Neander 19:34, 17 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The odd asteroid[fontem recensere]

I'm glad you're interested in the naming of asteroids! Robert has suggested categorising these names, which seems a good idea. For the "Estonia" type I was going to say "Categoria:Asteroides a locis terrestrialibus appellati". Not sure if this is the ideal Latin expression, and not sure whether to classify more narrowly (countries, towns, rivers ...) -- but I think a category page that offers a simple alphabetical list, within a very broad classification such as I've suggested, might be the handiest. Anyway, please comment! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 24 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my primary aim has been to deal with Finnish and maybe Swedish names because I think they may be somewhat easier for me to handle. I've been rather busy for weeks in writing a chapter in a book, so naming asteroids has been kind of spare time work consisting as it does of minuscule projects. I think categorising asteroid names is a good idea -- it might even serve some cultural historical project (as I wrote in Robert's discussion page) -- but I have no clear opinion about how deep the subcategorisation should be. Anyway, I suggest you say "terrestribus" instead of "terrestrialibus". Or maybe "geographicis"? --Neander 13:13, 24 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feldmarschalleutnant[fontem recensere]

Salve Neander, please have a look at Disputatio:Iosephus Schumpeter (Feldmarschalleutnant)!--Utilo 09:09, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[fontem recensere]

Hello Neander. I'm currently collecting project names and slogans as part of a logo cleanup. One of the final things that I'm missing is a translations for the Latin Wikibooks logo. Could you help me?

  • Wikibooks = Vicilibri
  • Open books for an open world (or "Free books for a free world" if that's easier to translate) = ?

Could you please leave reply on my Meta-Wiki talk page? Thanks in advance! Cbrown1023 disputatio 18:05, 12 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help:English to Latin Translation[fontem recensere]

Hello! I need help on English to Latin translation. Please visit the page User:Amit6/c-en2la11 and translate that following list of english words to Latin. If you do the translations, please do not write those here and prefer to write those on the latin section of User:Amit6/c-en2la11. --Amit6 (talk) 13:57, 18 Augusti 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve mi Neander! Nunc lego quam maximum de syntaxe et grammatica generativa. Velim videre nos habere plus et sine dubio meliores commentationes his de rebus (non est modo beneficentiae causa, quoque scribendo discimus =]). Maeste multa nescio describere, id est verbis Latinis. Ubinam incipiam quoque nescio, nam sunt tot categoriae apud wikipediam ut eas haud enumerare possum. Nihilominis, me putavi incepturum in c-command. Putasne verbo vulgari commandare hic uti posse? Quid de forma nominali? commandatum? Nonnulla alia vcoabula:

  • government - gubernatio
  • binding - ligatio?
  • theoria gubernationis ligationisque?
  • node - nodus
  • constituent (group) - constituens/grex constituentium?
  • syntax tree - arbor syntactica? arbor structuram syntacticam monstrans?

Scilicet es tu rerum linguisticarum et latinarum doctissimus homo quem cognosco, ergo consilium auxiliumque tuum hic valde desidero. Sine dubio tibi erunt multa corrigenda =]

Gratias et valeas in proxumum! -- Ioscius 11:59, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Iosci, amice audax! Quod scio, nondum quisquam grammaticam Chomskianam, agrum novalem, Latino aratro tangere ausus est. Dubito, an tibi consilia ad verborum usum pertinentia dare possim, nam constat nostrum sermonem in hac re egenum esse. Itaque novos terminos aut fingere aut mutuari cogimur. De verbis a te allatis tacere debeo, nam impraesentiarum nihil habeo quod melius esse videatur. At duarum rerum mentionem facere velim: (1) Etsi verbum Anglicum command nos illiciat ad verbum commendandi (NB: "commandare" verbum fictum est [quamquam fortasse verbis fictis hac in re opus sit?]), commendare Latinum semantice aut syntactice vix aptum sit. Imperare melius videtur, sed specie verbi Anglici dissimile est. Magnine refert? (2) "Constituent". Meá quidem opinione "constituens" paene nihil significat (aut non id significat, quod significare debeat). Re vera "constituent" paene idem significat ac pars (orationis). Sed bene scio hic de differentibus theoriis agi. Miro modo constituens mihi non placet, sed melius praebere nequeo. Pro dolor! Sint ut sunt, attento animo tuas commentationes syntacticas legam. At nunc birotam conscendam et ad labores cotidianos properabo. Vale. Neander 07:00, 27 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Anglico constituent, Ainsworth's Latinum constitutorem (Quint.) commendat ; Cassell's, partem et elementum. IacobusAmor 10:28, 27 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apud Quintilianum constitutor legis magistratus quidam legifer esse videtur. Cum autem nobis opus sit termino, qui rem, ex qua totum quoddam efficiatur, significet, pars sive elementum (compositorium) se commendare videntur; quin etiam, cum de sententiae partibus agatur, membrum aut incisum (cf. Cic. Or. 62.211 "quae Graeci κόμματα et κῶλα nominant, nos recte incisa et membra dicimus"; Or. 63.212 "quo pacto deceat incise membratimve dici"; &c.). Leonardus Bloomfield primus, ni fallor, termino q.e. "constituent" usus est in syntaxi structurali, cum sententias ita describere vellet, ut ex partibus/membris finitimis vel "immediatis" ("immediate constituents") hierarchice dispositis constent. Neander 15:44, 27 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ambobus ago! -- Ioscius 19:49, 27 Septembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Appeals Need Translations[fontem recensere]

I want to thank you for your help translating during this year's fundraiser. The fundraiser has greatly benefited from all your contributions. Currently, the appeals from Wikipedia editors Kartika, Liliaroja, Abbas and Joan Gomà need to be translated and localized. Also some core messages need to be updated for certain languages. You can find all translation requests at the translation hub on meta and you can follow the progress of the fundraiser in real time by tracking the fundraiser statistics. Also for those of you who haven't already, you can subscribe to the translators-l mailing list for all new requests and major changes. Many thanks for your help in truly making this a global fundraiser that you can edit. schapman

Your name has cropped up on the banks of the Fluvius Potomacus. Any comments welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't anything important to add to the interesting discussion. My answer (to Ivan) was about the semantic differentiae of fluvius, flumen, amnis (according to Hermann Menge), not their respective frequency. I now did a quick research on Cicero's use of flumen and fluvius. It's quite true that flumen is more frequent by word-form count, but when it comes to his use of flumen and fluvius, respectively, as modifiers/descriptors of a proper name, fluvius appears to prevail (fluvius: 10 times; flumen: 3 times). But given that Caesar doesn't use fluvius at all, personal preferences seem to be involved. Neander 00:23, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's my impression too. Thanks, Neander! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 28 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casus ablativus adiectivorum tertiae declinationis[fontem recensere]

Te animadverti saepissime iuvare cum quaestiones de grammatica Latina habeo in animo, num igitur tibi displiceat si aliquando te interrogo demirabar. Id rare accideret cum semper prius quaestionum mearum responsa consectarer quam te rogarem!

Plura enim volebam scire de casu ablativo adiectivorum tertiae declinationis. Desineri certa verba vel in -e vel in -i scio. Notam de hac re inveni in ista pagina Victionariana, quae origo est meae questionis: quid dicere vult "when used purely as an adjective" -- quando -e adhibendum est, quando -i?

Cupide tuum exspecto responsum. Vale! Mattie 03:28, 19 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Mattie! In participio (sicut verbi careo aliqua re 'sine aliqua re sum') de duobus modis declinandi, scilicet declinatione adiectiva et declinatione verbali, agitur. In hac sententia, homo amicis carens infelix est 'homo, qui amicos non habet, infelix est', participium carens adiectivi munere fungitur. Sin autem 'ego sum felicior quam homo amicis carens' dicere volumus ablativo comparativo usi, declinatione adiectiva usi homine amicis carenti felicior sum dicimus. Declinatio autem verbalis plerumque ad ablativum absolutum pertinere videtur. Itaque si 'Dum amicis caret ille homo, nos dolemus' ablativo absoluto usi dicere volumus, illo homine amicis carente nos dolemus dicimus. ¶ Haec regula, quamquam ubique observanda est, interdum a poëtis classicis metri causa violatur. Sed haec nobis, quippe qui pro(r)sa oratione utamur, minime curae sunt. Hanc semper observemus regulam. Utinam meae explicationes perquam academicae tibi auxilio sint! Optime valeas! Neander 01:27, 20 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Care Neander, gratias maximas tibi ago! Tuo enim responso circiter viciens lecto conceptoque longe revoluto in animo tandem me credo intellegere :) Cum rationem declinatione verbali utendi specto tamquam esset ob verbi inopiam in 'clausula' (id est in ablativo absoluto), multum mihi sensibilem videtur simpliciter quoniam verba necessaria sunt clausulis. Gratias iterum, atque cura ut valeas! Mattie 21:41, 20 Iunii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve rursus, Neander! Ut vales? Cum Latine scribo unum est problema quod saepe invenio: vocabulum Anglicum "as" (sive Francogallice "comme," etc.) exprimere nescio talibus in sententiis:

to appear in a film as [such or such character]
to use an apple as a paperweight
to write as a pastime

Vocabulum "(sic)ut" (aut quidem "pro"?) puto forsitan esse adhibendum, sed non sum certus. Quid tu dicas? Gratias ago! Mattie 19:24, 12 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve multum, Mattie! Iucundas posuisti quaestiones. Haec sunt mea responsa. (1) Propter similitudinem verborum Angl. appear et Lat. apparere facile fieri potest, ut homines Anglophoni dictionem X appears as Y in the film Z Latine *X ut Y in pellicula Z apparet convertant; quod quidem perperam fiat, namque in Latinitate classicae aetatis apparet ut idem fere significat atque 'appears as though (he were)'. Cum quidem as in phrasi Anglicá idem fere significare videatur atque in the role of, possumus Latine X partes Y[casus genetivus] agit in pellicula Z dicere, vel X personam Y[casus genetivus] agit (fert, gerit, tenet) in pellicula Z. Itaque fortasse Alphonsus Cuarón personam magi candelam tenentis gerit .... (2) Quod ad phrasin to use an apple as a paperweight attinet, formula generalis haec est: X uses Y as Z = X Y[casus ablativus] utitur Z[casus ablativus]; itaque Latine: X malo utitur chartarum pressorio. (3) Dictio to write as a pastime mihi videtur Latine esse delectationis causa scribere vel (suo) oblectamento[casus dativus, i.e. dativus finalis] scribere; vel sicut Cicero idiomatice dixerit: animi causa scribere. Cura ut valeas, Neander 05:49, 13 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago, multum haec me adiuverunt. Vale! Mattie 01:09, 14 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Neander! Alium habeo dubium, quod ad phrasin, quae Anglice verbo "as" utatur, pertinet, et volebam igitur scire an me adiuvare potueris:
Mona Lisa was depicted as a dark-haired woman
i.e. X was depicted as Y, sed non X was depicted "as if" it was Y. Does that make sense? P.S. Gratias ob commentationem tuam de casu dativo ago! Valde mihi fuit utilis, praesertim ut nomina variorum dativi generum scirem. Mattie 18:34, 11 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Mattie! Mihi quidem videtur X was depicted as Y his fere modis Latine dici posse: X in habitum (habitus, -ūs, m.) | naturam | speciem Y depingere. Itaque equidem exemplarem Mona Lisa was depicted as a dark-haired woman sententiam hoc modo Latine reddiderim: Mona Lisa in habitum feminae fuscicomae depicta est. Cura ut valeas, Neander 09:57, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago! Vale, Mattie 23:24, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satyricon[fontem recensere]

Vide, amice Martine, id quod tandem in pagina Satyricon scripsi de titulo huius operis, et corrige si necesse sit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 14 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initium rescripsi (spero ne nimiá licentiá!) rei explicandae causa. Si quid minus feliciter dixi, Andrea amice, in melius reddito. Neander 13:44, 14 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multo melius. Nescio cur tantas res in parentheses includere solemus :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:18, 14 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is about to make me cry, so this one's in English![fontem recensere]

I hope these inquiries of mine don't get annoying. If ever you feel like asking for something back, I shall do my best. I can draw pretty well!

Now, I understand the perfect subj. in Latin's somewhat wishy-washy, as in the Potential:

A present or future potentiality is expressed with either the present or perfect subjunctive. A past potentiality is expressed with the imperfect subjunctive, though the perfect subjunctive is occasionally used. (from here)

but I was reading my Harrius Potter and came across a sentence with a Result Clause where the perfect was used, and not the pluperfect that I'd have expected:

Dolor capitis Harrii tam acer erat ut in genua ceciderit.

I can't find anything anywhere about the perfect being a one-size-fits-all in Result Clauses (as it is in the Potential, apparently). Since this is a past event ("erat"), doesn't this have to be either imp. or pluperfect - and since Harry fell (as opposed to "was falling"), doesn't it have to be pluperfect? This is confusing! Mattie 20:20, 19 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "don't you cry tonight!" (quoting from Guns 'n Roses, tho w/out further context :–) ). I'm afraid the grammar you're referring to isn't too helpful in this matter. As it appears to me, you quoted Potential Subjunctive (which is about independent clauses), although the sentence Dolor capitis Harrii tam acer erat ut in genua ceciderit contains a dependent consecutive clause (Result sentences in the grammar). What the grammar doesn't tell is that, in ut consecutivum, the tempus is free in the sense that it may correspond to the respective tempus in an independent clause. The Latin sentence quoted by you is perfectly correct in this respect, describing, as it does, the result that happened as a matter of fact ('. . . in genua cecidit'). It'd have been possible to say Dolor capitis Harrii tam acer erat ut in genua caderet, but this would have been a bit ambiguous, because caderet could express both past factuality and past potentiality of the result. Your question was a good one — obviously too good for a grammatica interretialis. Neander 13:17, 20 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the Potential because it was an example of subjunctive not being particularly strict about which tense to use - the sentence was confusing me because it wasn't Potential, and yet the subjunctive seemed to be doing whatever it wanted, if that makes sense (: I hope it came through that I was joking about crying. Thanks again for helping me out! Mattie 17:18, 20 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ainsworth, the idiom 'to fall upon one's knees' is in genua procumbere. IacobusAmor 18:04, 20 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. But I'd still like to defend in genua cadere in this context. Cadere is what happens involuntarily to a person, while in genua procumbere tends to involve a voluntary or at least controlled act, describing, say, milites going down to a kneeling position to beg the victor's mercy and the like. Cadere is a strong verbal expression, apt to describe workings of dolor. Neander 19:09, 20 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Caesar's frumenta imbribus procubuerant doesn't seem all that voluntary or controlled, at least on the part of the hapless frumenta. :) IacobusAmor 01:56, 27 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the key idea behind procumbere lies in the root cumb, as in recumbent, succumb,etc., all these words carry the idea of yielding, giving in, laying down, or leaning on something, out of weariness, desire for rest, inertia, or simply due to giving up. Those motivations and causes are simply absent in cadere. As to the "fruit falling to the ground in capitulation to the rains", that subtlety of meaning is possible to convey in fewer words in latin.-- 05:52, 27 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your involuntary hospitality, Neander! It isn't fruit, it's wheat or barley, so it doesn't so much fall to the ground as submit to the compulsion to recline. This is exactly what happens if there is unseasonal heavy summer rain: a serious matter for the farmer now, just as it was then. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 27 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements in Morpho! If you have a moment, I'd be interested to see what you'd do to the translation of Wallace's remarks in Ornithoptera croesus. For reference, the (English) original is preserved in a footnote. IacobusAmor 11:47, 6 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another tricky passage, using concepts that Cicero never imagined, is in the description of Troides magellanus, where, if you'd like to touch it up, you'll be pleased to find the genitive Morphus. ;) IacobusAmor 18:10, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the first element of a compound usually the stem? Why wouldn't it have been iridicolor, with the stem as seen in iridium, iridectomy, iridescence, iridology, and iridosmine? IacobusAmor 18:10, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Greek, iris was a heteroclitic word, which means that it had two stems, viz. iri- and irid-, and thus a mixed declension: iris (nom.sg.), irin (acc.sg.), iridos (gen.sg.), iri (voc.sg.), which were borrowed into Latin form-wise: iris, irim, iridis, .... (The rationalised acc.sg. iridem isn't attested until late Latin.) So, iris was a two-stem noun in Latin, too; and iri-color was formed on the vocalic stem. Neander 22:54, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

modus articulandi[fontem recensere]

Salue, Neander. Quid signifiat "plicis", (plicus, plex, plica ? )? Non inveni hoc verbum in meo vocabulario. --Marc mage 23:11, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Marc mage! Plica,-ae 'pli' non est verbum antiquitatis, sed credo medicos eo uti, cum de plicis vocalibus 'les plis vocaux' loquuntur. Neander 23:28, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plica etiam fuit signum in notatione musicae Aevo Medio adhibitum. IacobusAmor 23:38, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since you're online...[fontem recensere]

Index Ruber IUCN or Ruber IUCN Index for IUCN Red List, tua sententia? (I prefer the former, but the latter has more links to it, and follows the adjective-genitive-noun formula.) Mattie 00:31, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Index Ruber IUCN" meá sententiá debet esse. Hyperbaton est pragmaticum instrumentum textuale, quod vix ad titulos pertinet. Neander 00:44, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis d'accord. Merci! Mattie 00:51, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neander, salve! Ut vales? Ego quoquo bene valeo. Your corrections are fine but I can not agree with the maxima corrigenda. Your last correction of replacing 'quam' with 'cuius partes' is fine but not needed. Was 'quam' wrong and your basis for the maxima corrigenda notice? Perhaps it would be better to discuss in Taberna. In the past there were other so-called improvements(emendationes) with words like 'locu' and 'classificanda' (from others)which are not latin at all. I am afraid that if it will be 'improved' the quality will only get worse. Could you just make at least a few more improvements that could guide me to do the rest of the work? Gratias ago.--Jondel 10:52, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC) You can answer in Latin or I can translate the above to Latin if you wish.Jondel 10:54, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I marked it –2 (a fairly high ranking, 2nd out of 7) on 29 Septembris 2009, and that's how it still stands. "Maxima corrigenda" is –5. Classificanda is a perfectly formed Latin word (if the verb classificare be accepted). IacobusAmor 12:28, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know classificare if it is latin; is medieval. But I don't see it any dictionary so far. I'm putting a lot of effort to avoid new latin as you yourself pushed for. Going back, please, it is just as wrong to say the Latin is wrong when there is nothing wrong as it is to say that wrong Latin is correct when it is not. Would it be too much to ask for more corrections?(to show that if there are these errors in some, there must be more). The quam change wasn't really needed nor does it warant a maxima corrigenda. Ok I will be going to the taberna. I don't want to give too much load on any one person. Please understand that I've been here for a few years already. The plant is now a tree. In terms of understandability it should be easy to understand. Jondel 13:09, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cassell's, 'classify' is in genera describere, but that locution becomes awkward in biological contexts, where genus has a definition so technical & circumscribed that it can make the classical idiom absolutely wrong, so one probably must accept classificare in biological contexts, whence it leaks out into other contexts, as words will. Change it back, if you like! IacobusAmor 14:09, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jondel! Given that agere is a heavily polysemous verb, it'd be helpful to avoid ambiguities wherever possible. If you say "quam V.L. agit", you're not necessarily violating the grammar but instead, perhaps, some cooperative principle such as clarity of expression. That's why I prefer to say "cuius partes V.L. agit", which is immediately clear to anyone who knows the idiom. Neander 13:51, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quam immediately points to 'what'(the character of Langford) is (being )done (so much easier to understand) but ok, I accept this. agere is polysemous but agere is easy to understand because it is very obvious that it is about actors performing character-roles. What is difficult for me to accept is the '-2 Latinitas ' . If things are working fine, don't fix them or they could get worse. Somebody could correct it and actually make it worse. So much of (my) hardwork gone to waste. Sure everybody can edit. But please be sure. If that was the basis for the '-2 latinatis' it is really not convincing. The latin I'm using is or should be very standard. I will ask for help later on the taberna. For my latin studies I will try to familiarize myself with idioms.This internet cafe is closing now and I have to go.Vale.Jondel 14:20, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are still imperfections, I think Neander's edits have raised the level from -2 (where Iacobus placed it originally) to -1. Hoping you others don't disagree, I will make that adjustment.
I think Neander's change from "quem ... agit" to "cuius partes ... agit", on the first occasion the phrase is used, is a good change, (a) because variety is better for the reader, and (b) because using a more explicit form the first time makes it clearer when you use the brief form the second time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:58, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was no doubt a bad title, but it's much better, when moving, to leave the redirect in place at least for a short time. Other pages link to this one (I have emended the link on one of them); more important, since this is one of the 1000 paginae, many pages on other wikipedias link to it. If there's a redirect, the bots will in the normal course of things correct those links on other Wikipedias: if there's no redirect, they can't and the page will be effectively lost to them.

So I removed your "Delenda" tag and replaced it with a redirect. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 10 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vide etiam[fontem recensere]

Ave. I see that you moved "Vide etiam" section in a different position than the English source and also in a different position than the Latin previous version. Sorry to point that out, but I simply need to understand why, maybe it was just a mistake. --Achillus 12:42, 19 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Achille. No, it was no mistake. The reason for my move was that, in my opinion, "Lege etiam", "Vide etiam" and "Nexus externi" are all links external to the coherent, internal structure of the article, "Lege etiam" and "Vide etiam" providing, as they do, links to additional sources of information. While "Nexus externi" consist of links external to Vicipaedia, "Lege etiam" and "Vide etiam" consist of links external to the article in question. These are my reasons. But if the majority of users think that we must blindly follow the English wiki, let it be so (though, personally, I can't guarantee full obedience to rules, the existence of which escapes my wit). Neander 04:59, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, we can ask the Taberna or the discussion page. I agree with your change, but I did not change the layout because of the big header of the page (do not change this page unless consensus). I would just switch "Vide etiam" before "Lege etiam" in order to have "internal links" before "external links".
This means that "Vide etiam" should *absolutely stick* to what is thought for, i.e. related pages... right now I often see (useless) lists that replicate the "inline interwikies" in the article. So should we move this discussion somewhere else in order to involve others? --Achillus 09:39, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against hearing what others think in the Taberna. Neander 10:12, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Neander! When you edited Vestiario exire, you rewrote part of the reference I had written, namely Noli putare eam testificariExtra Vicipaediam huius locutionis testimonium vix inveniri potest. I thought I'd let you know, my original reference was copy-pasted from Formula:Convertimus (I didn't want to use the formula itself because I didn't get "vestiario exire" from "my native language," but in fact from a whole lot of languages, which I wanted to name), so if you think what you wrote is better, you might want to edit the formula. Cheers, Mattie 19:53, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect no one was quite satisfied with the existing wording of the formula, so I have taken this hint and inserted Neander's wording. I'm sure all will feel free to make further changes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facere non potui, quin totam paginam rescriberem, nempe ut ipse intellegerem. Neander 00:36, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salve again, Neander! I just noticed that when I asked you how transgenerismus would be turned into an adjective, I said "If I may ask (because I don't know), ..." It just occurred to me this was terribly ambiguous. What I meant was "If I may ask (because I don't know the answer to what I'm about to ask, i.e. I'm not trying to prove any point in favour of the Greek rendering of transgender)," and not "If I may ask (because I don't know with you, you're horrible at answering questions)," which would of course have been completely false. Well, here's to hoping you read it as I intended it, and not as I wrote it! Mattie 21:42, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo me satis recte te intellexisse. Puto me satis superque Anglice locutum esse. Itaque nunc variationis causa Latine ... :–) Neander 00:43, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De tibi Latine scribendo cogitaveram, sed energiam conservare meam praeoptavi, ut plura potius de Harrio Pottero scribere possim :) Mattie 01:00, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De titulis tabularum pictarum[fontem recensere]

Iam reperis (nuper enim verificavi!) hic fere omnes tabulas, quibus aut Helveticus aut ego titulum Latinum imposuimus. Si otium habes, capite e nubilositatibus demisso, perlege s.t.p. et titulum meliorem sive impone sive in disputatione suggere! Gratias ago, mi Martine -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De stylo Latino[fontem recensere]

Nescio an haec et haec iam vidisti. Scire velim e qua lingua auctor noster anonymus opiniones suas (partim veras) in Latinam et Anglicam convertit! Quid censes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 06:35, 12 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E qua lingua translati sint hi texticuli, opinionem non habeo satis certam. Scriptori de eo assentior, quod nescioqui anglophoni suum fecerunt, ut aliorum interpunctiones "corrigerent" more Anglo-Americano usi, quamquam his in rebus variae nationes / civitates suas habent consuetudines, e quibus nulla per se ceteris deterior vix iudicanda est. Verbi gratia, mihi quidem alienum est "A, B, et C" (et vidi de hac re etiam in Vicipaedia Anglica interdum disceptari, et quidem sunt qui in capsis suis usoriis declarent se "A, B, et C" aut praeferre aut detestari). Equidem tolerantiam in hac re suaserim. Aliis in rebus puto scriptorem nimia severitate, ne dicam morositate, affectum esse, sicut cum de ordine verborum vituperanter iudicat. Forsitan Caesarem solum legerit Cicerone omisso? Equidem putarim ea, quae a scriptore notata sunt, potius ad disputationes pertinere, nam certe de his disputandum esse videtur. Neander (disputatio) 03:49, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certe Caesarem non legit, nam in commentario de Bello Civili (2:14) "semicolon," rem quam noster amicus nomine carens vetandam esse opinatur, hoc loco legimus: "Nostri repentina fortuna permoti arma, quae possunt, arripiunt; [N.B.] alii ex castris sese incitant. Fit in hostes impetus; [N.B.] sed de muro sagittis tormentisque fugientes persequi prohibentur" (Loeb Classical Library, 39; Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 2006). ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:02, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De vera linguae Latinae interpunctione disputare mihi supervacaneum videtur. Romani nihil nisi punctis ad verba separanda usi sunt; virgula tempore Carolingorum in usum venit, semicolon introductum est anno 1494 in Petri Bembi libro De Aetna ab Aldo Manutio, a quo omnis interpunctio Latina normata est. Nihilo minus et postea alii aliter interpunctione utebantur – usque in hos dies, ut libri Latini variis in terris editi demonstrant.--Utilo (disputatio) 22:52, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De usu virgularum saepe cogito, nam cotidie converto e lingua cuius loquentibus, sicut videatur Finnicis, "A, B et C" est omnino alienum. Veniam mihi linguae Finnicae nescienti detis, sed video in lexico ad minimum duas coniunctiones pro "et" (ja/sekä). In lingua Slovena sunt tres, quorum usuum variorum causa cum virgulis ad infinitum ludere non necesse est. In lingua Anglica est modo "and". In sententia "We ordered coleslaw, fish and chips, and crab dip."' prima et altera and inter se differunt, quod loquente auditur, sine virgula autem in pagina non videtur. Ergo etiam non censeo virgulam Oxfordiensem linguis omnibus aptam esse, linguae Anglicae est mea sententia utilis. Duos nummos. Salvete omnes. -- Ioscius 23:46, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De "nugis"[fontem recensere]

Mi Neander, nuper quidam usor:Vatekor scripsit apud Disputatio:Dominus Quixotus a Manica textum quod egomet non intellego (censeo scriptum esse cum "google translate"). Tamen miki videtur commentarium asperum esse contra rem quam iam scripsi. Putas eum malefactorem esse aut simpliciter indoctum linguae latinae?--Xaverius 22:29, 31 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xaveri, tibi illud assentior, quod ea, quae scripsit Vatekor, amicus linguae Latinae indoctus (ut videtur), ex translatro Google sint necesse est. Plane nihil intellexi. Recte admonuisti, ut linguá quádam, quá calleret, scriberet. Neander (disputatio) 23:41, 31 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Neander,...[fontem recensere]

... bene egisti apud Versum Sapphicum minorem; errorem vidi, gratias ago et valeas precor. Alexander Gelsumis (disputatio) 10:05, 16 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudeo, mi Alexander, quod mutationes quas feci tanta approbasti facilitate. In animo quidem habeo hanc symbolam etiam plus mutare, nam mihi quidem Sappho, Catullus et Horatius videntur hendecasyllabo tractando paulum inter se differre. Neander (disputatio) 12:49, 16 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Est bene; decorum est de metrica arte scribere. Vale! Alexander Gelsumis (disputatio) 19:35, 16 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tibi gratias ago propter emendationem--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 00:56, 14 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotica Atomica[fontem recensere]

Hello...My Latin is far too rusty to attempt here, but I wanted to ask about something you've written on the Swedish Wikipedia. You're the author of the page fi:Atomisemiotiikka, and one of the listed references is "Nielsen, Per Ole (toim. 1993) Transmittal of Information over Extremely Long Periods of Time. Proceedings of a conference arranged by Scandpower A/S in Oslo.". I've been trying to track down a copy of this, but can't find any library in the world that owns one. (At least, not according to Worldcat.) Could you tell me where you found it? Thank you! Chubbles (disputatio) 21:59, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chubbles! To tell the truth, I've never seen the Nielsen volume. I referred to it because I felt that it might be the best bibliographic source for direct information about the Oslo conference. But I did use Helge Dyvik's paper that is a contribution to the volume. It had reached my hands from a friend's friend's friend or something like that, and now I'm unable to find it. In tracking down the Nielsen volume, the next step you might take is to write to professor Dyvik (http://www.uib.no/personer/Helge.Dyvik). Perhaps he's able to help you to the whereabouts of the volume. Good luck! Neander (disputatio) 23:28, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatica[fontem recensere]

Salvus sis, Neander! Num me adiuvare velis in his rebus nominibus Latinis dandis (si quidem nomina Latina danda sint)?

Gratias tibi ago! Mattie (disputatio) 23:50, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Profecto quaestiones difficillimi generis proposuisti, mi Mattie! Meà quidem linguà facile est nomen HPSG dicere ("pääsanavetoinen lausekerakennekielioppi", si cui iucundum sit scire), quia lingua Fnnica verba composita facile patitur. At neminem umquam audivi hoc termino uti. HPSG plus placet. Ita credo rem se habere paene omnibus in linguis, quibus HPSG omnino tractatur. Vicipaedia Francogallica unum exemplum praebet: habet titulum HPSG, qui deinde verbis explicatur. Potesne tu hanc rem succinctius Francogallice dicere? Aliud exemplum est Vicipaedia Hispanica, quae satis bene (meà sententià) hanc rem Hispanice reddidit. Cum 'PS-grammar' Francogallice grammaire syntagmatique et Hispanice gramática sintagmática, quin Latine grammatica syntagmatica dicatur. Difficilius videtur 'head-driven' transferri, praesertim cum ambiguum sit, quomodo 'head'/'tête', terminus grammaticus, praestet Latine dici. Itaque Hispanicam aemulatus dixerim temptabundus: Grammatica syntagmatica nuclearis. Sed fortasse alius quis meliorem terminum inveniet? Quod ad grammaticam lexico-functionalem attinet, etiam in hac re Hispanicam aemuler. Neander (disputatio) 21:04, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Difficilia conor ipse tractare, difficillima ad te transfero! Fennicae iam bis studere temptavi, sed optimi vere libri opus esset. Te credo recte monuisse de grammatica syntagmatica nucleari et grammatica lexico-functionali; quid autem de combinatory categorial grammar? Grammatica categorialis combinatoria seu grammatica categoriali-combinatoria, fortasse? Mattie (disputatio) 02:57, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatica categorialis combinatoria mihi quidem melius sonat. Neander (disputatio) 21:55, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago propter auxilium. :) Mattie (disputatio) 22:55, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De rien! :-) Neander (disputatio) 23:01, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quid si non curent...?[fontem recensere]

Verisimiliter conscius es quod nunc agitur disputatio illa de vocabulo "interrete"... Modo volebam rogare an scires cuis sit ditio paginarum mutandarum cum nemo nunc de meis verbis videtur curare. Aut fuitne -ut plerumque in rete fit- vana disputatio illa, id est praevaletne ius maioris editorum gregis...? :S Artaynte (disputatio) 20:59, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respondi in pagina Artaynte. Neander (disputatio) 23:59, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Neander! Fortasse non vidisti... responsum hic scribendum est. Et, gratulatio! :D Mattie (disputatio) 19:32, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vidi equidem, sed putavi opperiendum esse, dum perendie omnia suffragia lata essent. (Quid, si cras futurum sit, ut viginti usores contra me suffragium ferant? Tum forsitan respondendum sit servandae faciei causa, me ne voluisse quidem umquam magistratum fieri. ) Sed fortasse rem perperam intellexi, quod in huiusmodi rebus administrativis fieri solet. Neander (disputatio) 18:45, 22 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and welcome! You will already have noticed, probably, that you have new options under the little grey arrow at top right, and also the option for a one-keystroke "revert" in article histories. What fun you'll have ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:27, 25 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acera =>Arcera[fontem recensere]

Nice catch! Keep up the good work!Jondel (disputatio) 23:17, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will! :-) I leave to you to correct the title "Datorum repositorum" => "Datorum repositorium". I don't have Traupman at my disposal, but I'm 100% sure that there's a lapsus calami here, too. Neander (disputatio) 23:59, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaahkkuh kuh!(--coughing-- ) Ok. I don't have it now but I will move it and check it it later.Jondel (disputatio) 00:15, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respondi ...[fontem recensere]

... apud me.
Summarium hoc tuum valde admiravi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness[fontem recensere]

Fortasse non vidisti ... :) Disputatio:Cogitatio#Political correctness Mattie (disputatio) 02:31, 2 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nunc vidi et loco a te dicto respondi. Neander (disputatio) 17:08, 2 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrika kyrka[fontem recensere]

Can you please translate "Aedificium ex ligno constructum parte exteriore colore rubro pictum est" word by word, or morpheme by morpheme to me. I don't say that the construction is wrong, only that I don't fully understand it. It is that "parte exteriore" part. Skvattram (disputatio) 22:45, 10 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jag hoppas att du inte tar illa upp när jag svarar på svenska. Jo, meningen i fråga kan översättas så här: Huset, byggt av trä, har målats rött vad yttersidan vidkommer (parte exteriore, begränsningens ablativ / ablativus limitationis); eller: Det av trä byggda husets yttre sida har målats med röd färg. Det kanske hade varit bättre att välja något annat uttryck, om konstruktionen parte exteriore vållar svårigheter i detta sammanhang. Neander (disputatio) 13:35, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iam constructionem meliorem inveni. Neander (disputatio) 14:52, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Et Neander, cur mutasti campanaria ad campanarium? Apud Morgan: ".chrc steeple, church tower, campanile / sacra campanaria (v. turris) (LRL)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:38, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campanarium (quod secundum lexicon DuCange "Turris Ecclesiæ, in qua campanæ pendent" est) ex his lexicis sumpsi: Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta, Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum. Societas Litterarrum Finnicarum, Helsinkium, 2006 (s.v. Kellotapuli); Ebbe Vilborg, Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok. Andra upplagan. Norstedts akademiska förlag, Stockholm, 2009. (s.v. Klockstapel, klocktorn). Ceterum, campanaria secundum DuCange 'officium campanarii' et 'uxor campanarii' est. Neander (disputatio) 13:35, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse Morgan fallitur; hodie verbum campanaria in LRL (pagina apud www.vatican.va) non invenimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:16, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Gate (secta)[fontem recensere]

I'd like to compliment you on that article. It's good! I try to read Latin material. My LOEB Cicero book just seems to be too hard. I added new vocabularies, asseclae and haeresiarcha for my studies.Jondel (disputatio) 06:22, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Neander (disputatio) 09:17, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes' translations[fontem recensere]

Hi Neander,

I noticed you did something when editing Noam Chomsky, which I fixed without saying anything, but now you did it again over at The Silmarillion, so I figured I'd let you know :-) When I put quotations in articles, I always include the quotes in their original language in a special note, like this:

"dictio prima"[conv. 1]

Citationes Latine conversae

  1. "original quote"

The point here isn't that I'm unsure about the Latin and add in the quote in its original language for someone else to check; the point is that the quote in its original language remain in the article, so that future readers can quote whomever I'm quoting if they want to. Articles are far more useful this way. They do this in fr: too, and overe here, Andrew's using my system as well!

So, could you please not remove these references? It's a pain to have to add them back in. Gratias tibi ago, Mattie (disputatio) 20:43, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Mattie has discovered the only sensible use for this feature of Wikipedia that allows a second group of footnotes. (Indeed, it allows an infinite number of groups of footnotes, but let's not go overboard :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we could do this! It occurs to me that it might also sometimes be useful to group citations for Latin forms of words and expressions separately from the rest of the notes. --Iustinus (disputatio) 05:28, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mattie, I'm sorry! Quel idiot je suis ! I hadn't the slightest idea ... or perhaps a slight one because, as a matter of fact, I had a brief moment of self-doubt. Henceforth, the amount N (where N approximates ∞) of possible errors committable by me will be N-1. Now, this is really something! :-) Neander (disputatio) 23:39, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! =] Mattie (disputatio) 04:53, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy etc[fontem recensere]

I apologise for all the trouble, for implying or misinterpreting that you are harassing and being capricious, e.g. writing then erasing. I hope you stick around. By all means please correct my latin. Your opinions are highly valued. I don't intend to impose on you(to always be correcting) however, please understand. I do have some latin grammar questions but I am thingking of starting a discussion at the taberna(more of the thema thing). Your response there would be highly valued. Please keep up the good work!Jondel (disputatio) 03:32, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. All of us have our space here, all we have our own great personalities, and we all have something to offer. And let's work on the assumption that we all have good intentions. Neander (disputatio) 22:59, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gramm. quaedam[fontem recensere]

Salve! Iure me admones. Quapropter tibi gratias ago plurimis te impertiens salutationibus.- B.

I'm sorry too[fontem recensere]

I was [arguably] wrong to say the Scientia redirects were your problem -- actually the need for the change was [arguably] caused by Anne's turning your new Scientia page into a discretiva. I can no longer work it out, really ... :) but in case I misstated the case in trying to explain to Iacobus what had happened, believe me, I'm sorry! And Happy Christmas! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't kept track of who's done harm to what and whom and why. Anyway, in my eyes, you've got no reason to feel sorry for anything. But as for Anne, I think she made the right thing in putting emphasis on he fact that, after the move, Scientia was indeed supposed (by me) to be a discretive page. Neander (disputatio) 23:53, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The interwikis at Accentus confused regional accents with stress with pitch accent. I'm fixing the links in about 60 pedias. Kwamikagami (disputatio) 23:43, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kwamikagami, you should have given the reason why you made such a drastic change. Now, I think I understand what you're out for. Let's see the outcome. Neander (disputatio) 00:19, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cassell's: "accent, in pronunciation: vox, sonus (-ūs), tenor." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:24, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
White's: "accent, s. 1. Manner of pronouncing—Phr. vōcis flexus, ūs, m., Quint.;—A rustic accent—Phr.: vox agreste quiddam sonans, Cic. . . . 2. Sound of a syllable: accentus, ūs, m. Quint. — 3. Grammatical mark; accentus, ūs, m. Quint." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:24, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for an article about latin wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Hi Neader, I'm an italian journalist. I'm looking for someone to interview about latin version of wikipedia. I cheked on Usores list (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialis:Usores/sysop) and I found you speak an advanced italian. There are many italian speak simple users but I prefer to interview someone who is “magistratus”. First i contacted Mattie but he does not work so much on latin wikipedia anymore and he suggested you. The article is for the italian version of the magazine vice.com. Plese if you are interested let me know. Thank you.

Ciao! Davvero, ci sono moltissimi contribuenti / Vicipaediani la cui madrelingua è italiano, ma purtroppo la maggior parte di loro sono nient'altro che nomi. Spero che non ti dispiaccia questa rotazione ma a questo punto ti consiglierei di contattare Helveticus montanus la cui madrelingua è italiano. È un contribuente molto attivo ed esperto. Inoltre, è uno degli amministratori (magistratus) di Vicipaedia e un utente molto fedele e coinvolto nel progetto. Neander (disputatio) 19:05, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ti ringrazio Neander, proverò a contattare Elveticus Montanus! Buon lavoro

Civitatulae Insulanae Crescentes[fontem recensere]

You know, we are a wiki, right? Then please ask for the page to be moved and apply a reason. I will change it back, if you fail to do so.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 21:18, 6 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your castigatory remark. It's always interesting to receive messages from people who know better. It's kind of ironical that I, as one of those very few who are keen on explaining their changes and redirects, get censured for not explaining a change. But OK, mea culpa. On the other hand, I'm in good company, given that you failed to explain why you changed my initial title Parvae civitates insulares crescentes into Civitaticulae Insulanae Crescentes. I've explained my doings here. Neander (disputatio) 15:37, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav I of Sweden[fontem recensere]

Hello Neander. Do you know if the surname Vasa (which is probably also called like that in Latin) of this king, is allowed to be declined? It is not shown in the article here.

Donatello (disputatio) 16:16, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hejsan Donatello! Jag känner tyvärr inte till någon källa som uttryckligen bekräftar att namnet Vasa kan böjas i latin. Neander (disputatio) 17:48, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ingen fara. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 21:57, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The Swedish word statsdel[fontem recensere]

Greetings Neander. You who speak Swedish, maybe you can help. :) Malmo is, and maybe also the rest of the cities in the nation, divided into statsdel (sg.), statsdelar (pl.). Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok of the second and latest edition says for this word urbis pars. To create the statsdelar in Malmo, I doubt of this name. What do you consider of this name? Donatello (disputatio) 22:52, 30 Iunii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

(1) ?Vicus : Cassell's (Anglice): "quarter = region, district, vicus (in a town)." (2) ?Regio : Vide commentarium Regiones Romae antiquae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:41, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hej, Donatello! Du menar väl stadsdel? Leve den lilla skillnaden! :-) ¶ But to answer to your question, I think Iacobus is right. Maybe regio urbis is even better, for vicus usually denotes a smaller area: a quarter of a city, a row of houses, even a street. Pars urbis or urbis pars may be used, when it's a question of a looser reference, such as Plin. Nat. 5.62 Mareotis lacus a meridiana urbis parte euripo e Canopico ostio mittit ex mediterraneo commercia. Neander (disputatio) 09:33, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Etiam, ut hodie invenimus: Cassell's: "ward = quarter of a town, regio, vicus." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:18, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you both. :) I'll use regio urbis. Yes, stadsdel is a tricky word. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:07, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delområde[fontem recensere]

Hello again. I came to think now on this division in a stadsdel called delområde (litterally in english part area). My lexicons do not mention any Latin word or equivalent. What do you and others consider of how it should be? Maybe vicus?

Donatello (disputatio) 14:17, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Jag tar mig friheten att svara på svenska. Det går lättare så. Administrativa termer som beror på mer eller mindre lokala förhållanden är svåra att återge på ett annat språk. Malmö tycks ha delområden men t.ex. Stockholm har stadsdelsområden. Det är lite obekvämt att försöka jämföra dom och avgöra om delområde och stadsdelsområde är lokalt betingade synonymer (i vilket fall båda kunde heta vicus på latin) eller inte. Vicus låter bra. Vicus är ju i alla fall en mindre enhet än regio urbis. Neander (disputatio) 15:36, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks again. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 23:12, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion moved[fontem recensere]

In accordance with your hint, I moved that whole discussion to what is now Disputatio:Hamilton (Ontario) ... and, forgetting that I am not interested in general rules about translating place-name suffixes, added an example of -tonium to help things along!

Definitely no need to apologise: you are always welcome. I felt we were veering towards a different topic (as one so often does on Vicipaedia talk pages), and that's why I suggested a different venue ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 11 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, some of your text moved as well[fontem recensere]

Please consider what I've just done ... I moved your recent text from Vicipaedia:Stipulae to Vicipaedia:Qualitas paginarum. I tried this because (I think) with that text you're setting a higher aim than we can practically set for our lowest level of pages -- because if pages are less than stipulae they currently get deleted in seven days. I think the aim you're setting is absolutely right, but the name's wrong.

I have suggested the name "stipes" for a page that does (roughly) what you suggest. I set no store by the suggestion (it just happens to be the same metaphor as "stipula") but I used this word for the present. One might say "pagina brevis". Or some other name. But if we say "stipula" for that level of achievement, and we continue to delete "non stipulae", we'll lead ourselves to delete at least half of our current pages ... which would be, let's say, drastic.

Tell me what you think! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think stipulastipes make a very telling hierarchical pair both phonetically and metaphorically. And I have nothing to add to or remove from those characterisations. Macte virtute! Neander (disputatio) 15:56, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De profundis maiusculis[fontem recensere]

I am going to ask kind UVbot to change some category names for alumni and professors of German universities in cases where we now know the "official" adjective that the university uses, e.g. from Categoria:Alumni universitatis Hamburgi and Categoria:Alumni Universitatis Kiliae to our more usual Categoria:Alumni Universitatis Hamburgensis, Categoria:Alumni Universitatis Chiloniensis. With a capital U. And then it struck me that you might well make a case for a small u in such cases. We could go that way, though it would entail quite a lot of parallel changes in due course. Any thoughts? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 27 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I've done a good job in profiling myself as a representative of ordo fratrum minuscularistarum. :–) The clear cases, for me, are to some extent summarised here, the point being that I find philologist editors' practice more dependable than (American[?]-)English-inspired Vicipaedians' usus. An instance illustrating the maiuscularist bias chez nous is (or was) Praemium Nobelianum Pacis which, in my google search, proved to be a genuine instance of Vicipaedianese. As far as names of universities are concerned, both small u and big U are attested, but the trend (certainly correlatable with the all-inspiring exemplariness of the English language) appears to favour the big U. So, I don't thnk we need those parallel changes in this case. But for now I'd still prefer small initials in Aegaeum mare et sim. Neander (disputatio) 09:41, 29 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your marvelous improvements to the article! I 've been listening to Misirlu and would like to share it with you.--Jondel (disputatio) 19:21, 6 Augusti 2013 (UTC) you].[reply]

Thanks, Jondel! That is a very nice piece of music. I haven't heard it, yet I think I know the melody from somewhere. Maybe a film. Neander (disputatio) 21:33, 6 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The music 'Pump it' is based on this. Also it was used in Pulp Fiction (movie)Jondel (disputatio) 11:27, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's how Pulp Fiction begins! Neander (disputatio) 16:28, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologia[fontem recensere]

Fortasse, mi Martine, commentum addere vis hic: Disputatio Categoriae:Factiones politicae per ideologiae digestae. Pro certo nomen mutare oportet, sed quomodo? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pheromonum[fontem recensere]

Dear Neander, Absolutely wonderful, that you created ex nihilo an article on pherormonta (..). My renaming actions might be too premature and based on little knowledge . I have in the meanwhile only read the abstract of the nature article of Karlson & Lüscher (1959b) (for access to the full article I have to switch to my laptop, so tomorrow I can properly check) which is actually a reply to the letter(abstract) of Mileck (1959) that is actually a reply to Karlson & Lüscher's (1959a) earlier contribution. But when reading these abstracts (as far as i can judge based on these abstracts) the information you've put in the article concerning the etymology seems to convey the position of Karlson & Lüscher properly (1959b).

It seems that Karlson & Lüscher, when confronted with their etymological erring, i.e, loosing the 'r' according to Mileck (1959) 'This they achieved by the improper expedient of dropping the letter ‘r’, thus mutilating the root of the Greek word. It should be a principle, when a scientific term is derived from classical origins, that the term must by its structure be traceable to those origins. In the case of the word ‘pheromone’ that principle is not observed : there is no structural clue to its derivation from hormān. Indeed, the only Greek verb (apart from pherein) which might conceivably be involved in its ancestry means ‘to swear’., the reaction from Karlson & Lüscher (1959) seems a little bit too pragmatic 'It must be admitted that the derivation of ‘pheromone’ from hormān is questionable. WE WOULD THEREFORE NOT INSIST ON IT ; but we regard the ending ‘mone’ as a proper suffix which is used in hormone, gamone, termone and pheromone.' It seems to me that they made a mistake and changed accordingly the etymology of their word to 'fit' the result, but their etymology seems wretched. Although finding a Latin source for pherormon is another quest/question. With kind regards and thanks for the article, Wimpus (disputatio) 22:04, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that your assessment of Karlson & Lüscher's etymological rambling is correct, insofar as the ὁρμᾶν part of their etymology was initially supposed to relate the novel term with hormons. Of course, one might try to play ingenuous, as I kind of did in my (too) sympathetic reading, and suggest that what ὁρμᾶν adds to the whole is simply the notion of 'quickness', but somehow this smacks of hindsight. Thanks for pointing out Micklem's corrective which escaped my attention. Indeed, it's another question how to tell the etymological story, given the fact that φέρειν and ὁρμᾶν fail, as they do, to bring out the ἔτυμος λόγος, formally as well as semantically. Obviously, the ὁρμᾶν part should be left out, and then a loose hint to φέρειν will do, because, from the viewpoint of Greek word formation, pheromone, however it's analysed, is totally beyond what is allowable. Micklem's 'swear' (root ὀμ-) is, I take it, a wry joke. Vale, Neander (disputatio) 11:46, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Neander, thank you for your reply. I understand your argument that ὁρμᾶν should be left out, but otherwise exposing a false etymology (excusez-moi for the contradictio in terminis) is also an explanation for the origin/genesis of a certain word and similar to exposing Volksetymologie in etymological dictionaries. In addition to Mileck (1959), Chauvin (1969) states: English speaking specialists call it pheromone, but I will stick to the pherormone spelling until I get well grounded explanation why the letter r has been unduly left out, of the greek verb “hormao”. There are more known cases in which the coiner of a neologism made a mistake that was subsequently corrected in some, but not all international languages (e.g. taxonomie/taxinomie/taxonomy, Psychoanalyse/psychanalyse/psychoanalysis (still incorrect)). With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 19:15, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wimpus, and thanks for interesting thoughts. Strictly speaking, a scientific etymology has to give a truthful account (ἔτυμος λόγος) for what (usually prehistorically) underlies a certain word, both morphologically and semantically. In etymological distionaries, obviously false etymologies are listed in an appendix in order to give a Forschungsgeschichte. Scientific terms coined by scientists with inadequate knowledge of Latin or Greek involve a different case. I don't think that the issue raised by Chauvin has anything to do with etymology. Linguistic, historical etymologies are not normative, i.e. they're not supposed to give norms for language use but explanations for why a given word (like pheromone) exists and is used here and now in different languages. Now, the issue raised by Chauvin concerns, not etymology at all, but terminological Sprachpflege, which doesn't belong to the concerns of Wikipedias, because Wikipedias aren't supposed to give norms. The proper place for Chauvin to discuss the matter is (or would have been) some international organ for scientific terminology. Thanks to you, I now realise that the "etymology" chapter of the article on pheromonum requires some tidying up. Vale, Neander (disputatio) 20:54, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neander, thank you for your response. 'Wikipedias aren't supposed to give norms' is a tricky one . At least for me, but that can partially be explained by my 'personality' traits. By selecting certain sources/references and choosing the word(ing) of the specific lemma hints implicitely at a certain norm. By choosing taxinomia instead of taxonomia or hormon instead of hormonum a 'preferable' orthography is selected. Although I have to admit, and I clearly violate this guideline in certain cases, that a reference has to be given. And I did not found a reference for pherormon (gen. pherormontis) yet.. Thanks, with kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 19:13, 18 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Neander. Si tempus tibi habetur, quaeso adiuva in disputatione dolii commentationis. -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:21, 23 Octobris 2013 (UTC).[reply]

de paginis decenniorum[fontem recensere]

Salve, Neander! Today, you moved five out of our 337 decennia pages to a new title. I would suggest that we first continue and conclude our discussion at Disputatio Formulae:Decennium#Is it true?. If we decide to delete those pages, there is no need to move them beforehand. If we decide to move them to a new title, it is easier to do that in one batch (probably by bot), and Formula:Decennium would need to be adapted.

The move you proposed (Decennium 191 to Anni 1900) would also entail a semantic difference: While Decennium 191 encompasses the years 1901 to 1910 (and thus falls entirely within the 20th century), Anni 1900 encompass the years 1900 to 1909 and thus fall partly within the 19th and partly within the 20th century, which would make Formula:Decennium a lot more complicated. I therefore have a slight tendency to delete our 337 decennia pages (after moving content, if any, to the appropriate century pages), but we should definitely discuss that! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:01, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salve et tu, UV! Because the discussion had not been continued, I concluded that a consensus — admittedly a tenuous one — had been reached. Moving 337 decennia manually would indeed be a silly idea, but my moves were kind of divagatio animi in the midst of a more serious writing. And maybe it's an asset to the Sache that my meddlings roused your interest... :–) ¶ I scarcely have anything to add to the discussion. "Decennium 197" (etc) looks weird to my mind. If other languages get along with "anni 1960" (etc), I don't see why Latin should favour an outlandish expression. As I take it, the interest of keeping the formula simpler isn't good enough a reason. Vale, Neander (disputatio) 06:23, 10 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! I fully agree that the status quo should be changed. Since it was Andrew who started the discussion, I would like to wait until he returns here and has the time to weigh in again. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:46, 10 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here I am! I'm a practical man (or so I like to think) and I often start with the question "Will the effort be repaid?" In this case: since we are agreed that the current names of the decennium pages are un-intuitive and wrong, and since the new names would entail a complicated reworking of the formula (which means demanding that someone with the requisite skill spend the necessary time), are these pages -- under whatever name -- sufficiently useful to justify making that demand? I'm not sure that they are: they seem to contain no information, and any information they might contain could just as well go into the "saeculum" pages. So our time could be better spent. So let's delete the "decennium" pages and de-activate the bit of the formula that currently creates them. It seems to me that UV's opinion may be similar to mine. How do you feel about it, Neander? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Lesgles has meanwhile commented at Disputatio Formulae:Decennium#Is it true?. Probably that is the best place to reach a conclusion, so I will repeat my comment there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me, though "practical" may not be the first word that comes into mind when characterising myself — or so I like to think :–) — I fully agree with your proposal. "Decennium 197" is one of those Vicipaedianisms that scarcely command respect to our grand project. Neander (disputatio) 15:14, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category names associated with renamed pages[fontem recensere]

May I suggest, mi Martine, that when renaming a page (as for very good reasons you did at Paulopolis) you abstain from changing the similarly-named category at the foot of the page? If you do that, readers who are looking for the page by way of categories can no longer find it: it appears to them that it doesn't exist.

Instead, when a category needs moving because the associated page has a new and better name, go to Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests and request that UVbot move the category. If you look at the request page now, you'll see that I have just made a request in the case of Categoria:Urbs Paulistana -- and if you check tomorrow you'll probably find that UVbot has completed the task and the category is renamed Categoria:Paulopolis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, Andrew! I knew that I could do the request by myself but didn't remember how without extra effort. Yet another instance of my practicality: Id ne feceris hodie, quod cras poteris per alios efficere! :–) Thank you for doing the job for me, this time! Martinus, aka Neander (disputatio) 15:25, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

non esse delendam?[fontem recensere]

Hello! I used jokingly a gibberish expression "Ceterum censeo, this article perhaps non esse delendam". I was wondering however, whether the negative meaning can be achieved so effortlessly by just adding a "non". --Pxos (disputatio) 23:06, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terve! Vastaan sinulle suomeksi, kun täällä Vicipaediassa kaikkien kielten käyttö on luvallista. Koko lause olisi tietysti latinaksi Ceterum censeo hanc commentationem fortasse non esse delendam. Eli aivan oikein olit tuota NEG-ainesta käyttänyt. Jatka tätä rataa, niin pian voit korottaa latinan Babel-arvosanaasi. :-) Neander (disputatio) 23:45, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiitokset nopeasta vastauksesta. Tulin vasta parin päivän päästä katsomaan, onko vastausta tullut. Rataa voin hyvin jatkaa, mutta en usko junan koskaan saavuttavan edes ensimmäistä asemaa latinan taidossa. Babel-taso ykkönen mielestäni kertoo, että käyttäjälle voi kirjoittaa latinaksi jotain yksinkertaista sananlaskua vaikka hän vastaisikin suomeksi. Babelin tarkoitus ei mielestäni ole kertoa niinkään käyttäjän oikeasta kielitaidosta maailman turuilla ja toreilla vaan siitä, millä kielellä hän haluaa vastaanottaa viestejä Wikipediassa. Siksi pitäydyn nollassa mieluusti ja siksi olen pyrkinyt ikäväkseni vähentämään myös saksan kielen ykköstason mainostamista enemmälti. --Pxos (disputatio) 14:33, 21 Decembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Arthurus[fontem recensere]

Salve Neander. Fortasse adiuvare volis in disputatione His name in pagina disputationis commentaionis "Arthurus (rex)". -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:50, 20 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Suo loco respondi. Neander (disputatio) 18:30, 20 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De litteris italicis[fontem recensere]

I just came across a couple of pages in which our (no doubt well-intended) rule had been taken literally. The result seems to me nearly unreadable. So I have now rewritten the rule! See if you like it better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 27 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coniuratio obscura[fontem recensere]

I noticed your underlining at Iohannes I. No one ever thinks of this, but, in case it sticks in your mind, you can use the formula {{Verba Latinizanda}} in such cases. If you look back at how I've just edited that page you'll see how it works -- not complicated. (I hope this was what your underlining aimed at: if not, revert my edit.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrew! I knew that there's a formula to that effect but hadn't the time to dig it up. So I decided to do it by brute force, admittedly not very elegant. Neander (disputatio) 18:16, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suomennospyyntö[fontem recensere]

Olen kierrellyt ja kaarrellut sen kanssa, kutkuttaako mielenkiinto tarpeeksi, mutta tämä asia vaivaa kuitenkin liiaksi. Mitäs tässä levyn nimessä oikein ajetaan takaa? Kanoja? --Pxos (disputatio) 05:47, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jopa ovat jäbät duunanneet komean tittelin EP:lleen! Se on sen verran taidokasta aforistiikkaa, että arvaisin sen olevan peräisin joltakin anonyymilta keskiaikaiselta koulumestarilta, heillä kun oli tapana keksiä tällaisia nokkeluuksia oppimisen edistämiseksi ja muutenkin oppilaitten henkiseksi ylösrakennukseksi. Sananmukaisesti: Ex ovis (munista) pullus (kananpoika) non natis (syntymättömistä) serò (liian myöhään) fit (tulee, muodostuu) ullus (mikään, mitään). Eli siis: "Syntymättömistä munista tulee liian myöhään mitään kananpoikaa." Ja sitten ehkä vähän luontevammin mutta yhä varsin tekstiuskollisesti: "Munimattomista munista tulee aivan liian myöhään minkäänlaista kananpoikaa." Tässä tuntuu olevan samantapainen moraalinen opetus kuin: "paistetuista munista ei synny kanapoikaa", joka on itselleni tutumpi. Neander (disputatio) 18:13, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kiitosta suomennoksesta. Minä olisin näköjään saanut koulumestarilta ympäri korvia ja potkun takamuksille, kun en vieläkään ymmärrä alkuperäisen kikkailun opetusta. Paistetut munat on selvä: munan voi joko syödä heti tai antaa sen kasvaa kanaksi, mutta tuo "liian myöhäinen kana" menee kyllä ohi. No, latinan ei moukille kuulu avautukaan. --Pxos (disputatio) 10:40, 19 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kyllähän itsekin olisin ollut korvat punaisina koulumestarin edessä, kun hienon sanasta sanaan käännöksen jälkeen en itsekään oikeasti ymmärtänyt lauseen ajatusta. Äidyin hakemaan tämäntapaista kuolematonta lausetta netin tarjoamista fraasisanastoista, ja löytyihän sellainen melkoisen risusavotan jälkeen, tosin siinä oli tuo ilmeisesti muidenkin ongelmalliseksi kokema sero pistetty sulkuihin ja korvattu kieltosanalla. Tällöin lause kääntyy jo paljon luontevammaksi: "Munimattomista munista ei tule minkäänmoista kananpoikaa." Tämäntyyppinen tulkinta olikin sumeana intuitiona mielessäni, kun niin varman tuntuisesti puhuin moraalisesta opetuksesta. Neander (disputatio) 17:24, 19 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuo on ilmeisesti melko täydellinen nolauslause. Täytyykin tehdä siitä huoneentaulu jonnekin. Ne onnettomat, jotka erehtyvät kysymään suomennosta, saavat vastaukseksi tuon alkuperäisen myöhässä olevan kanan. Sitten jos kysyvät "täh?", voikin tehdä ratkaisevan iskun katsomalla heitä säälivästi ja lausahtaa "kun lusikalla on annettu...". Lapsia voi ärsyttää sanomalla "ymmärrät sitten kun kasvat aikuiseksi". Hah, sanoi mustapartainen mies, haa! --Pxos (disputatio) 20:32, 19 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio:Planeta lapideus[fontem recensere]

Ave Neander. Fortasse adiuvare potes in disputatione Name and source in "Disputatio:Planeta lapideus". -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:23, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Salve Donatello, Wikipedia Suecica ita incohat: "En stenplanet, eller en jordlik planet är en planet som har en fast yta i form av en skorpa av sten." Si "stenplanet" et "jordlik planet" synonyma sunt, equidem malo titulum q.e. Planeta terrestris, ut proponunt Andreas et Iacobus. Sin autem jordlik planet/planeta terrestris non solum planetam lapideum (stenplanet) significat sed etiam planetam glacialem (isplanet) atque opinabilem planetam carboneum (kolplanet), ut videtur Rursus in disputatione commentationis Suecicae dicere, nescio an distinctis egeamus commentationibus. Sed ego de planetis parum scio, ut possim aliquid certi dicere. Neander (disputatio) 21:18, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ut exactius opinionem meam proponam: Puto Planetam terrestrem, quo plurimae linguae vicipaedianae utuntur, melius dici quam planetam lapideum. Siquidem non solum planetae lapidei sed etiam planetae glaciales et planetae carbonei terrestres (= terrae similes) sunt, eo magis suadeo, ut planetà terrestri utamur titulo. Neander (disputatio) 07:17, 18 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Ashford and die[fontem recensere]

I noticed your Asfordia, Simona Weil's place of death. I also notice that according to en:wiki "in 2005 it was voted the fourth-best place to live in the United Kingdom", which being the case, I'm happy to be living in France. Did you have a source for "Asfordia" or were you keeping your fingers crossed? I intend to continue creating pages for southern English towns soon, so it would be handy to know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 18 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, though it'd be rather easy to derive -fordia from -ford by the crossed-fingers method, too: Universus terrarum orbis scriptorum calamo delineatus, 1713, p.104. I selected Asfordia instead of Asphordia, which smacks of hypercorrectism. Neander (disputatio) 16:15, 18 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How right you are. Thank you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:30, 18 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved back ...[fontem recensere]

... Chantiliacum to Cantiliacum. I wrote at the time of your earlier move that I didn't see any real reason for it, and that "Cantiliacum" accords better with the linguistic history. You didn't reply (maybe you never saw my comment) -- but if you disagree now, by all means say so (Disputatio:Cantiliacum)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 22 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't ever see your comment. Sorry! My primary concern was finding one or more Latin sources for Chantilly, and by change I ran across Chantiliacum in a few sources. I'm glad that you found sources for Cantiliacum. Neander (disputatio) 16:21, 22 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At Abiacum (Carantonus) I assumed that the distinction between i and j wasn't important to you, and I moved to our usual i. I hope that was OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Neander (disputatio) 17:30, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dans mon corps[fontem recensere]

Salve, mi Neander! Curnam tibi displicet verborum Francogallicorum conversionem Latinam lectoribus nostris offerre? Mattie (disputatio) 16:08, 17 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similiter verba Italiana. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:21, 17 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Credidi nos Vicipaedianos plerumque plurilingues esse, sed fortasse erravi. Interpretationem Latinam restitui. ¶ Iacobe, interpretatio Latina "L'era del cinghiale bianco" in capitulo "Cantiones" est. Nonne semel sat sapienti est? Neander (disputatio) 19:48, 17 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Itseironia-apua[fontem recensere]

Hei! Olen suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa nyt kovasti mielenkiinnon kohteena, jossa nimeni nousee esille vähän joka paikassa. Tarvitsisin apua itseironisen lauseen muodostamisessa, jonka tulisi kuitenkin avautua myös ei-latinisteille. Siihen varmaankin sopii tuo klassinen "...Carthaginem esse delendam", josta on ollutkin jo puhe. Haluaisin muodostettavaksi sellaisen lauseen, että voisin humoristisesti sanoa, että kiistakumppanini tuntuu päättävän jokaisen lauseen sanoihin "Ceterum censeo Pxos esse [jalustaltaan poistettava / vallasta syöstävä / esto annettava]". Jos löydät jonkun verbin, joka ei mene liian kauaksi herätteestä "delendam", se olisi hauskaa. --Pxos (disputatio) 16:14, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC) Lisäys: Tai no myönnetään suoraan, ei tuo taida itseironiaa olla lainkaan, mutta kuitenkin. Jos tämä saa sinut tuntemaan itsesi asekauppiaaksi, jätä pyyntö tekemättä :) --Pxos (disputatio) 16:18, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Enpä ole pitkään aikaan vieraillut suomenkielisellä osastolla, joten en yhtään tunne taustaa. No, asekauppiaan moraalia tai ei, niin kovasti aina innostun kaikenlaisesta kääntämisestä. Vallasta syöksemisen ilmaisuksi sopisi keskiajan latinan dethronare (variantti dethronizare), joka on siitä kätevä, että kaikki sen tuntee englannin lävitse. Eli siis: "Ceterum censeo Pxos esse dethronandum" (tai "dethronizandum"). Ei kai tässä tosiaan itseironiasta ole kyse, mutta ironian puolella varmaan liikut, kun annat ymmärtää muidenkin Caton lailla harrastavan takovaa mainontaa. Neander (disputatio) 17:09, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanksis! Onko muuten nimestäni "Pxos" olemassa jotain vokatiivimuotoa? --Pxos (disputatio) 19:47, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Latinan taivutussysteemin kannalta nikkisi on sen verran läpikuultamaton, että on luontevinta hahmottaa se taipumattomaksi substantiiviksi. Neander (disputatio) 20:34, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Käytin wikilöinnin toimintaa kuvaamaan kontaminaatiofraasia "O sancta wikitas". Pyytäisin päivystäjän lausuntoa siitä. --Pxos (disputatio) 12:08, 14 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ensiksi ryppyotsaisen teoreetikon vastaus: -itas-suffiksilla muodostetaan adjektiiveista substantiiveja, kuten tuon tunnetun o sancta simplicitas -fraasin viimeinen sana: simplex (vartalo simplic-) 'yksinkertainen' → simplicitas. Pikku probleema on siinä, että wikitas 'wikisyys' -sanasta puuttuu vastaava adjektiivi, josta se olisi muodostettu. Mutta what the hell, ihan hyvä lohkaisu tuo o sancta wikitas, kun se perustuu niin vahvaan malliin, jossa tulkinnan sävyä ohjaava konteksti on valmiina. Neander (disputatio) 16:21, 14 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hieno vastaus, varsinkin sen viimeinen virke. Kuten huomaat, minulla alkaa olla wikipediassa ns. kivaa. Kun osaat ruotsiakin, kysyn vielä, voiko sanan "puupää" kääntää kirjaimellisesti muotoon "vedhuvud". Varmaan voi, mutta kuulostaako tuo luontevalta sanalta. En etsi typeryksen käännöstä vaan sellaista, jolla on pää tehty puusta. --Pxos (disputatio) 18:19, 14 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pitäisi varmaan tulla vähän tiirailemaan, miten kivaa siellä wikipediassa oikein onkaan tätä nykyä. 'Puupää' on tavanomaisena haukkumasanana ruotsiksi träskalle. Vedhuvud ei tule kysymykseen, koska (1) ved tarkoittaa lähinnä polttopuuta, (2) ruotsinkielinen fokusoi siihen, että haukuttavan henkilön pään kova tukiosa (eli kallo, skalle) on puusta eikä luusta. Vedhuvud kuulostaa lievästi sanoen kryptiseltä, samoin kylläkin myös vedskalle. Neander (disputatio) 20:57, 14 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Neander! Numerus pluralis vocabuli supellex linguae classicae haud affinis esse mihi quidem videtur. Suntne testimonia huius rei? Gratias agens Bavarese (disputatio) 22:57, 2 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profecto recte dicis, Bavarese! Hic mea lingua materna (ubi vocabulum aequale paene plurale tantum est) me in errorem induxit. Cotidie novis exemplis docemur. Tibi gratias ago! Neander (disputatio) 03:41, 3 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traupman: 'piece of furniture' = pars supellectilis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:18, 3 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pars supellectilis nusquam attestatum esse videtur. Timeo, ne usus Anglophonorum (piece of furniture) in Latinitatem Traupmannianam irrepserit. Neander (disputatio) 21:14, 3 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account[fontem recensere]

Salve Neander. As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Vale, —DerHexer (Disp.) 21:49, 16 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

umerus / humerus[fontem recensere]

Salve neander,

gratias tibi ago propter contributionem tuam ad paginam Umerus (os) factam, quam antea ego mutavi. Et mihi erat forma antiqua umerus de lectionibus linguae Latinae familiaris. In professione mea autem medici semper et ubique formam humeros incontro. Credo, quod disputandum est, utrum in nostra encyclopedia vocabula medicinae secundum nomenclaturam hodiernam ubique terrarum adhibitam an secundum fontes primos Latinitatis classicae uti praeferimus. Te in noctem borealem saluto Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 17:14, 24 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Bis-Taurine! Tuam opinionem intellego magnique aestimo. Idcirco paulisper dubitavi, an operae pretium esset titulum a te iam mutatum denuo mutare, nam temere agere nolo. Cum quidem hoc vocabulo utamur non solum de rebus anatomicis disserentes sed etiam metaphorice loquentes aut res perquam cotidianas tractantes — sicut, puta, cum aliquam aliquemve dicimus "albis umeris nitere" aut "nudo umero aliquid portare" — mihi visum est eà formà uti lemmate, quà auctores antiqui plerumque usi sunt. Nihilo minus per me licet utramlibet formam adhibeamus secundum cuiusque gustum. Titulum quidem mutavi, sed si quis in commentatione scribenda "humerum" scripserit, longe abest, ut h litteram delendam censeam. Immo, si in hoc textu de quo agimus "humerum" scribere mavis, nil obstat, quin meas mutationes mutes (dummodo praesens remaneat titulus). Valde gaudeo te, hominem Latine callentem, Vicipaediam Latinam scientià tua augere. Neander (disputatio) 07:21, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hei! Voisitko tulla ajattelemaan ääneen suomenkieliseen Wikipediaan, kielenhuoltosivulle vetó-oikeutta pohtimaan. --Pxos (disputatio) 19:59, 24 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auguramuksis! (Mitähän kiitos mahtaa olla sivistyskielillä? Approximoin jotain sinne päin.) --Pxos (disputatio) 21:45, 26 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De duabus reculis[fontem recensere]

Tibi in pagina usoris mea respondi.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 20:31, 4 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pharnavaz I of Iberia[fontem recensere]

Gratias tibi ago--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 19:02, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Havis Amanda?[fontem recensere]

Onkos patsaan Havis Amanda sana "havis" leikkilatinaa? Siis otettu ruotsin sana "hav", johon on ympätty latinasta tuttu genetiivimuoto? Aika hauska. --Pxos (disputatio) 15:24, 10 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totta puhuen leikkilatinaolettamus tuntuu aika kaukaa haetulta. Itse olen aina kuvitellut, että Havis Amanda on ruotsinkielinen nimitys. Havis käy ihan hyvin ruotsinkielisestä slangisanasta. Neander (disputatio) 16:42, 10 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Neander! An placita tua ibi addere vis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jostain ihme syystä pidän sinua kielenkäytön ylimestarina. En tiedä miksi. No joka tapauksessa, onko sinulle ilmeisesti suomea ja ruotsia loistavasti osaavana ihmisenä tuttu slangitervehdys "moron" merkityksessä "terve, huomenta"? Juuri tuossa kirjoitusasussa. Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa on pohdittu, onko sana ensisijaisesti englantia (= ääliö) vai suomenruotsin slangia. Toki se on molempia, mutta kertoilepa sinä jotain ajatuksiasi. Mikäs tuli ensimmäisenä tuosta otsikosta mieleen? --Pxos (disputatio) 11:17, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ylimestari — heh, kuulostaa vapaamuurarititteliltä. Kirjoitusasun moron nähdessäni tulkitsin sen mielessäni moro-tervehdyksen muunnokseksi. Ruotsissahan on yleinen aamutervehdys gomorron, ja on aika vaikea olla ajattelematta, että moro(n) tulee jotenkin tästä tervehdyksestä. ¶ Katsoin Wikipedian puolelta sinun ja Otrfanin keskustelua. Jos moron-kirjoitusasun katsoo oletusarvoisesti englanniksi (ja on lisäksi omaksunut tänne rantautuneen loukkaantumiskulttuurin eetoksen), niin täytyy todeta, että taitaapa joku katsella tätä maailmaa vähän liikaakin englannin silmälasien lävitse. Neander (disputatio) 17:53, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

af Brunér[fontem recensere]

WP: [3] ja hae sitten Googlella kirjan De clientelae apud Romanos sub Caesaribus ratione kansilehti. Miksi äijän nimi on suuremmalla kirjan kannessa kuin maisterin nimi? Ei taida olla tekijä vaan kenties kustos? Vai kuinka lienee? --Pxos (disputatio) 13:13, 30 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppihistorialliset tietoni ovat niin vaatimattomat, etten uskalla sanoa paljon mitään. Kansilehti tosiaan antaa ymmärtää, että Brunér olisi ollut tilaisuuden puheenjohtaja tai kustos ja Synnerberg työn puolustaja. Onko Synnerberg myös tutkielman ainut tekijä, jää viisaampien pääteltäväksi. Porthan kai aikoinaan kirjoitti dissertaatiot itse, ja opiskelijoiden tehtäväksi jäi niiden julkinen puolustaminen, mutta en tiedä, miten väikkäreitä 1800-luvun alussa tehtiin. Jos Brunér oli vain tilaisuuden kustos, nimen näkyvämpi asemointi saattaisi johtua korkeammasta asemasta akateemisessa hierarkiassa. Tämä on tietysti löyhää spekulointia, jota kuka tahansa pystyy harrastamaan. Neander (disputatio) 05:24, 1 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hullummaksi menee. Tajusin vasta nyt, että asiaahan voi katsoa myös Synnerbergin matrikkelitiedoista sivulta Helsingin yliopiston opettaja- ja virkamiesmatrikkeli 1640-1917. No jos siellä olevassa julkaisuluettelossa lyhenne vk. tarkoittaa väitöskirjaa, niin maisteri Synnerberg on tehnyt niitä peräti kaksi vuosina 1865 ja 1866, mutta näistä ponnistuksistaan huolimatta, mikäli tiedot pitävät paikkansa, hän sai filosofian lisensiaatin arvon vasta kahden vuoden kuluttua 1868 ja tohtorin arvon 1869. Ei näistä ota selvää: mies tekee kaksi väikkäriä ja jää edelleen maisteriksi. Toisaalta af Brunér oli jo tohtori ja professori, joten hän ei enää muodollisesti tarvinnut omaa väitöskirjaa enää mihinkään. Non intellegit Hercules – ei tästä ota Erkkikään selvää. --Pxos (disputatio) 09:59, 1 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samaa rahvaan spekulointia: kyseessä on sanan "dissertatio" suomennos väitöskirjaksi, vaikka ensimmäinen oli Synnerbergin dissertaatio lisensiaatin arvon vuoksi ja toinen oli dissertaatio tohtoriksi. Sitten jostain syystä arvojen myöntäminen viivästyi niin, että vuoden 1865 dissertaatiosta (De clientelae apud Romanos...) hän sai FL-paperit v. 1868 ja toisesta dissertaatiosta (1866) tohtorin paperit vuonna 1869. Toisaalta tällainen kolmen vuoden viivekin tuntuu aivan järjettömältä. Mahtoivatko esi-isät kirjoittaa väitöskirjoiksi kutsuttuja, julkisesti puolustettavia tutkielmia ihan rutiinilla samaan tapaan kuin nykyään tehdään peer reviewed -tyyppisiä julkaisuja ammattilehtiin? Emmätiiä. --Pxos (disputatio) 10:12, 1 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ottaen huomioon, että Saksa on aikanaan ollut suomalaisen eurooppalaisuuden tärkein kiinnekohta, saan noista peräkkäisistä dissertaatioista sen vaikutelman, että on kyse väitöskirjan jälkeisestä habilitoitumisesta (Habilitationsschrift), joka varmistaa, ettei tyyppi ole pelkkä tusinatohtori, vaan sovelias antamaan omalla alallaan ns. korkeinta opetusta keneltäkään lupaa kysymättä. Suomessa tällainen habilitoituminen vastaa dosentin arvon saamista, mikä periaatteessa edellyttää toisen väitöskirjan vertaista tutkimuspanosta. Tämä on siis teoriaa, sillä harvalle dosentille nykyään löytyy liksaa opetuksen järjestämiseksi. Neander (disputatio) 15:45, 1 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De Sibelio[fontem recensere]

Salve, mi Martine. An Sibelium e certamine paginarum mensualium delere voluisti, aut fortasse nomen emendare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delevi, nam pertinaci opinionum controversià (v. novissimam disputationem) oblectationem amisi. Neander (disputatio) 14:14, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A! Mi paenitet. Dixerim ego melius esse pergere. Nonnulli nomina varia ad initium enumerare praeferunt, aliis subiungere malentibus. Commentatio perfecta, mea mente, stylum primarum sententiarum per se iustificabit. Haec autem sine dubio tu tibi iam dixisti ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 1 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De mutationibus celatis[fontem recensere]

Respondi in pagina disputationis mea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:03, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit titled "Julgubben" was written by me. The stupid interface had terminated my session and logged me out, so my IP address was recorded in the logs as well as in the signature that followed the post. By the contents of the edit it would have been a very easy task indeed to connect the IP address to my user name, so therefore I asked a Wikimedia steward to suppress (oversight) the edit from the page history in accordance with Section 1 of the global policy on suppression (Removal of non-public personal information). Even the local administrators cannot see the contents now since it has been hidden from administrators as well as regular users. I decided not to make the edit again as it was not important and I didn't want to connect my name to the edit. But I guess I owe you at least an explanation to clear out the confusion that dwells in the minds of local magistrates. --Pxos (disputatio) 13:12, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for explaining. I had no idea that an edit might get suppressed for that reason. You live and learn. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday evening I had enough circumstantial evidence (the title plus an IP adress echoed in my email) for guessing that it might have been you, Pxos. I'm always ready to answer questions that our 0100100 is unable to answer. 😊 Neander (disputatio) 17:33, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to Mr. Yule Gubb later, but what you said about my IP address is interesting. I understand that you got an email where the IP address is still plainly visible — but how that is also part of the evidence, I cannot fathom. Have you seen that IP address or rather, similar IP addresses before that were used by me? Does the e-mail notification somehow tell you my IP address when I write to you here on your talk page? But yes, evidence can be damaging: by gathering tiny bits of information one can do wonders. --Pxos (disputatio) 17:50, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was of course a piece of cake to figure out from the IP address, roughly, where the epistula interrupta was sent out from, but you're right: technically, it wasn't circumstantial, because I had no way of connecting you with the address. If anything, it only helped in narrowing down the range of search. Neander (disputatio) 19:15, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carpus ossaque eius[fontem recensere]

Bis-Taurinus Neandro aestimato salutem!

Mihi praestare videtur, ut carpus et ossa eius in una commentatione unita sint. Ergo articulum ita recensui. In libris meis carpus et regionem corporis et articulum manus et octo ossa carpalia significare potest. Redigens passim omnes stipulas medicinae hanc praeterii, quia in stipulis biologiae abdita erat. Spero, ut valeas! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:14, 28 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

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

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

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qui hoc nomen habuerint/habeant[fontem recensere]

Burzuchius Neandro s.p.d. "Qui hoc nomen habuerint/habeant". Cur in hac phrasi coniunctivus adhibendus est? Burzuchius (disputatio) 17:40, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Burzuchi! Constat in quaestionibus subordinatis utendum esse modo coniunctivo: Quaeritur, qui hoc nomen habeant/habuerint. In titulis autem coniunctivus adhibetur, si quaestio subauditur: Qui hoc nomen habeant/habuerint (quaeritur). Sed titulum etiam ita intellegere possumus, ut simplicem indicet indicem hominum vel rerum: Ei, qui hoc nomen habent/habueruntQui hoc nomen habent/habuerunt. Credo utramque rationem valere, quamquam coniunctivum prevalere puto. Neander (disputatio) 18:13, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multas gratias ago! Burzuchius (disputatio) 19:31, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keisarinnankivi[fontem recensere]

Hei taas! Helsingissä olevassa keisarinnankivessä on latinaa. Toisessa artikkelissa oli eri muoto tekstistä. Asiaan liittyy vielä se, että teksti ilmeisesti oli välillä Ö-mapissa. Kysynkin, oliko tuossa diffissä ollut, minun poistamani muotoilu ihan virheetöntä latinaa. --Pxos (disputatio) 15:09, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Kuinka monta kertaa olenkaan fillaroinut kyseisen monumentin ohi kuitenkaan pysähtymättä sitä ihmettelemään! Eihän postamasi teksti tosiaankaan vastannut viitteen tekstiä Imperatrici Alexandrae Metropolin Finlandiae primum adventati die XXIX Maji X Juni MDCCCXXXIII. Siinä oli kaksi (kirjoitus?)virhettä, joista toinen on myös Taidemuseon sivulla siteeratussa tekstissä. Outo on nimittäin sanamuoto adventati. Kun minulla ei ole mitään syytä uskoa, ettei julkisen monumentin kirjoittaja olisi osannut latinaa, vieritän nyt tentatiivisesti syyn sille, joka on tekstin Taidemuseon sivulle kopioinut. Arvatakseni sanasta puuttuu yksi kirjain: adventanti ('saapuneelle'). Neander (disputatio) 19:14, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mikä muoto on "Helsingforside"? --Pxos (disputatio) 08:11, 3 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ei mikään. Tekstikriittisesti helpoin arvaus on, että olisi tarkoitettu datiivimuotoa Helsingforsiae ('Hkiin'), joka on mahdollinen advento ('saavun') -verbin yhteydessä. Neander (disputatio) 10:27, 3 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neander,kindly indicate what you find wrong or suspicious. Is there a reason why we shouldn't fix this. Thanks.