Disputatio Vicipaediae:De Latinitate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Translitteratio[fontem recensere]

We're going with ISO? I suppose it's best to have SOMETHING. But for the love of God, please do not render Arabic as t: that's just absurd! --Iustinus 17:43, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iustine, I merely copied Myces' work from VP:TNP.--Ioshus (disp) 17:47, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen locorum[fontem recensere]

I do not understand no. 2:
Nomina loci saepe etiam convertuntur, bonis nominibus Latinis inveniendis (vide fontes nominum locorum). Si nomen loco Latinum non iam est, nomen ne sit convertendum.
"Often place names are converted by finding good Latin names. If the place has not yet a Latin name, don't convert!"
I think this is contradictory. --Alex1011 17:56, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, good point: I meant that gerundive to be purely an indicator necessity in the ablative absolute (i.e. "with good (i.e. correct) Latin names needing to be found"), but it looks an awful lot like it's in a gerund construction (i.e. "by finding good Latin names.") The point is that we shouldn't be making up Latin placenames ourselves. THis brings me to another question: Ioshus, for personal names you contrasted latinizare with convertere, which left me a bit confused about what you meant by convertere for place names. Surely you didn't mean that Tokyo should become Caput Orientale. --Iustinus 18:03, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant latinizare. As I said in my first edit summary, using this computer is a bit like riding a 3 legged burro up a narrow ridge. So I have been a bit hasty. Please clean up what/where you feel necessary, especially if it seems I have made no sense =]--Ioshus (disp) 18:09, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a good example at how bad machine translators are at translating Latin, see this entry in my lj. THough perhaps we should mention {{tiro}} in this section. --Iustinus 01:55, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, at the risk of offense, that you can find great examples of how awful machine translators are at our pages on thomas the train, and the first versions of sailor moon. I fear it happens alot here. Good example, though, maybe we should include here in this section an example of how awful machine translations are.--Ioshus (disp) 02:18, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a table with levels from -9 to +8. Maybe this seems to much. However, just this counts:

  • Is the article -7 or below, then it should be deleted
  • Is the article -4 or below, than it is rather bad
  • Is the article better than -3, then it needs some cleanup
  • An article from -1 to +4 might be of the same quality, when the first author did a good job, because the reviews did not bring up mistakes and he has provided some nice phrases
  • An article at +4 or better can even be a +7, but an la-1 user might not see this

This fine rating makes it easier to rate an article, because it does not really matter if it is -5 or -3, it is a game. Even a beginner could turn a -6 in a -5 by making some cleanup. This could motivate him. And I hope this fine rating will avoid disputes about one or two points more or less.

Another interpretation:

  • we have the "delete" level
  • the "bad" level
  • the "cleanup" level
  • the "ok" level
  • the "good" level
  • the top articles

We could even match that with or Babel levels: la-1, la-2, la-3, ...

Maybe like this:

  • a la-1 might create articles from -6 to -4, maybe better
  • a group of la-1s might create articles from -3 to -1, maybe better
  • a la-2 might create articles from -3 to +4, maybe better
  • a group of la-2 might create articles from -1 to +4 or better
  • a la-3 will mostly create articles at -1 or better

This is just a first idea ...

I think such levels, seen as a game, can improve the quality of our articles.

We need not to rate all articles. It is optional.

--Rolandus 17:58, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of latinitas[fontem recensere]

(Moved this old discussion to here. --Rolandus 09:54, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Just a try ...

Maybe we could have a template {{latinitas}}, used like

  • {{latinitas|-4}} or
  • {{latinitas|2}}

Level Image Description Examples
  • for the specialists
  • for the specialists
  • for the specialists
+9 (we might not need that) perfect latinitas  
+8 or outstanding (just the latinitas!)
  • the en:Vergina Sun looks nice but the laurel might be more "appropriate" ;-)
+7 exemplary (just the latinitas!)  
+6 really good  
+5 nice to read  
+4 looks good
  • some nice phrases (and "looks ok"!)
+3 looks ok (checked three times or more)
  • checked by more than two different editors (la-2 or better)
+2 looks ok (checked twice)
  • checked by two editors (la-2 or better)
+1 looks ok (checked by an la-2 or better)
  • no really bad mistakes
  • no obvious errors
  • done diligently
0 (not rated)  
-1 maybe ok
  • but needs a check
-2 some errors
  • ok, errare humanum est
  • needs a cleanup
-3 many errors
  • but it looks more like sloppyness than inability
-4 mistakes
  • AcI
  • wrong usage of deponents
  • ...
-5 bad mistakes
  • conjugation
  • ...
-6 very bad mistakes
  • declension: genetives, ablatives etc.
  • ...
tiro, we know what you mean (at least we think so)

see Categoria:Paginae tironum

-7 nearly understandable, but only when you try hard
  • automatically {{delenda}} after 4 weeks (JUST A PROPOSAL)
-8 word by word translations, nearly unreadable
  • automatically {{delenda}} after 2 weeks (JUST A PROPOSAL)
-9 looks like Latin but isn't ("perfect nonsense")
  • automatically {{delenda}} after 1 week (JUST A PROPOSAL)
  • machine translated text
  • "Latinized" Romance languages
not even Latin (for pages in the Vicipaedia namespace)
  • the page needs a translation to Latin
comment: I like the idea of having the latinitas of articles rated. The details would of course have to be worked out (how many levels, descriptions for each level in order to reduce subjectivity, …) but I like the general idea very much! --UV 17:47, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Could someone please give an example article for each level of latinitas on the table above, i.e. an article on vicipaedia exemplifying -3, +1, +5 et cetera? -- LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 15:23, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created such a template to play with it. Try levels between -9 (terrible) and +8 (outstanding). Example: {{latinitas|-5}}.

ad: "{{Latinitas}} addimus (cum gradu a 5 ad -5) ut censeamus de Latinitate totius paginae. Hic habes indicem paginarum hoc modo recensarum"

  1. IMO, there are too many levels of Latinity. Who of us are such linguistic watchmakers as to be able to operate in a world of 10 fine-spun distinctions? Not me.
  2. IMO, it's rather pointless to categorise Stipulae for Latinitas.
  3. There are a lot of articles lacking the Latinitas assessment. For example, Ammonius Saccas has none, whereas Arianismus is assessed as L-1 on grounds that escape at least me.
  4. Is the general idea really to end up in such an encyclopedia in which ALL articles will be supplied with Latinitas labels? Personally, I experience the Level of Latinitas labels as an esthetic nuisance in any article (even in the case of L+5). --Neander 21:06, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings on this, Neander. On the one hand, I rather agree with you about the levels. I don't use the template because I'm not always sure about it. "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" is a very simple sentence, but with fine Latinitas. Therefore, how shall we assess it? Beats me.
Secondly, I agree with you about the aesthetic quality of it on pages. It struck me as almost embarassing to see a Latinitas rating at the top of a pagina mensis. It's a featured article, if it doesn't have good Latin, would it really be feautred? Again, beats me.
However, it does seem, at some level, good to have a category for bad articles: people could make systematic cleanups of pages with bad Latinitas. This doesn't happen to much in practice, but it could. And it seems it could be useful to have pages with good Latinitas grouped, so that we might both provide examples to people curious about Vicipaedia, and in case we develop a tool to limit the pagina fortuita to only quality articles. So there is the dichotomy that I see. --Ioscius (disp) 22:01, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, at some level (and only for temporary use), it may seem good to have a 'caveat lector' category. And indeed, whoever adds a (negative) Latinitas rating label at the top of an article should thereby enjoin h**self to make a cleanup of the page, or to have it made. There's not too much contribution in mere label-dropping without cleanup involvements. I can appreciate good intentions, but now we have, as it seems to me, an increasing number of articles rated as L-2, L-1, L+1 – practically for ever. And Iosci, I agree with you about what you say about the pagina mensis. What it tells me is that our rating system doesn't work in practice. That L+5 has no members, L+4, one member, L+3, 6 members (of which 2 stipulae, and 3 ratings by the same person, perhaps in part as a result of self-assessment?) bears witness to my 'non funziona' surmise. Or maybe we really don't have anything to offer, as far as exemplary Latinity goes. :-) In any case, isn't it our by default expectation that in the end all articles be written in decent Latin. Somehow I don't like the idea of having some top Latin pages labelled as our spearheads. (Or if it is a good idea, it could be recommended to the English Wiki as well...)
My suggestion is that the levels of Latinitas be decreased in the name of manageability. And be those labels as enjoining as the "Labor in progressu" tag. And be the labels used with caution (e.g. stipulae shouldn't be rated). Out of c. 14600 pages only c. 700 bear a Latinitas label. And this is, imo, as it should be. Or would it be nice to have all 14600+ pages labeled for Latinitas? Wouldn't that be a bit absurd? But perhaps I've missed something. That wouldn't be the first time in matters bureaucratical. --Neander 01:38, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My strong feeling is that positive Latinity (levels +1 to +5) should not be marked at all, for three reasons: 1. It ought to be normal; 2. Distinguishing between the levels is purely subjective; 3. Any edits on the page may introduce bad Latin. So, personally, I would blank the formulae 1 to 5.
Sometimes {{Latinitas}} (with no variable) seems to get on a page for an unknown reason: thus someone added it to Andreas Dalby (which I happen to watch!) and to Imperium Cossanum, both pages written by Iustinus, who writes enviably well! I have no idea why. So I have no idea whether to change it, or whether it will ever change.
I think some marking of doubtful Latin (current -1 to -5) may be useful. But there has been some rule (I think) that if you edited a page, you couldn't change the level of Latinity. That seems silly! Who else will do it if not the editor? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to revise my comment here. Like Ioscius, I hate seeing positive Latinity bannered at the head of the page, for the 3 reasons I gave. But one category -- approved Latin -- could still be useful to us editors. So I propose that all 5 positive levels be identically marked with a green tick (or something) at the top right (no words: just the one modest mark), and be put into one identical category intended for our use, Category:L +1. I guess Latinitas without a variable could be marked with an orange tick and have its own category, Category:L ??. (I'm not proposing any change for the bad Latin categories, though why each grade creates 2 categories beats me!)
But I do also propose that if you improve a page that is in bad Latin, you should mark your own work {{Latinitas|1}} if you feel confident, or {{Latinitas}} if you feel modest. Anyone else can still improve it further. The improvement is the real purpose of all this.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought. Not a tick. A tiny lion+Romulus+Remus in the top right corner. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I agree with virtually everything you say. Ticks or small lions&c aren't as alarming as labels. --Neander 17:35, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the tick idea. But I also think that all of the yellow/red hammers and crosses are a bit confusing and articles with bad Latinas should just be rated from -1 to -5 with a picture which is less of an eye-sore. I like the tiro category, though, and think that it should stay as it is, as should 'non-latin'. That way there would only be 9 latinas categories, rather that the sprawling mass over at Categoria:Latinitas. I also like what it says in the table above about an editor with la-2 (or over) being able to add a green tick after (s)he has reviewed the article. That may also help if we ever do something about our Random Article button, which generates, much of the time, empty year pages and one-line stubs. --Harrissimo 18:55, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the levels of latinitas[fontem recensere]

I followed the discussion above and I think the topic should be split up into several aspects/questions. Let me try:

  • The question is, whether an article shall be rated at all.
  • The question is, how many levels we want to use.
  • Shall we have fewer levels?
  • Does it make a difference if it is a bad or good article?
  • Do we want every article rated?
  • Why do we want it rated?
  • Do we want the articles rated during the writing process or should a "finished" article also stay rated?
  • Shall we put the articles into categories?
  • Shall each level be mapped to his own category or shall several levels map to the same category?
  • Shall the level be displayed?
  • Shall every level be displayed? How?
  • Who shall rate the articles?
  • What do other Wikipedias think about rating?
  • Where are we different?
  • etc.

Let me give you some thoughts, not sorted:

  • Too many levels? If you have only few levels, there might be more discussions about the level of a specific article. Is it A, B or C? With more levels you can even express a tendency. In fact we have three big categories at the moment: The "too bad" (< -5), the "must be improved" (-5 to -1) and the "is ok" (> +1). If someone had Latin in school for some years, he should be able to write some sentences with level -5 or better. If someone starts studying Latin at college/university, he should be able to write articles at level +1 or better. This does not mean, that he will always write +1 or better: He might be tired or drunken ;-) but if he has time, he will be able to reach this level. That's my general idea about these levels. So these -5 to -1 might correspond with the levels we have in school. If an article gets a -5 level, this could mean: "This article contains mistakes which are typical for a -5 level. " If someone with bad latin reads a -5 or -4 article he should be able to find mistakes. He should not be able to find mistakes in a +1 article. An article in good style might get a level of -5 if it has some bad mistakes. After the errors have been corrected it might get +5, maybe. ;-)
  • Yes, to categorize stipulae seems to be pointless. Rated articles should have a minimum amount of text.
  • Esthethic problems: If we rate an article, this does not mean that we have to categorize it and this does not mean that we have to display a label. We could decide to write {{latinitas|+1}} at top of an article and display nothing and do not categorize the article. Rating/labelling, categorizing and displaying are different things.
  • If we want to display the rating, we could use hammers, we could use wolves, we could put a marker in the upper right corner, maybe we could change the background color. This is up to us and depends on our technical skills. We should even have in mind that the software will be improved. Maybe in future versions a user might have the choice to see just selected pages. He might say: Show me pages only from authors with good latin and articles which have a good latinitas.
  • What shall be "normal"? Each article shall be ok? So we do not need a rating for good articles? This would work if every article would be rated (at first) and then the rating would be removed for good articles. Then "no rating" would mean "good article". Instead of removing the rating for good articles we should simply not display it ... if this is the problem.
  • Why should someone rate an article and not simply improve it? There might be several reasons, for example: 1) He is very bad in latin but found a mistake. He thinks that there might be other such bad mistakes which he is not able to find and wants other users to have a look. 2) Someone wants to mark those articles which might be good material for being improved by beginners. 3) He has not enough time to correct the mistakes. 4) He is not interested in that topic (e. g. Mangas).
  • There is a point we had to think about: Do we want good articles or a project where users of different levels can contribute? This question might sound silly, but it is not. Given the advanced users correct all bad and silly mistakes, the beginners cannot contribute because they will not find any articles to improve. So the advanced users shall not correct silly mistakes? This would not be good for our reputation. The solution is, to label these bad articles. After the bad articles have been improved by beginners, they get a treatment by advanced users. By this procedure we might be more productive. Everybody is working mainly at his level and everybody is exploited at his level (in the capitalistic sense) ;-) So mere label-dropping without cleanup involvements could be part of an efficient approach towards an encyclopaedia with many good articles. We should not lock out the beginners, we should have tasks for them. And we should lead them to the pages they can manage. On page Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis we could ask them to help. This is why it might be useful to have a corpus of bad (but labelled) articles. Strange, isn't it? ;-)
  • Shall all articles be rated? If latinitas is a value for us and everybody is allowed to contribute, I'd say yes. It is a mechanism of quality control. And it is just accepting the facts. There are very few people who have a level of latinitas equivalent to a native speaker. There are millions of people speaking/writing decent English or German. So it is possibly to create an encyclopaedia only by the help of those people. I think for many years the Latin Wikipedia will be either very incomplete or just a collection of stubs in horrible Latin. The latinitas template is a way to deal with this situation: The latinitas template splits up our encyclopaedia into 1) those fine but few pages which have been written by those few abeled authors and 2) these thousands of stubs. - The latinitas template is the confessment that good Latin is not "normal" and shows a possible way to cope with this problem: To increase the number of people which can contribute, even bad Latin is accepted, but the articles are labelled. Then some of these bad pages will be improved to have an acceptible level. It will take a veeeeeeery long time to have 500.000 pages in decent Latin, so it is a good idea to provide some fun for the people while we are on the way ;-)
  • The Latin Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias. I think "writing a Latin Wikipedia" is a vision, not a milestone. It is the direction we want to go, but it will be a looooong way. And we will not be an encyclopaedia for a loooong time. Just a collection of stubs. We should accept this. The latinitas template is a method to select this part of our collection which could be called "encyclopaedic" already.
  • Ok: "stubs". I think we should appreciate stubs as long as they have an interwiki link. Such stubs map the Latin language to other languages. They could be seen as an invitation to join. We should not be distressed by them. We cannot be an encyclopaedia at the moment. This is a work in progress. Stubs with interwiki links (!) are a tool, not a pain. They link us to other languages and possible contributors. Do not misunderstand me: Stubs without an interwiki link are a pain. They do not attract anybody, they should be avoided. Page Vicipaedia:Pagina says "Noli creare stipulas!". This might be ok for Wikipedias with a lot of native speakers. We should have another strategy. Stubs with interwiki links (!) should be appreciated. We should rethink this "Noli creare stipulas!", at least be more specific.
  • "Any edits on the page may introduce bad Latin." - This is a problem, really. For traditional reasons we have {{latinitas|maxcorrigenda}} and {{maxcorrigenda}}. I think this could be the solution: The scope of {{latinitas}} should be the whole page. If someone adds new content he should also add a rating for the paragraph if the content is worse than the page's latinitas. At the moment {{maxcorrigenda}} is displayed as a red dot to indicate that difference. This has not been spoken out, but this is what I had in mind when I created the icons for {{latinitas}}. You might realize that I am trying to get rid of {{maxcorrigenda}} where it means {{latinitas|maxcorrigenda}}. The cleanup has not be finished yet. This is also the reason why we have a Categoria:L -5 and a parallel Categoria:Latinitas -5 (maxcorrigenda) ;-)
  • {{Latinitas}} (with no variable) simply means: "This page should be rated." Sometimes I put this template on pages which seem ok to me and which should be promoted in my opinion, like Andreas Dalby. Why I do not rate it myself? I do not feel abeled enough but from the circumstances, I guess this page is ok. So it should get this ok-label. Yes, as I said, I think all pages should be labelled ... ;-) (the bad ones and the good ones for different reasons)
  • "if you edited a page, you couldn't change the level of Latinity" - This is a misunderstanding. I think this rule might be a good idea (only) for the levels +1, +2, +3 which are different from the others. They should indicate that the article has been verified by an advanced user. +3 should mean that 3 advanced users have checked the article and did not find mistakes. Such an article should be rather ok, I think ;-)
  • As you can see, this +1, +2, +3 follow another philosophy. Maybe the better philosophy for "good" articles. If 10 advanced users did not find a mistake they wanted to correct, the article should be ok. At the moment I do not see a way to support this philosophy technically. If we had a system where every user can mark an article with "I did not find mistakes", it might tell us something if the rating was done by 10 users of la-1 or 5 users of la-3. As I said, at the moment I do not see a chance to support this concept technically but to me it seems rather elegant and useful.
  • The English Wikipedia has also introduced a rating of articles, they put the rating on the talk page and make statistics, see en:Talk:Dance. Of course they do not care about "Anglicitas". It is normal to write in decent English ;-) See also Vicipaedia:Aestimatio. They rate the content and the relevancy. Luckily we are rather liberal what concerns the "relevancy" and because of known reasons most of our articles have poor content. But we could concentrate on Latinity. Maybe this is one of the main reasons someone might want to visit us. He is interested how the topic could be written in Latin. In most cases someone should better consult the English Wikipedia, if he simply wants to learn more about a topic. (Not the German Wikipedia: They might have deleted the article because of insufficient "relevancy" ...) So, if Latinitas is a value for us, we should rate each page. On the long run.
  • For a well-educated ancient Roman citizen we might be just a crowd of barbarians who want to build up an encyclopaedia. So we have our own rules, strategies and tools which are sometimes different from other wikipedias. The template {{latinitas}} is a tool. Where it is not useful, we should adopt it.

--Rolandus 12:17, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating series of comments. Here are a few very quick reactions:
  • I think we should appreciate stubs as long as they have an interwiki link. I agree with this very strongly. They also build up the whole multilingual quality of Wikipedia. I have often added stubs to other-language Wikis for exactly this reason.
  • If someone adds new content he should also add a rating for the paragraph if the content is worse than the page's latinitas. I don't think that's realistic. Most editors, especially the anonymous ones, have no idea about the level of their Latin and couldn't be got to adopt any such system.
  • On the positive ratings, +1 to +5, I never understood that there was an intention to count the number of users who had judged the page. That doesn't seem to have happened. I thought the idea was to judge levels of Latinitas. But that hasn't happened much either. From my personal point of view, I decided from the beginning not to touch it. You see, I have time to glance at an article and think, "This reads well", but I don't usually have time to read all through an article and consider the vocabulary and grammar of every sentence.
  • I agree again, very strongly, about the difficulty of the job we've taken on, about the length of time it will take, and about the desirability of having a marking of acceptable articles. I still think that a positive rating is useful, but not so explicit, and definitely not a series of levels. We are putting ourselves on the line by broadcasting "This page's Latin has been checked, ... twice checked, etc." This just invites and justifies the criticism of some who have been known to tell us -- "Those people at Vicipaedia are terrible at Latin!" That's why I still suggest, and I personally could work with, a system mainly intended for ourselves: a simple mark that tells us we think this page is basically OK.
  • And finally, yes, the negative ratings are very useful. I certainly use them and appreciate them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I agree with your comments. The concept is a bit more realistic now. ;-) And the reason you give for having only few ratings counts much. Fine, because I could not consent to the "too much administration" argument. ;-) --Rolandus 15:20, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One question:
How do I figure out my level of latin competence? I would be satisfied with someone telling me outright latin-x whatever x might be. I know I'm not an expert at all but I know these days I'm better than most beginners. Maybe a test or set of example sentences to read and compare would be useful for self-rating.
One observation:
Recently I've been labeling my articles -2 until I'm satisfied I've done the best I can and then I either label them 0 or +1 depending on my confidence on the latin.
One comment:
There are indeed way too many levels of latinitas as evidenced by how very few articles are in >+2 level. Perhaps it would be rational to reduce the number of separate levels above 2?
--Rafaelgarcia 15:51, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a formula which will display a small green button in the upper right corner of a page: {{latinitas-bona}}. It could be used for pages with {{latinitas}} >= +1. Or we could display a small black wolf at this position and display the star at the left of the wolf, because each article which has a star, should have a wolf, too ... means: should be written in decent Latin. --Rolandus 09:34, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About "How do I figure out my level of latin competence": Well, I guess we should just trust people with what they have in their babel box. If you set them a passage, they could just turn to Words etc. unless you said "Do it in 100 seconds" or something like that.
About ticks, dots, she-wolves etc.: I modified Rolandus' formula, to make the orange (see Valetudinarium Generale Ledesiae) and green ticks (see 999), which I prefer to the "R&R avec le she-wolf". I think that any formula we use should be categorised so that maybe if we upgrade Pagina fortuita ever, there doesn't need to be a mass categorisation. Do any of you prefer the green dot/she-wolf? How should we rate latinitas -1 to -5, considering that some (including myself) are not fans of the present boxes? --Harrissimo 23:32, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "How should we rate latinitas -1 to -5"—In part, it's a judgment about the ratio of horror to voluptas. Here's a set of possibilities:
-5: Cyrenae -arum, f. (or Cyraenae) antiquus urbs Graecus in moderna Libya est, appropinquo frontero Egypti.
-4: Cyrenae -arum, f. (sive Cyraenae) antiqua urbs Graeca in hodierna Libya fuit, appropinquo confinio Aegypti.
-3: Cyrenae -arum, f. (sive Cyraenae) fuit antiqua urbs Graeca in hodierna Libya, prope confinia Aegypti.
-2: Cyrenae -arum, f. (sive Cyraenae) fuit antiqua urbs Graeca in Libya, prope confinia Aegypti.
-1: Cyrenae (-arum, f. pl.), sive Cyrene (-es, f.), fuit antiqua urbs Graeca in Libya, prope confinia Aegypti.
+1: Cyrene (-es, f.), sive Cyrenae (-arum, f. pl.), fuit antiqua urbs Graeca in Libya, prope confinia Aegypti.
Now it stands ready for any stylistic improvements that knowledgeable writers might make. IacobusAmor 01:35, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, Iacobe. I have taken the liberty of making your -5 and -4 just slightly worse than you could manage. Is that OK?
Oh, I suppose so. That version really is worse! The original -5 was the first published version of that article. IacobusAmor 13:07, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I like the little green button best of all. It's a neat trick to make the star simply conceal it. Whatever we choose, I agree with Harrissimo that it should be categorized (maybe Categoria:L +1), and (if possible) I think that current formulae {{Latinitas}} 1 to {{Latinitas}} 5 should be redirected to it, or made identical to it. Is that possible? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between -1 and +1 seems to be a difference in facts cited rather than a difference of latinitas. Judging latinitas is difference from judging the accuracy of an article.--Rafaelgarcia 12:25, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I think maybe +1 should still depend on someone else having read the stuff. We all make mistakes.
To match Rolandus's latinitas-bona I have made a formula {{Inspicienda}} which puts in an orange dot, adds the category Categoria:L ??, and is intended for any new page of more-than-stub length that the author thinks is OK. I have put it on my own last 3 new pages (see list). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The difference between -1 and +1 seems to be a difference in facts cited rather than a difference of latinitas."—Surely it's bad Latinitas to prefer a rare or impossible word for a lemma! Note that the only difference between my -2 and -1 is that the -1 example has been made consistent with Vicipaedia's current style. IacobusAmor 13:07, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's non-Latina:
Cyrenae -orum, f. (or Cyraenae) ist antiquus urbanus Grecus in moderna Libya, quis erit appropinquo la frontera de Egyptus.
Of course the possibilities are endless. IacobusAmor 13:13, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to propose a rule, then (or perhaps an aim rather than a rule). New pages, and other pages when possible, should get either a stipula (if very short) or a Latinitas rating.

  1. The first author can add {{L?}} (or one of the existing {{Latinitas}} minus ratings if sure that the Latin is bad ...!)
  2. Any of us who comes along to a new page without {{L?}} should add it; or, after editing if necessary, can make it {{L1}}; or can give a {{Latinitas}} minus rating; or, if it's too short, can add a {{Stipula}}. Any reader/editor, after the first author, should try to make sure a new page has either L? or L1 or a minus rating or a stipula. Anyone who feels happy about doing so should replace L? with one of the other ratings.

Would that work?

These L1 and L? are alternatives to Latinitas-bona and Inspicienda: I just created them as redirects because they are nice and short to type. At the moment they produce the dots. If we want to change them to ticks or something else, no problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 21 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited my proposal above. Put it down to hasty drafting. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 21 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said yet that this is a bad (or good) proposal. I'll copy it to Disputatio Formulae:Latinitas#A revised proposal for Latinitas grading and invite comments at the Taberna. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The small buttons in the corner[fontem recensere]

Two technical notes:

  1. Different levels of latitinitas (which we are using now) could be mapped to the same category or could be displayed identically. Template {{latinitas}} uses a switch-statement to generate the different output depending on the parameter. It's quite simple to change that.
  2. We do not need extra templates {{latinitas-bona}} or {{Inspicienda}}. We could merge the code into {{latinitas}}.

The only thing to be decided is, what we should display/categorize for each parameter of {{latinitas}}. --Rolandus 16:05, 20 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Latinitate Vicipaediae[fontem recensere]

ok on the navigation bar that is in the articles, it shouldnt be celare it should be cela because cela is the command form, celare means "to hide" -- Usor:

Sed cur in lingua Anglica vertis? Si loquimur Latine de operationibus computatri, bene utimur forma infinitiva quod exprimit significationem fundamentalem verbi.
But why must you translate it into English? If we're talking about computer functions in Latin, it's quite logical to use the infinitive, because the infinitive expresses the basic meaning of the verb. Forget the English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:29, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For previous discussion of this topic, see Disputatio:Pagina_prima/Tabularium2#Infinitives vs. imperatives (it's an archive, so please do not try to edit further). (Though I'm sure both Andrew and I woudl love to reply to that last comment about Cato). --Iustinus 01:09, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usus linguae Anglicae[fontem recensere]

Non coheret ad finem Latinae Vicipediae. Non vetetur usus linguae Anglicae, sed neque consiliatur. Et in disputationibus usus Latini est optimus. Si contrarietas non est, procedo ad modificationem. 09:57, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videris scire id contrarietatem esse ut removisti sententiam ex pagina nostra. Tibi consentior: usus Latini sermonis est optimus modus conloquendi, at levior esto. Necesse est nobis permultas res disputare. Saepe tempus conservatur, barbarice disputantes. Bene vale.--Ioscius (disp) 12:33, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Credo nostram esse morem omium Vicipaediarum. Omnes Vicipaediae in disputationis paginis suis omnes linguas sermonis sinunt. Et nota non omnes Vicipaediani linguam latinam adaeque bene dicere, sed quisque agit quod potest. --Rafaelgarcia 13:51, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulae propositae[fontem recensere]

Is there any serious dispute over these rules? Could we remove the formula {{Regulae propositae}}? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Andrew, my idea was actually to put that on all our Vicipaedia: pages. Similar to the disclaimer/apologia at the top of the English Wikipedia: pages. Perhaps you don't like the wording? I only mean to declare that these rules have been accepted and developed by our users, and therefore should not be edited without gaining consensus in the disputatio. I am open to changing the rhetoric, if it does not serve that purpose, as is.--Ioscius (disp) 21:25, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is a good one of asking people not to modify the rules but to discuss them on the disputatio page. Yet I think the wording is actually doing a bit more in calling them "proposed rules". For one thing, it is encouraging debate. Another is that it is suggesting that the rules aren't necessarily to be followed. Perhaps this is the aspect that these two aspects are what Andrew is paying attention to.--Rafaelgarcia 23:16, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following rewording: "Hae sunt regulae Vicipaedianae quae hodie ad Latinitatem spectant. Si illas regulas disputas, quaesumus ne leges hic mutet nisi primitus consensus obtineas in pagina disputationis. "--Rafaelgarcia 23:27, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or more generally: "Hae sunt regulae Vicipaedianae quae hodie ad hanc causam spectant. Si illas regulas disputas, quaesumus ne leges hic mutet nisi primitus consensus obtineas in pagina disputationis. "--Rafaelgarcia 23:30, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they start out as hae regulae, they shouldn't become illas regulas. Ergo: Si eas disputas? And if they start as regulae, shouldn't they stay that way and not become leges? IacobusAmor 00:46, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. More consistently: "Hae sunt regulae Vicipaedianae quae hodie ad hanc causam spectant. Si eas disputas, quaesumus ne eas hic mutet nisi primitus consensus obtineas in pagina disputationis. "--Rafaelgarcia 01:01, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it; I didn't make my point clear, Iosci, but Rafael saw it anyway. The word "propositae" appeared (to me) too tentative. I like the suggested new wording ... I like the picture, too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine, Andrew, you can surely see that is was an ad hoc attempt at first. But let's pick apart the grammar just a little:
Hae sunt regulae Vicipaedianae quae hanc ad causam spectant. Si eas disputas, quaesumus ne eas hic mutes prius in pagina disputationis consensum quam obtinueris.
How's that look?--Ioscius (disp) 15:45, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is 4th declension so accusative is consensus.Obintineris is 2nd person passive, so "you are obtained"? --Rafaelgarcia 16:13, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we getting a consensus? Or many consensuses? If the former, consensum is certainly the right form, 4th declension or otherwise. Obtineris is, as you suggest, 2nd person passive, obtinUeris, on the other hand, is future perfect indicative active . . . --Ioscius (disp) 16:16, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I yes, I quite agree and concede. I have to restudy 4th declension nouns. To err twice in a row. Ugh!!!--Rafaelgarcia 16:51, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem =] Just remember EVERYTHING that isn't a weird third declension neuter ends in -m in accusative singular.
As for priusquam + fut perf, here's North's and Hillard's note:
When the temporal clause refers to Future time, the verb will be in the Future (or Fut. Per.) in Latin, though in English the Present is preferred: "nos ante abibimus quam tu redieris".
--Ioscius (disp) 17:12, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to ammend it so say : "Hae sunt regulae vel commendationes Vicipaedianae quae hanc ad causam spectant...."? THat way it could be put on Vicipaedia:Pagina.--Rafaelgarcia 19:20, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would depend, as I see it, on whether we care enough about these rules for them to be rules, or if we only care enough for them to be recommendations.--Ioscius (disp) 19:30, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just proposing to make a blanket statement covering both rules and recommendations. Maybe then vel->et: "Hae sunt regulae et commendationes Vicipaedianae quae hanc ad causam spectant...."? --Rafaelgarcia 21:42, 15 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quali Latinitati studemus?[fontem recensere]

I greatly admire those of you who give their time and effort to this project. Reading through the Latin Wikipedia as a newcomer, however, it struck me how unidiomatic much of the Latin is in here. Let me just give you two examples from this page: "Si eas disputas" - disputo means 'discuss', not 'dispute' in classical Latin. "Cum bona Latinitate scribendae" - surely the 'cum' is no good here? In the articles, sentences are often extremely short and simple, something Latin authors would have avoided. And much reads like a verbatim translation from English, using similar structures and words. Now it is clear that few of us can write impeccable Ciceronian Latin. But I wonder just how much this is aimed at for a start. When I studied Latin, we were taught that we should model our writing on the classical authors and avoid barbarisms. So my question is: Should the Latin Wikipedia be in a language that employs Latin vocabulary and sticks to the rules of Latin grammar but is otherwise modern, or should it try to use classical style at least to a degree that would render the text hypothetically intelligible to an ancient Roman? [Scripsit noster amicus sine nomine]

On the first point, it may indeed be better to say "Si cum ea dissentias,". Another way to look at the sentence is to translate into english as "If you debate these" because debate is a second meaning of disputas and the meaning is not that far off. But I think the phrase "si cum ea dissentias " is closer to the intended meaning. I'm not sure of the second point, the phrase is "Latine et cum bona Latinitate" meaning "in Latin and with good latinity" I don't think there is anything wrong there... The third point regarding sentence length is mostly a style question. Most of us are not great latinists obviously and so shorter sentences are easier. Although I do agree some sentences are so short that even they are too short for english and some articles are so short that they are obviously not finished. But keep in mind also this is an encyclopedia. We are not trying to produce art or high literature. We are trying to convey thoughts not write poetry. I don't see anything wrong with short sentences per se.--Rafaelgarcia 22:27, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know (I admit not much), the cum should be after the bona or not be there at all. This is because latinitas is not a living thing ("inanimate object"). Sure, there's latinitas viva, but I'm not sure latin holds itself in such a high regard. Some examples I can remember are hastis vulneratus (rather than ab hastis) and and magna cum diligentia (rather than cum magna diligentia). Harrissimo 23:19, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yes but in this case there are two "withs" Latine and bona latinitate. So you need a cum somewhere, I think.--Rafaelgarcia 23:40, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call an adverb 'with' - but naturally you can opt to put in the post-adjective cum. Harrissimo 00:09, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Why would it need a cum at all?! Not the bare ablative of manner? IacobusAmor 00:38, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are quite alright Latine is an adverb not an ablative.--Rafaelgarcia 00:53, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way do feel free to improve the latinity of our pages if you can. I noticed that you didn't parse the above sentence correctly by associating scribendae in scribendae est with the phrase preceding in the ablative. And also you wrote else where "Valde miror disputationum auctores lingua britannica uti." I don't think this was grammatical. I translate as-> "I am truly surprised at the discussion that authors use the english language." It should be Valde miror in disputationibus auctores lingua anglica uti" So I am guessing your latinity is quite there either. This is in part why alternative languages are allowed on discussion pages. I don't mean to critical but the spirit here is to contribute, improve, and learn, rather than criticise.--Rafaelgarcia 22:45, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: <<And also you wrote else where "Valde miror disputationum auctores lingua britannica uti." I don't think this was grammatical. I translate as-> "I am truly surprised at the discussion that authors use the english language.">>—Almost! I take it to mean 'I'm really astonished that the authors of disputations make use of the Britannic language'. IacobusAmor 00:38, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops yup you're right, my error. "Disputationum" not "Disputationem", Our friend's whose sentence is fine at is!--Rafaelgarcia 00:52, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salvere iubeo te, advena! Gratum te salutamus collegam speramusque fore, ut tuis Vicipaediam locupletes scriptis. Licet omnes non simus Ciceronianae Latinitatis periti, tamen est laudanda bona voluntas: equidem credo unumquemque nostrum cras melius quam hodie Latine callere. Itaque unitis viribus operam navemus! --Neander 23:12, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I would never have expected 6 replies after a couple of hours! Gratias ago maximas. I'll certainly try to add to the articles as much as I can. I certainly didn't mean to criticise, I was just curious what sort of 'Latinitas' you were aiming for, since I didn't find any explanation on the site. As for the small points: 1) How about 'si legem vis repudiare'? 2) I would probably omit the 'cum', or maybe 'Paginae sermone tam malo conscriptae'. 3) In the quoted sentence 'disputationum' should be taken with 'auctores' (authors of discussions).

Actually, amice sine nomine, the issues you've raised are quite pertinent, and they've been discussed here before (but the location of the discussions eludes me right now). We have participants at all levels of knowledge: a few, as their texts prove, can't have studied Latin for more than a few hours before plunging in; a few are virtually native speakers; and then there was the famed Avitus, who added beautifully fluent texts while intentionally violating several of Vicipaedia's typographical customs, and then seems to have left. Most of us do what we can. ¶ As for Latin of the Golden Age versus Neolatin, maybe Vicipaedia will eventually split into two wikis along those lines—but for now, we must all try to get along! ¶ Please make a page for yourself and join the fun! IacobusAmor 01:48, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last speaker ... except that I prefer not to foresee a future containing multiple Latin wikipedias. Anyone who can read classical Latin can read Biblical Latin, medieval Latin, Neolatin ... they are in some ways different standards, but from another point of view they are the work of people who were aiming at the same standard, just not hitting it. That's true of our work here as well! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Neo-Latin split-off is the last thing this project would need. I've tried to improve the style of this page in a few places. I couldn't change the first sentence: 'Hae sunt regulae Vicipaedianae quae hanc ad causam spectant. Si cum ea dissentias, quaesumus ne eas hic mutes prius in pagina disputationis consensum quam obtinueris.' Cum ea seems not right. I would recommend a version like: 'Sequuntur regulae Vicipaedianae hanc ad causam spectantes. Si regulam vis repudiare, quaesumus ne mutes textum nisi prius ceterorum assensum adeptus es in pagina disputationis.' And sorry for not signing the previous comments, I didn't know how to. Usor:Ceylon

I strongly support Ceylon's version (tho replacing Vicipaedia's favourite archaism "quaesumus" by the more prosaic "rogamus"): Si regulam vis repudiare, rogamus ne mutes textum nisi prius ceterorum assensum adeptus es in pagina disputationis. --Neander 16:43, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style of headings[fontem recensere]

Ceylon, for familiar traditional reasons, you've been changing headings like "Nomina" to "De nominibus." My impression is that the consensus among Vicipaedians has been to compromise with the modern world enough to put headings in bare nominatives, just as in some contexts it puts dates in compressed forms, like "obiit 5 Ianuarii 2008." Is that still the consensus? If you start changing headings now, you'll make the general style more & more inconsistent until you've changed thousands of other ones! IacobusAmor 17:30, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out to me before it's too late, even though I swear I wasn't planning on changing thousands of pages! However I must admit that the bare noun style does look odd in Latin. It's the same with book titles: In English you can call a book 'Customs of the Romans', but if translated into Latin this would either have to be 'De moribus Romanorum' or possibly 'liber qui inscribitur Mores Romanorum'. But if that is the consensus, I'll be happy to comply. Ceylon
I confess I've been violating the consensus (the rational basis of which escapes me) in my articles Aristoxenus, Bacchae, etc, and I truly hope nobody will change my headings for the sake of a new-fangled convention that goes against the Latin style of presenting an argument. As always, I'm pleading for tolerance in matters of taste. --Neander 18:37, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A precisation: They're of course not "my" articles, but so far I've been the major contributor. Everybody is welcome to contribute. --Neander 19:38, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those articles, you used both styles, including titles such as Argumentum fabulae and Elementa harmonica (in this case the title of a book that is the subject of the section). I suppose the difference is that when there is a "De" the section elaborates an argument or discussion of the subject, versus a presentation of someone else's argument?--Rafaelgarcia 19:50, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that at the very least we are not recommending have page titles start with De.--Rafaelgarcia 19:51, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But at least we seem not to lack such pages; witness e.g. De bello Peloponnesiaco, De gestis regum Anglorum, De instructione principis. --Neander 21:41, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but those are titles of books. And, yes, OK, Neander, they help to prove your point that such titles are natural in Latin ...
Yes, and I think the title of a page should be seen more technically. If we used the "De xy" in page titles, all our links had to be written as [[De xy|xy]]. --Rolandus 21:59, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the titles of pages are bare nominatives, the subtitles have a strong reason for also being bare nominatives, no? IacobusAmor 20:19, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I fail to see the logic behind such a stipulation. Maybe I'm missing sthing (hope it's not serious ...  :-)  --Neander 21:10, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be left to editorial choice. What would we lose? I can't see anyone being confused if a section heading is or is not begun with a De. Everything is editable, but it would be pointless to edit a page just to change from ==De vita== to ==Vita== or vice versa. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:52, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between a lemma, for which Latin lexica use the nominative, and chapter headings, which should preferably read 'De + abl.' if they indicate the subject-matter of what is to follow. In other words, no need to change titles of articles if you ask me. --Ceylon 03:36, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And (for the reason that Rolandus gives above) from a practical point of view it would be highly undesirable to begin page titles (lemmas) with De. Please let's leave them out of this! The only reason for page titles to begin with De is if they are about a book (or something similar) whose real title begins with De.
But in section headings (e.g. ==(de) vita==, I suggest, editors should have some freedom of choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceylon, you should sign your posts to the diputatio pages with the symbols --~~~~ There is a button at the top of the editing window to make it easy.--Rafaelgarcia 17:59, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, it could certainly become glaringly unaesthetic if a large page with many subtitles had every section beginning with de. Maybe it's a stylistic fault of my own, but in my pages (and Neander, surely we know what you mean by using a possessive adjective in front of a work for which you were the major contributor, I certainly, for instance, consider infinitas "mine" though I am certainly indebted to many people in writing that), I tend to use a lot of subtitles. And well, let's look at that, shall we?

Nom Abl
  1. De signo
  2. Sententiae de Infinitate per historiam
    1. Sententiae antiquae Orientales
      1. Yajurveda
      2. Genni
    2. Sententiae priores Europaeae
      1. Pythagoras
      2. Parmenides et Zeno Eleaticus
      3. Aristoteles
      4. Archimedes
    3. Sententiae Mediaevales
      1. Guillelmus de Ockham
    4. Sententiae a Renascentia usque ad hodiernum diem
      1. Galilaeus
      2. Lockius
    5. Sententiae hodiernae
      1. Blake
      2. Cantor
      3. Wittgenstein
  3. Infinitas in mathematica
    1. Proprietates infinitatis arithmeticae
      1. Infinitas secum
      2. Aequationes cum infinitate purisque numeris
      3. Operationes indefinitae
      4. Alia notanda
    2. Infinitas in analysi reali
    3. Infinitas in geometria
      1. Torricellius
  4. Infinitas in fictione scientiae
  1. De signo
  2. De sententiis de Infinitate per historiam
    1. De sententiis antiquis Orientalibus
      1. De Yajurveda
      2. De Gennis
    2. De sententiis prioribus Europaeis
      1. De Pythagora
      2. De Parmenide et Zenone Eleatico
      3. De Aristotele
      4. De Archimede
    3. De sententiis Mediaevalibus
      1. De Guillelmo de Ockham
    4. De sententiis a Renascentia usque ad hodiernum diem
      1. De Galilaeo
      2. De Lockio
    5. De sententiis hodiernis
      1. De Blake
      2. De Cantor
      3. De Wittgenstein
  3. De infinitate in mathematica
    1. De proprietatibus infinitatis arithmeticis
      1. De Infinitate secum
      2. De aequationibus cum infinitate purisque numeris
      3. De operationibus indefinitis
      4. De aliis notandis
    2. De infinitatibus in analysi reali
    3. De infinitate in geometria
      1. De Torricellio
  4. 4 De infinitate in fictione scientiae

Well, now that I type that, it doesn't look as bad as I thought. I dunno . . . --Ioscius (disp) 07:35, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is too subtle, but I would only recommend "De" if it really does contain the subject-matter, the theme so to speak. So Sententiae could stay, same for Alia notanda, but De proprietatibus etc. looks nicer than Proprietates. As far as names of persons are concerned in the above example, neither option really works very well. Maybe De Wittgensteinii sententia, or Quid sensuerit Wittgenstein. --Ceylon 08:23, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, certainly if I were going to use de primarily I would change things so they were more like de Wittgensteinii sententia. I just did it like this for an extreme example.--Ioscius (disp) 15:41, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, as Ceylon suggests above, that "De X" and "X" aren't always interchangeable. Admitting the subtlety of the matter, I'd put "De X" if the heading is supposed to tell about something ("De signo..."; "De infinitate in mathematica"; "De proprietatibus..."; "De infinitate in fictione scientiae"), but when it comes to what boils down to enumerating something under a given heading, it would be odd to use "De X". In the above table, Iosci, most stuff does quite well without "De" (though I endorse to what Ceylon says about the names -- but perhaps this is too subtle, after all). --Neander 15:31, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I'd say we're fairly in agreement.--Ioscius (disp) 16:52, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Latin[fontem recensere]

We don't yet have a rule concerning our preference of classical Latin as far as I know. Is this agreed and should we have a separate consilium page for this? A mos? Or just put somwehere it on this page? Harrissimo 20:22, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Something like the following? Vicipaediam scribenti semper ante oculos sit exemplum aureae quae dicitur Latinitatis. Omnia quae ad artem grammaticam spectant accommodanda sunt regulae antiquitus observatae. Vocabulis utendum est eis, quae apud scriptores antiquos, i.e. qui ante saeculum quintum p. Chr. n. vixerunt, inveniuntur, nisi forte res ipsa veteribus adhuc ignota erat. Quae res vocabulis infimae, i.e. mediae et recentioris, Latinitatis appellentur, si exstant. Si verum et his testibus egemus, ad Indices neolatinos refugiendum est. Noli autem vocabula nova fingere.--Ceylon 20:53, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good job. We can of course link that last sentence to one of our favourite rules and maybe when I've made the category publicationes utiles we can link that into both this bit and the noli fingere page to help people who need to find the neolatin sources. Do the ceteri communitatis approve? Harrissimo 21:10, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Harrissimo said, to begin with, "Is this agreed?" Amicus sine nomine though I am, I have to say that I would be in favor of a more ecumenical approach to the Latinity of our contributors. If someone's primary exposure to Latin comes from reading the Vulgate, or Bernard of Clairvaux, and that is their stylistic goal, why should we begrudge them that?

"lingua Anglica toto in orbe terrarum intelligitur"?[fontem recensere]

Re vera "lingua Anglica toto in orbe terrarum intelligitur"? - Marcus

"In the four centuries since the time of Shakespeare, English has changed from a relatively unimportant European language with perhaps four million speakers into an international language used in every continent by approximately eight hundred million people" (Loreto Todd & Ian Hitchcock, International English Usage, 1986; quoted in the Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1992). Et Todd & Hitchcock scripserunt abhinc annos viginti tres, cum pauciores homines quam nunc Anglicá linguá utebantur. IacobusAmor 04:23, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is, English has changed and will continue to change. Where as Latin will be be neutral and fairly consistent or unchanging not only across cultures but across time as well.--Jondel 16:50, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse, sed... (ex wikipedia Hispanica):
tras el chino mandarín, [Spanish] es la lengua más hablada del mundo por el número de hablantes que la tienen como lengua materna. Es también idioma oficial en varias de las principales organizaciones político-económicas internacionales ... Lo hablan como primera y segunda lengua entre 450 y 500 millones de personas, pudiendo ser la segunda lengua más hablada considerando los que lo hablan como primera y segunda lengua. Por otro lado, el español es el segundo idioma más estudiado en el mundo tras el inglés, con al menos 17,8 millones de estudiantes, si bien otras fuentes indican que se superan los 46 millones de estudiantes distribuidos en 90 países.
--Xaverius 17:15, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omnino consentio quod omnia commercia aut Latine debeant fieri aut omnibus in linguis. Multi sunt homines qui ingorent linguam Anglicam ne plurima faciam de textibus quos conficere debeant miseri illi... Artaynte (disputatio) 16:40, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De novo capitulo "Syntaxeos errores Anglo-Latinae"[fontem recensere]

Hic habemus res perutiles quae de una tantum "natione" relevant (appellationem "nationis" sicut apud studia generalia mediaevalia usurpo!). Censeo sine dubio has res retinendas, sed fortasse in paginam annexam movendas: haec enim pagina ad editores plurilingues destinatur. Tempore nostro editores Vicipaediae e "nationibus" satis multis originem trahunt. Quid dicunt alii?

Versionem "Anglicam" pessimam a sub-pagina Anglicam removi. Si quis vult hoc capitulum Anglice vertere, pro certo licet! Versionem deletam in historia sub-paginae Anglicae reperis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:07, 18 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll visit Disputatio:Foederatae Micronesiae Civitates, you'll see that the probable author of the pertinent remarks here in Vicipaedia:De Latinitate thinks hyperbaton, one of the glories of Classical prose, is "Latinitas mala . . . (= very bad 'Anglatin' pidgin)" and "falsus." It's dangerous to accept without pause the grammatical & stylistic effusions of an anonymous author whose prose is this peculiar:
Substantivum secundarium in appositione ad substantivo [substantivum?] principali [principale?], in genitivo [genetivo?] posessivo [possessivo?] atque plerumque ante substantivum primarium praepositus [praepositum?] est.
"A secondary substantive in apposition toward the first substantive, in the possessive genitive and even mostly before a primary substantive must be preposed." What?
"A secondary substantive in apposition toward the first substantive must be preposed in the possessive genitive and even generally before a primary substantive." What?
Also, the ease with which one labels as errors any stylistic matters that differ from one's own is worrisome. So I'm changing the title and hiding the most problematic utterances for the moment, leaving points that most students of the language will agree on, though their diction wants editing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:38, 18 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rectissime dicis, Iacobe. Egomet autem hanc quoque phrasin celavissem: "Etiam cum raris exceptionibus," scripsit usor anonymus, "adiectivus Latinus plerumque pone substantivum correlatum postpositus est." Vae! Ut docuit Carolus E. Bennett, "No general law can be laid down for the position of Adjectives" (New Latin Grammar, 1918). Mattie (disputatio) 21:28, 18 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pro certo anonymus noster dormitat (sicut Homerus, sed saepius!) Delere non volui, sed fortasse in subpaginam movere. Vicipaedia Anglica paginas "opinionum" in spatium suum Vicipaedicum accipit -- This page is an essay, not a policy -- fortasse nobis talem rem facere oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse nobis oportet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:31, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At tamen haec (quaecumque sint!) non formá textús argumentativi, sed potius informativi, relata sunt, quod tirones perplexari eisque demum obstare potuerit. Vobiscum scilicet consentirem si formá argumentativá scripsisset anonymus noster. Mattie (disputatio) 04:15, 20 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quisnam inferorum paginam hanc scripsit ?!?!?!?[fontem recensere]

Cicero nullam praebet difficultatem, neque grammatici aliquantillum obscuriores... Hac autem in pagina mea sententia QUAEDAM legi posse debuissent attamen legens re ipsa NIHIL fere intellexi. Quantum conicere possum Latinitas mea revera sat pessima est (sicut Shakespeare olim dixit...) neque tam peritus sum Vicipaediae Latinae. Sed saltem pro me loquens cofiteri possum istam paginam nulla casta Latinitate conscriptam esse quam ipsa assequi debuerit. Nolo quemquam offendere neque superbus videri sed rogo ut ii qui textus conficiant saltem semel in eorum vita conentur invenire easdem sententiarum constructiones quas ipsi adhibent apud Ciceronem sive alios scriptores castissimos. Nec quaestionem quae hic in disputationum paginis videtur vagare id est quae sit Latinitas adhibenda intellego cum ipsi rogantes planefaciunt se numquam quaedam exempli gratia Erasmi legisse aut aliorum doctorum qui iam longe pridem (ante plurima saecula) haec omnia constituerunt monstraverunt et planefecerunt... Conatus sum in universum quaedam hac in pagina emmendare, tamen pro dolor taedio in fine affectus sum.

Sed iterum igitur rogo quamquam auctorem ignorans exempli gratia huius sententiae:

Substantivum secundarium cum adiectivo comitens etiam postpositum habitat

Historia paginae nos monet hanc sententiam a, usore sine nomine, scriptam esse. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ut saltem ipsi conentur legere quidnam scripserunt.

Nihilominus gaudeo quod extet Vicipaedia Latina et ab omnibus qui sese dicunt puriore Latinitate praeditos postulo ut iterum iterumque Vergilium, Ciceronem, Ovidium, Senecam, Erasmum, Picum Mirandolensem, Laurentium Vallam (etc. castos scriptores!!) legant atque quam plurime loquantur ut olim omnes omnia in Vicipaedia Latina intelligere possint!


Artaynte (disputatio) 16:29, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exempli gratia: WTF est interrete?!?!? Ergo duo tibi sunt retia et quodam in loco inter illa retia quaedam fiunt!?!? Aut Internationalis. Duae igitur sunt civitates et inter illas in liminibus res fiunt oO?? Haec modo sunt exempla quorundam verborum quae re vera castae Latinitatis non dici possunt, neque disputare decet hisce de rebus cum ne in lexiconibus quidem inveniuntur verba illa... Artaynte (disputatio) 16:36, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interrete est verbum in usu quotidiano pro Internet. Egomet quoque verbum internationalis odi (fortasse potius inter civitates?), sed mirabile dictu id permultis linguae Latinae peritissimis placet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emendationes tuas perspexi et rete omnium gentium ad Interrete (aut interretialis, adiectivum quo utimur) et castissima... Latinitate conscribenda est ad bona... Latinitate conscribenda est reverti. Si verbum interrete disputare velis, eas quaeso ad Disputatio:Interrete. Aliam reversionem meam tironum causa feci: multi apud nos (me incluso) nequeunt "castissima" Latinitate scribere; eos rogare ut "bona" Latinitate scribant aptius mihi videtur. His dictis, gratias tibi ago propter emendationes! Mattie (disputatio) 18:28, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvus sis, Mattie. Ut iam antea conatus sum explicare non est quaestio utrum adhibendum sit illud verbum quod nostris in linguis "interrete" dicitur an non cum pro dolor Latine SIBI VULT ALIAM REM QUAM NOSTRIS IN LINGUIS. Nolo tibi quasi quandam auditionem proponere sed quaeso lege ea quae scripsi in disputatione de interrete ut melius intellegas: Est Latina lingua haec novitque leges neque eodem in modo "fungitur" quam nostrae. Adhibe igitur sive "rete"/"retialis" sive "rete omnium gentium" (nisi forsan linguam Latinam corrumpere velles...) amabo. Quod ad "castissimam Latinitatem" pertinet suadeo ut illam constructionem relinquas ad illos qui exigue de lingua Latina curant deterrendum ;). Ut spero pagina lecta bis saltem cogitaverint antequam Latine scribent! Artaynte (disputatio) 16:50, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think telling people to write 'well' is better than telling them to write 'purely'. You're right that there are pages on Vicipaedia which are, to me at least, unintelligible, but small changes in vocabulary (i.e. interrete / rete omnium gentium or whatever) wouldn't change that. When I come across unintelligible pages, I do my best to correct what I can. We have formulas which you can use to denote sentences needing correction (sc. {{Verba Latinizanda}} and {{Verba verificanda}}). I don't want to deter those who help us out without writing as well as Cicero. Mattie (disputatio) 18:25, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De nominibus 3[fontem recensere]

"Si tibi nomine utendum est barbaro neque latinizato, scribeto litteris italicis." Equidem nunc video me multas iam "italicizationes" in commentationibus emendandis rescidisse. Bona quidem fide, sed etiam quia non intellexi, cur nomina barbara litteris italicis scribi deberent. Nec nunc quidem intellego. Nisi quis bonam reddiderit rationem huius normae, metuo, ne facinora mea pergam. Neander (disputatio) 21:46, 18 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ego quoque rationem non video. Operae utique pretium sit propositum deliquare: praenomina solum aut nomina quoque? solum in lemma aut etiam in corpore commentationis? Quid facere, e.g., cum Du Fu (formam Latinam, Tufuus?, eheu adhuc non inveni)? Lesgles (disputatio) 16:03, 21 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multi Latinistae vetustiores litteris italicis ita usi sunt; alii, et praecipue recentiores, id non faciunt. Fortasse nobis oportet nullam legem statuere. Per me editoribus licet, si in textu quem componunt utile erit, litteris italicis verba barbara distinguere. Taliter ego sub rubrica "De nominibus" aut "De etymologia" saepe ago; alibi non. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 23 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sed nuper paginas repperi cuius editores hanc regulam ultra utilitatem secuti sunt. Utile est verba barbara in prima sententia (et aliunde si de rebus linguisticis disserimus) litteris italicis scribere, sed in textu normali non. Si ita interpretant, regulam oportet rescribere! Id facere conabor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:52, 27 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dubium non est, quin litterae italicae certis condicionibus utiles sint, immo necessariae. At mea quidem opinione non illud refert, utrum de verbis "barbaris" agatur an non, sed potius illud, quo consilio aliquo verbo utamur. Equidem praesertim usum metalinguisticum efferre velim: si de verbo aliquo (de eius etymologia, significatione, usu, ...) loquimur, litteris italicis utendum est, sicut puta "Apud Ciceronem fullo nusquam invenitur" (= Cicero in scriptis suis nobis servatis nusquam hoc verbo uti videtur) vs. "Apud Ciceronem fullo nusquam invenitur" (= Apud Ciceronem, quamvis hominem qui fullo sit reperire coneris, nusquam reperies); "forum et forus eandem habent genetivi singularis formam quae est fori"; "malum, si primam producis syllabam, fructum significat"; etc. Huc etiam pertinere videntur librorum, pellicularum, etc tituli, sicut puta "Cicero tres libros de officiis scripsit", "Ciceronis liber qui Brutus inscribitur", "Triumph des Willens est pellicula a Leni Riefenstahl administrata" (NB: hic italicis non ad verba "barbara" indicanda sed ad titulum significandum utimur). Cum terminum aliquem verbis explicare volumus, eum italicis indicamus: sicut puta "metathesis idem valet ac translatio litterarum", "acu rem tetigit est dictio qua utimur si aliquem recte sensisse affirmamus". Etiam ad aliquam cogitationem aliamve rem per emphasin efferendam italicis uti licet. Certe sunt alii quoque usus italicarum. Eos tantum numeravi usus quos facile expedire potui. Neander (disputatio) 13:09, 2 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tibi suadeo regulam, quam nuper brevissime emendavi, omnino reficere! Si alii disputare volunt, disputare licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 2 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dicendi genus, scribendi genus[fontem recensere]

Has sententias, iam abhinc quinque annos (vide supra) in dubium vocatas, emendare conatus sum, et verba sequentia removi. Si quis quid addere vel auferre vult, quaeso ut eas rescribas. Lesgles (disputatio) 10:14, 11 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paginae quae inveniuntur in Interrete Latinae plerumque a scriptoribus anglophonis quibus nonnumquam scientia Latinae linguae modesta est, conscriptae sunt. Quamquam lingua Anglica permulta vocabula ex Latina accepit, syntaxis ab illa Latina plerumque alia remansit. Idem fit quod ad linguae stylum, dialecticum et interpunctiones pertinet. Ideoque editores Angliceloquentes errores minores introducunt cum plerumque syntaxei errores propagent. Tales textus ambigui qui Anglo-Latini ("Anglatin" pidgin) dicuntur lectoribus non-Anglicis meliore Latinae scientia praeditis valde incomprehensibiles apparebunt. Hae inter omnes errores in interretialibus textibus frequentissimae sunt:

  • Interpunctiones divergentes: Commae modestae in textibus Latinis valde rariores sunt quam in scriptis Anglicis. Exempli gratia, ante verba sicut "atque" vel "et" in praepositione comma scribi non decet. Eodem in modo omittenda est in asyndetonibus:

"Quod bonum faustum felix fortunatumque sit." (commis omissis)

  • Signum hodiernum frequens in scriptis Anglicis quod dicitur punctum-comma (;), in contextu Latino non fieri potest (atque in aliis linguis Europaeis Latinam imitantibus). Idcirco in scriptis Latinis per commam simplicem commutandum est (,) vel per punctum duplicem (:).
  • Substantivum secundarium in appositione ad substantivum principali, in genitivo posessivo atque plerumque ante substantivum primarium praepositum est. Exceptio: substantivum secundarium cum adiectivo comitens ? etiam postpositum habitat.