Disputatio Vicipaediae:Legatio nostra

E Vicipaedia
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere

Cyrillic[recensere | fontem recensere]

Yeah, so you actually have to use the transliteration function in mozilla for it to work... you can't just type russian and expect the computer to think cyrillic is a good idea... Thanks UV, as always...--Ioscius 22:45, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

no problem, the letters t just looked different to each other ;-) --UV 23:19, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

vexillum linguae latinae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salvete valentes amici,

quia non duplice pingete etiam vexillum linguae latinae? Nam hodie latinus sermo est officialis in Civitate Vaticana; mihi videretur rectius quod eius vexillum esset cum eo Romae urbis. Nonne?

Valete

Salve, usor ignote. Rationem tuam intelligo, at dissentio modo:
  1. Fortasse officialis, at non adhibita.
  2. Praeter, est latinitas ecclesiastica, cuius usus hic est nefas.
  3. Praeter plus, non mi placet vexillum libenter monstrare civitatis religiosae. Lingua Latina est Romae sine dubiis, non autem Ecclesiae.
--Ioscius02:39, 2 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Avete[recensere | fontem recensere]

Publius Vergilius Hadrianus vicipaediae Latinis legatis salutem plurimam dicit Si valete bene est. Romae apud universitatem "La sapienza" Litterarum Classicarum studens sum. Multo Vicipaediae Latinae hunc propositum admiror. Praebeo vobis meum parvulum ingenium et propono vobis me in Latinam linguam a italica angliaque lingua wikipediae paginas convertere. Volo Ioscio respondere. Credo, quia vicipaedia super solum Latinum classicum fundata non est, Latinum totum comprehendere debere (etiam archaicum aut ecclesiasticum). Fortasse erro... Propono legationem Latinam vexillum latinius habere: puto meliora signa imperialia, ut aquila, quae semper indicavit potestas Romana. Spero me non vulgares errores in hac epistula fecisse. Valete.

Ave Publi Vergili Hadriane,tibi salutem plurimam dico. Si vales bene est. Ego Laurentius Equula (Cavallina) et tecum admodum consentio: malim imaginem aquilae super flavium anphiteatrum ... quid cogitas de quo. Post scriptum: si vis audere possum aliquid pingere aut in interreti invenire Vale.

Ita, conare quaeso. Gratias ob ausum.--Ioscius 12:37, 25 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Opus meum perfectum, at nescio quomodo imaginem meam inserire (mihi opus est auxilio vestro)
valete... gratias multas vobis mihi servientibus ago

Gratias, Equula! Quaeso vide paginam disputationis tuam. Vale! --UV 16:45, 30 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Translatio ex lingua theodisca[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hallo mein name ist monika lorenz und ich brauche hilfe in latein: ist es möglich, dass ihr mir die wörter: Klagt nicht - kämpft.... in's Lateinische übersetzt.

Antwort wenn möglich bitte an: MonikaLorenz3@aol.com

Ich wußte nicht, an wen ich mich für die Übersetzung wenden sollte - deshalb meine Anfrage

Vielen Dank

Monika Lorenz

Hallo Monika, wie wär's mit: Nolite plangere, immo certate
--UV 23:07, 9 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Etiam suggessi Rolando: Noli(te) queri, adpugna(te)! I don't know about the plurality however. A general imperative would probably be singular (is this plural in German?).Immo is a good idea, though.--Ioscius 23:32, 9 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Lingua Latina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Perhaps links from Pagina prima to 'Teach yourself basic Latin' courses?

(jackiespeel, English language wiki)

Debería aparecer la definición the algo tan importante y cotidiano como el ascensor.

It should be and article of the elevator, because it's something very common today.

Vexillum Britannicum[recensere | fontem recensere]

[Huc removi:]

Cur vexillium istud sola vexillia Britiannicum Americanumque praebet? Sunt aliae nationes quae lingua Anglica utuntur - Canada, Australia, Nova Zelandia, Iamaica, plurimaeque aliae. -- 68.118.229.76
Haec disputavimus alibi, sed non reperio. Ego consentio cum usore anonymo, sed addo: vexilla nationum sunt, non linguarum, et non debent pro linguis uti. Andrew Dalby 12:20, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Je voudrais savoir si cette phrase est correcte[recensere | fontem recensere]

Adversus matrimonium, anarquisti proclamarunt amorem ad libertatem (Contre le mariage, les anarchistes ont proclamé la liberté de l'amour)

Merci

--Bonnot 09:44, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Quasi in eisdem verbis dici oportet: Adversus matrimonium, anarchistae conclamaverunt amplexandi liberalitatem. --Roch01A 01:21, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Latin Wikipedia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Although I am a member and editor of Latin wikipedia, I was wondering why it is needed in the first place. Is it just a congregation point for people who could be making more worthwhile contributions elsewhere?

Please read ...

--Rolandus 16:51, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Genitive on Loan-Words[recensere | fontem recensere]

How should I show the Genitive case in Genitive loan-words e.g. Deutsches Wörterbuch, Hewlett-Packard. Is it wrong to add an '-is' suffix as I have been doing?

Yes, this is wrong! We usually leave such things undeclined. It is the job of the author to phrase the sentence in such a way that the case is implied, i.e. close to prepositions, in proper SOV word order, etc.--Ioshus (disp) 03:13, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
One way that helps sometimes is to precede the foreign name with a descriptive noun in Latin, e.g. libri Deutsches Wörterbuch "of the book Deutsches Wörterbuch"; or, more explicitly, if really necessary, libri cuius titulus est Deutsches Wörterbuch "of the book whose title is Deutsches Wörterbuch". Andrew Dalby 10:49, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

neologismo[recensere | fontem recensere]

per creare pagine soprattutto su argomenti moderni è possibile utilizzare neologismi?

Si, è possibile, ma tentiamo utilizzare parole classiche, o almeno renascimentali. Devi evitare i neologismi, se puoi.--Ioscius (disp) 15:56, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Vicipaedian[recensere | fontem recensere]

Can I please ask why we use this, which seemingly means nothing, compared to 'vicipaediator' or something similar? --Harrissimo 17:38, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What? We use vicipaedianus, a, um or vicipaedicus, a, um. We don't necessarily need an agent suffix, here, a plain adjectival suffix works fine. What do you mean it means nothing? It is a personal substantive of a regularized adjective. Plus, what about the vicpaediatrices? =] --Ioscius (disp) 19:22, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
OK. I didn't realise that we have -us, -a, -um, I just saw Vicipaedian somewhere and thought it was a bit nonsensical. Do we actually have any Vicipaedianae? --Harrissimo 15:49, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Ita! Ecce nostra Amphitrite, et Alynna, et Herba, et Salix. Sunt aliae, pro certo!--Ioscius (disp) 16:48, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Is usor unisexual? --Harrissimo 17:35, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be.--Ioscius (disp) 17:50, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

A B est[recensere | fontem recensere]

Conventum prospere apertum est is what appears when you log in successfully. Is this an example of A B est? --Harrissimo 10:23, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This is a passive past tense, the form of which is regularly "participle + esse". e.g.:
Conventum est sessio apud Vicipaediam.
at
Conventum apertum est.
--Ioscius (disp) 12:34, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Alternis, Prospere est conventum apertum, et Prospere est apertum conventum, etc.! Vide:
ex Hispania ad Varum flumen est iter factum 'a march was made from Spain to the river Varus' (De Bello Civili 1.87)
Castra opportunis locis erant posita 'Camps had been pitched at advantageous locations' (De Bello Gallico 7.69)
in dextro cornu erant conlocatae 'had been stationed on the right wing' (De Bello Civili 3.88)
is dies indutiis erat ab his petitus 'this day had been sought for a truce by them,' (De Bello Gallico 4.12) IacobusAmor 13:15, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Dixi "regularly" non "semper" =] Sed recte Iacobus monuit, ut is facit "regularly" =P --Ioscius (disp) 13:17, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
OK. I haven't really learned about the Passive Past yet, just the Perfect Passive/Active participles. --Harrissimo 13:44, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, this is what this is. A perfect passive participle. ANd you can't have learned about a past active participle, unless you were studying Greek! This is why we have ablative absolutes. Check English:
Having called together the soldiers, the general gave orders. This is a past active participial construction. Latin cannot do this, it must say:
militibus convocatis, dux iussus dedit. Literally translated this is: the soldiers having been called together, the general gave orders.
Dig? Or should I explain some more? --Ioscius (disp) 13:52, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain the -tis at the end of convocatis? And why it is militibus, not mil(it)es? And would Miles, a ducem convocati, mandati dedantur mean roughly the same thing, mi Rhetor? --Harrissimo 15:14, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC).
militibus and convocatis are both ablative plural. Miles, militis, m., and convocatus, a, um. They need to be in ablative to, well, be an ablative absolute.
Now let's take your sentence: Miles, a ducem convocati, mandati dedantur... where to begin? Miles does not correspond to convocati, rather milites. So, one step at a time: Milites, a ducem convocati, mandati dedantur. Now a takes ablative, so just duce: Milites, a ducem convocati, mandati dedantur. Here we come to a stumbling block, of sorts... first, what is dedantur? Perhaps you mean dabantur? Milites, a ducem convocati, mandati dabantur. Then . . . we can't just translate the sentence "The soldiers were given orders." Latin doesn't work quite like that. Rather, we need to translate the sentence "orders were given to the soldiers" OR, the soldiers were ordered. First one requires soldiers to be in dative: Militibus, a duce convocati, mandati dabantur. Second one we can retain nominative: Miles, a duce convocati, iubebantur. This, indeed, roughly corresponds with my sentence above, and translates literally: The soldiers, called together by the general, were ordered. Then you would expect an infinitive, after that, like Miles, a duce convocati, iter facere iubebantur. --Ioscius (disp) 15:28, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

OK. I haven't really learnt ablative either yet :S, but I understand :) I just always thought of -ibus as Dative Plural. I actually meant deduntur. Is that possible in that sentence? --Harrissimo 15:37, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Not as such... [1]] --Ioscius (disp) 15:43, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Non! Forma est impossibilis! Recte dati/datae/data sunt. IacobusAmor 16:53, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Cave, Iacobe, nam forma est possibilis, at de verbo dissimili... dedo, dedere, dedidi, deditum. --Ioscius (disp) 17:31, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Traduccion[recensere | fontem recensere]

VALERIO LUCI FILIUS- MARCILA ANO XXX- HIC SEPULTUS EST- CASUM MEUM QUIF VI FACTUS ADI- LIS DIEBUS HABIAM - DEBRAJEUTA- DELFLUA MON RAPINT- ET TUMUL AVIT AMOR


¿Pueden ayudarme a traducir esto?

Mi cuenta en wikipedia-es es komputika [[2]] Agradeceria su colaboracion con el wikiproyecto historia de la comunidad valenciana, ese articulo es necesario saludos

Si.--Ioscius (disp) 01:11, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

VALERIUS LUCII FILIUS MARCI ANNO XXX HIC SEPULTUS EST. CASUM MEUM QUEM FACTUS AB ILLIS DIEBUS HABUIT DESIDERAVIT AC DELECTAVIT, MOX RAPUIT ET TUMULAVIT AMOR. --Roch01A 04:00, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)

journalist[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve I am a journalist, and interested in Latin Wikipedia. Can someone send me some contact information (an email, perhaps) of an admin, bureaucrat and/or steward who can help me learn about your work for a possible article? thanks Lee lee.gomes@wsj.com

Salve, Lee. I have emailed you. Whatever you would like to know, I will do my best to answer. Cheers.--Ioscius (disp) 02:02, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

romanus sum[recensere | fontem recensere]

(Romanus sum, Latine loquor!). Gratias vobis ago, juvenes viri atque mulieres, propter vestrum nisum!!! de Italico vetere (nunc 78) viro in urbe Perusio, qui pulcherrimam Latinam linguam semper predilexit. Ad maiora!!! Giorgio Iraci, medicus ætate sua annuum beneficium percipiens de universitate

le nom propre Ioannina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Concernant l'article en latin de la vile grecque de Ioannina, il y a une erreur de sa transmission en latin. Ioannina, en grec, se décline comme un nom neutre de la 2ème declinaison au pluriel C'est Ioannina- on (avec omega). Comme en latin il y a une déclinaison équivalente on devrait écrire Ioannina-orum. par conséquent on devrait écrire "Caput nomi Ioanninorum" et non pas Ioanninaa

Merci. --12:21, 8 Novembris 2007 Usor:83.206.111.57

Non possum respondere tibi lingua tua, at credo correxisse errorem. Gratias ob erroris monstrationem! --Ioscius (disp) 14:56, 8 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
errorem correxi. erat hic. ille usor voluit -ων (Graece finis neuter pluralis genetiva e declensione secunda) et -orum (Latine finis neuter pluralis genetiva) in situ finis -ae (Ioannina est pluralis neuter) in re de Ionnanis. Iacobus Recensor (pagina mea | Disputatio) 16:56, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

-enses[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salvete! At VP:TNP's talk page, I wrote the following:

I just posted a new rule but it's probably wise that I should write here just to make sure everybody agrees. What I said was:
In Biology, Botany, Names of Dioceses and Zoology, many places have adjectival forms of their names (often ending in -ensis). Use these but before the type of settlement. For example
    • Malhamensis Vicus (for Malham, a village)
    • Tristanenses Insulae (For Tristan da Cunha, a group of islands)
    • Ebebiyinense oppidum (For Ebebiyín, a town) [3]
I imagine that such usage could accelerate how we can name African and S-E Asian places in particular, but almost every country is also covered in some way. Consentitisne? Harrissimo 21:41, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

Moxel[recensere | fontem recensere]

Need assistance in creation a short article based on [4]. Want to liaise

I'm new at Wiki and my Latin is really poor. If any information missing just let me know.

Thank you in advance.

Khazar II 21:53, 2 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to close Latin Wikipedia[recensere | fontem recensere]

In 2005, the Klingon Wikipedia was closed to editing and a de-branded fork opened on Wikia. I'm going to propose on Meta that the same be done of the Latin Wikipedia and Wikibooks, and that it be decided never to open a Latin Wikinews, for the same reasons. As far as I can tell, like Klingon, Latin lacks:

  • Native speakers.
  • An authoritative active group of lexicographers.
  • Any way to gain consensus from the whole Latin-speaking community (rather than just from Wikipedians) on words for new concepts. Without one, how are we to choose between computatrum and ordinatrum, or vīra and vīrua (for viruses, per en:plural of virus), or metallum vis and potens metallum?
  • Reliable 20th- or 21st-century sources in Latin to direct readers toward, on topics other than Catholicism.

This proposal won't affect Wikisource, Wikiquote or Wiktionary, since they don't need modern content the way an encyclopedia does.

Could this notice please be translated into Latin for the benefit of non-English-speaking contributors, and posted on the relevant page? (If for some reason it can't be translated, I rest my case.) Seahen 07:57, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Anno 2005, Vicipaedia Klingona clausa est contributionibus et disceptio apud wikiam coepit. Proponam eadem rem vicipaediae Latinae et vicilibris latinis, itaque nunquam vicinuntios latinos coepient. Tamquam ego scio, Latina lingua caret:
  • Quem naturaliter latine loqui
  • Auctoritatem lexocographicam activam
  • Modum consensum agendi communitati Latinae (necnon solum Vicipaedianis) de verbis novis. Sine hoc modus, quomodo inter computatrum et ordinatrum, sive vīra etvīrua (pro viruses, en:plural of virus), sive metallum vis et potens metallum eligamus?
  • Fontes Latinae non Catholicae saeculorum XXi et XXIi, ad quas lectoribus referamus.
Haec propositio non Vicifontibus, vicicitationibus necnon Victionario pertinget.
"As far as I can tell."—Unable to tell far enough, it seems! This is a joke, right? Nobody rational could be so oblivious to reality as to argue the second, third, and fourth points seriously, and even the first is more rustclad than ironclad:
"Native speakers are often appealed to, including by linguists, over questions of correct usage, because traditionally the language in which they are fluent has been regarded as exclusive property. Some linguists, however, have in recent years argued that no one is 'born' into a language (as the etymology of the usage suggests) but acquires it from an environment that may in fact change in childhood, adolescence, or later, causing an individual to develop a second language into a medium as personal as the first (sometimes losing skills in the earlier 'mother tongue'). Whether such a non-native speaker is able to acquire the same command of the language as a native speaker is a much-debated question to which there is no simple answer."—The Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1992, p. 682).
On the basis of two allegations presented above, we might as well close the English wiki.
1 (a). English has no native speakers—because it's not a single language: "[English languages is] a phrase used by some linguists and other commentators to suggest that English is a group of languages (comparable to the Romance languages) rather than one language" (The Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1992, p. 362).
1 (b). It's true that the percent of Latin users who aren't native speakers is or approximates 100; it's also true that, of the major languages of the world, right up there with Latin is English, most of whose users are not native speakers.
3. There's no consensus at all on what constitutes "correct" usage in English, so unless the proposal is also to close the English wiki, this allegation is irrelevant.
Also:
4. The world lacks "20th- or 21st-century sources in Latin to direct readers toward, on topics other than Catholicism"? That's just plain ignorant, and can be rejected out of hand.
If this proposal is to be taken seriously, others may raise other points. IacobusAmor 11:23, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to argue about the four items that Latin lacks according to your list, for sure other Vicipaedians will (as some have already started to) do this job better than I can. But, even if the subsequent discussion proves that Latin indeed has no authoritative lexicographers and that it really lacks reliable sources on modern topics, then the Latin Wikipedia still should not be closed.
Bear in mind that the Latin Wikipedia has already once been approved, which is a fact worth considering on its own. Let's not ask, for example, "what is the quality of modern Latin vocabulary?", but "has the quality of modern Latin vocabulary decreased since the Latin Wikipedia had been founded"? Has any fundamental change of circumstances ocurred since 2002? Or, Seahen, do you think that Latin (or any other) Wikipedians forever shoud live in uncertainity that Wikimedia's policy on Latin, Esperanto and other languages will be changed and re-interpreted arbitrarily and wilfully? Should Wikipedians have no guarantee at all that their multiyear effort to improve the Wikipedia will not have gone to waste? I could explain to you many legal terms, such as retroactivity, legitimate expectations, protection of iura quaesita, good faith etc., but let me put it simply: what you are proposing is a change of the rules during the game.
Please note that I would respect your opinion if the Latin Wikipedia hadn't been open yet and you had been against a proposal to approve it. Also, of course it should be possible to close even already approved Wikipedias, if they remain really small and inactive. But this is obviously not the case of flourishing Wikipedias such as the Latin one. --Gabriel Svoboda 12:27, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
The underlying issue raised by Seahen is Wikipedia's brand: the idea is (somehow, inexplicably) to "protect the brand" by deleting its Latin subdivision. That's such a self-defeating idea that it must be a joke. If, however, such deletion were accomplished, one presumes that the entire text of the current Vicipaedia—not being under copyright, after all—could establish itself as its own wiki, and the world would then have a Wikipedia-Without-Latin and a Vicipaedia. The interwiki links might have to be cut or adjusted, but otherwise not much change would be visible. All the images in Commons, and indeed all the rest of Wikipedia, would still presumably be available for unlimited borrowing & reproduction. IacobusAmor 12:41, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Better avoid that road. Vicipaedia does astonishingly well on Google because it is a wikipedia.
Xaverius has meanwhile extended our traditional welcome to Seahen, and I have added a short comment, on his/her talk page. It is, of course, an irritation of this environment that nothing is ever fixed -- however often a question has been decided, it can always be raised again next year. Well, that's wikilife ...
But can it really be that Seahen has never heard of scientific Latin, its international acceptance and its world-recognised nomenclature organizations? (S)he has some studying to do! Andrew Dalby 12:47, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
This proposal was already proposed last year and defeated. Not having native speakers is irrelevant since all artificial international languages by definition are in the same boat with respect to native speakers. Latin, unlike those other international languages, does have a state which sanctions it as one of their languages: The Vatican. The Vatican State is a country in which Latin is one of their official languages. Dozens of authoritative dictionaries exist for almost anything you want to say, not just those sanctioned by the Vatican. If anything, there are too many of them! As to association with the Catholic Church, most people who study latin and contribute to the Vicipadia aren't associated with the Catholic Church. There is a popular latin newspaper and radio programs in Europe which are not associated with the Catholic Church. As to usage, there are literally DOZENS of different authoritative grammar books, including ancient ones that tell us how to write Latin correctly. Latin is not like the romance languages and english, which in ancient times (anglosaxon) was primarily spoken only and therefore only sketchily reconstructed; Latin was and is an international language with clearly spelled-out rules and vocabulary, which was added to during the medieval period all the way to the present day to take into account scientific advances. --Rafaelgarcia 13:03, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
See the discussions here: Talk:Language_subcommittee board of language committee and Disputatio:Pagina prima#Latina wikipedia closing and hellenic wikipedia opening--Rafaelgarcia 13:10, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
In such cases one naturally wonders why someone would urge the closing of a wikiproject that clearly is active, with a good number of contributors, lots of edits and lots of new pages, steadily improving range and quality; a project that is evidently serving a public (a small public, of course, but not as small as many other wikis in minority languges) and sometimes gets good publicity for the Foundation. So I'd love to know why Seahen thinks closing or detaching Vicipaedia from the overall group of projects is a worthwhile aim. Seahen incidentally works very hard for Wikimedia outreach (that's obvious from contributions on en:wiki), has done so for a long time, and is currently working for the establishment of Wikikids.
But then, in our very different way, we work for Wikimedia outreach as well. Our public even overlaps slightly -- we often encounter kids (and other students) learning Latin, and I think we do our best to help them. (But it's true that our initial responses to beginners have occasionally been prickly, to say the least: maybe we need to work on that.) Andrew Dalby 11:25, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a hurry, actually, but I feel I must react to the nonsense poured out by Seahen. It would be a (tiny) bit easier to understand the 'no native speakers' obsession, if Wikipedia consisted of audio files. (On second thought, what a relief especially for the English Wiki!) But Wikipedia runs in the written mode, and its purpose consists in spreading information on a scale that beats printed encyclopedias in extension and topicality. For such a purpose, the requirement of native language users is simply irrelevant -- in fact, it would be self-destructory. Look how many professors there are in British and American universities, whose native language isn't English, yet that "handicap" doesn't prevent them from doing a great job in making scientific discoveries and spreading information about their proceedings. // Of course, I don't fail to understand that the 'no native speakers' clausule is supposed to work so as to allow also non-natives to contribute to, say, the English Wiki, qua free-riders so to say, as long as there are some native users of English, whatever that would mean. Year for year there are more Englishes, and that's of course a sign of life, but it also shows that the 'no native speakers' argument is a non sequitur. If Vicipaedians sometimes negotiate on some novel words, making such a big deal about this natural process is a sign of a total failure to understand the nature and workings of a natural language. (And it's mostly vocabulary that we discuss about, not generally syntax, which is the backbone of any language.) The intolerance lurking behind Seahen's third "argument" is unbelievable. The ideally right declension of virus does not exist in a Platonic heaven, where only some non-Vicipedian guru would or should have access to. The correct or agreed-upon form emerges from everyday use and negotiation. Even Latin grows by using it as a speech community and, of course, by respecting the tradition. This holds good for any living language.

That Seahen urges some of us to translate his (or her -- perhaps the name Seahen, gallina maritima, is a gender-indicative clue :-) message to Latin, implies, it seems, a confession that there may be people who need Latin in order to understand what this message is about. That may very well be the case. But if true, then Seahen is acting like a colonialist who needs a local interpreter to tell the tribe that they will be demolished. Nice! --Neander 15:35, 3 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the Taberna, Seahen seems to have disappearted, and nothing has been done in Meta for over a week now. The joke, I guess, finishes here--Xaverius 10:19, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally my initial estimate of Seahen's other activities needs finessing. (S)he is highly active on the Wikipedia reference desk, but (as I now see) asking questions, not providing answers.
Ah, well, if we have meanwhile rehearsed the reasons in favour of Vicipaedia, and improved the articles on Vicipaedia elsewhere, no harm done, I guess. Andrew Dalby 11:52, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Blog[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi! How does one say "blog" in Latin? Is there any degree of consensus on this, or more like swirling chaos? I'm thinking "Tabulae retiatae," but I've also seen "Ephemeris interretiale." ---mark miner

I am not aware of a term. retiatae isn't Latin. "Ephemeris interretialis "internet journal" may work ok.--Rafaelgarcia 22:31, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Is something wrong with blog (indeclinable)? IacobusAmor 23:00, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)
That's the first thing I would have done, but I thought he was looking for a translation (even if approximate).--Rafaelgarcia 23:02, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, en:David Salo has this to say on the subject, but it makes my stomach turn... Ephemeris interretialis optimum mihi esse videtur. --Ioscius (disp) 02:00, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Well, but blog is one of those portmanteau words that you like so much, being a combination of web + log = 'b + log = blog. In that spirit, and using a similar method of construction, perhaps you'd like 'phemer- + retialis = phemerretialis ? In popular speech, this would of course be abraded to pherretialis or even pherrialis. :) IacobusAmor 02:39, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I also found that acta (pluralia tantum) was used for daily chronicles of the roman people (acta urbana, acta publica...sometimes just even acta) some kind of ante litteram newspaper. The word is also used for the records of the Senate sessions (acta patrum) as well as for military diaries (acta militaria). Following IacobusAmor pattern, a nice word could be Interacta or Actaretiae". <Vi3x 13:10, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

Compounds like that don't really work well in Latin, IMO. Now, the Greek word—the one that isn't μπλογκ—comes out in Latin as histologium (ιστολόγιο < ιστός "web") and I think that's pretty good. (The verb would be histologizare.) —Mucius Tever 12:17, 13 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Translation[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello! I don't know whether this is the right place to ask, but I am looking for someone to collaborate with me on a project I am engaged in. I am researching Sir Thomas Chaloner, an Elizabethan ambassador, who wrote a long poem in Latin hexameters. My Latin is too elementary to cope with this and I want someone who could do a word-for-word translation (of selected parts of the poem). I could either pay them for this or collaborate on some other basis. If anyone were interested I could email them a sample of the poem. Dano'sullivan 10:47, 7 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

...Usor???[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi, I've noticed that "user" is rendered in Latin with "usor". I couldn't find it on my Latin dictionary, probably because that word doesn't exist at all. Why not use the word utens, participle of utor? Although when used as a name it meant "the rich one", as a present participle it means "the one who uses" and in Italian it still has the same meaning at the present time. <Vi3x 11:51, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>

I've always wondered about that. Do we have (m)any attested Classical examples where nouns in -or are derived from the past participle of deponent verbs of the third conjugation? English terms that seem to fit this requirement—like aggressor (ultimately from adgredi) and prosecutor (ultimately from prosequi)—are back-formations, invented in the sixteenth century or later. From the first conjugation, calumniator (from calumniari) and hortator (from hortari) are genuine examples, but what about the third conjugation? If utor can generate usor, then loquor should generate locutor (which should prove handy in articles about cultures & languages!) but it's not in Cassell's. IacobusAmor 12:38, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
Well, Q. Fabius Maximus's infamous "nickname" was cunctator (in Titus Livius), from the deponent verb cunctor. <Vi3x 13:31, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>
Yes, but that's a first-conjugation verb. I have a feeling that the third declension works differently, or at least third-declension verbs whose objects aren't ordinarily in the accusative. IacobusAmor 13:55, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
Duh, right! <vi3x> 15:19, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, the point is that utor does not generate usor in any way (I can't find it on the Latin dictionary I used in high school) and that "user" means "the one who uses", therefore I guess we should look at the present participle instead of the past one. A good example of english word generating from a 3rd conjugation deponent verb would be "sequence" (lt. sequens, from sequor). <Vi3x 13:31, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)>
Yes, but again, that's a noun in -ntia, not a noun in -or. Part of the problem with usor is that uti doesn't work the way the English verb 'use' does: it works more like 'make use (of)'—and so a better English gloss of usor might be 'usemaker' ('one who makes use (of)'), so 'a user of Vicipaedia' might rightly be usor Vicipaediā 'a usemaker with regard to Vicipaedia' (the thing used being in the ablative), rather than usor Vicipaediae. IacobusAmor 13:55, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys, now I'm having troubles following you, lol! I'm assuming that by "usor" you're meaning in English "a Vicipaedia utilizer", "someone who uses Vicipedia", where "use" has the same meaning it has in "username" and "user account". If this is the case, the verb we're looking for is utor, eris, usus sum, uti, 3rd, dep. The fact that it's a deponent verb only implies that it has a positive meaning but uses a passive form. "Utor" and "use" mean exactly the same thing, they just have a different construction: verb+object in English ("I use my money"), verb+ablative in Latin ("Pecunia mea utor"). Though the literal translation would be "I make use of my money", there is no real difference in meaning. That said, once again the word usor does - not - exist. It's simply not latin at all. It'd be like saying "uter" or "pessworda" in English. <vi3x> 15:19, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
You should ask this question in the Vicipaedia:Taberna. See also Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_1#usor I don't know how it ended up usor, that's before my time...I would have guessed it would be usuarius after the source Iustinius found.--Rafaelgarcia 12:24, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally (in case nonnative speakers don't know this), the noun user is most frequently heard in current (American) English to mean 'user of illegal drugs'. By some lights, a user is a very bad person indeed. IacobusAmor 14:00, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion here: Vicipaedia:Taberna#Usor aut Usuarius?--Rafaelgarcia 16:11, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

placet[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vicipaedia inventa valde mihi placet! Velim plus temporis mihi sit ut et ipse contribuam ad paginas iam impositas necnon et paginas adhuc non factas creaturus sim. Sec mihi adhuc annos tredecim laborare opus est. Utiminine dictionario vernaculo nescioquo /latino in textus scribendos? Dictionarius, qui mihi placet, Civitate Vaticana est editus ante hos nonnullos annos. Sed arborem in horto mihi non est a quo sestertii carpendi sint ...

Valete!

Michael Steiner, Arnhem, ducatus Gelriae, Batavia

Blog (Quomodo dicitur Latine)[recensere | fontem recensere]

Certe, blog (substantivus) potes dicere. Etiam est usus Scholae: "ascriptio diarii". Schola est forum de usu solo Latino (sodalis sum). Pro verbo potest bloggare aut ascriptio diarii scibere dicere.

Vale, 66.112.92.178 04:11, 13 Novembris 2009 (UTC)MagisterDulenius

Nomen Vichipaedia[recensere | fontem recensere]

In italicus (neolatinus idiomus) "Wikipedia" VicHipaedia dicta est, idem ispanicus atque portugueisis. Sic, ponere H debemus!

In Italian (Which is languages neolatino) "Wikipedia" is spelling "vi-KI-pe-dia", and also en espanol and en portugaise. So, i think that in latin should be VicHipaedia, and we have to put H!

Perchè si scrive vicipaedia? non ci vuole la "c" dolce! mettiamo la H!

Your help needed on the Reference Desk[recensere | fontem recensere]

See you there soon. --70.179.176.30 10:51, 30 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

This is the OP again. I've made a follow-up question. --129.130.99.196 20:04, 30 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

De Titino??[recensere | fontem recensere]

De insula nigra de cigaris pharaonis Quaero hos libros et volo emere. Ubi? quomodo? Num inveniri possunt?

Legationes non venditant! Potes, si vis, in pagina Disputatio:Titinus quaerere ... Andrew Dalby 18:40, 7 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

article request[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi. I am from nepali wikipedia. I want to request you to translate this article in your language. If you want to request any article to translate in nepali then you can remember me. Thank you. --Nepaboy 12:03, 11 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

firmiter credo "amabo te lege" sententiam falsam esse.Recta "Mihi placeat si hoc legas"[recensere | fontem recensere]

Quia, traducta in anglico sermone hac sententia,"amabo te",sententiae primae partis significatum est "I will love you" aut etiam " I will love you to",sed secundae partis "lege" significatum unum iussum est: "Read!". Qua re sententia falsa est.--Aristarco de Samotracia 04:28, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Amice, credis firmiter sed falso. Adfirmat Cassell's: "amo . . . also as a form of request, amabo te, or amabo, please, be so good : amabo te, advola ['Please fly hither'], Cic." IacobusAmor 04:53, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Recte dicis, Iacobe. Haec sermonis currentis formula, in paginis encyclopaedicis arcenda, ad epistulas et disputationes optime convenit. Andrew Dalby 09:48, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Correctionem accipio,et hac re gratias vobis ago,sed tum, inter secundum et tertium verbum virgula deest.Ita ut nunc legitur significatum sententiae non est.--Aristarco de Samotracia 11:48, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Omnes reddenda[recensere | fontem recensere]

Porque razão é tudo traduzido para Latim, Ex. Nomes de Pessoas, não era suposto indiferentemente da língua escrita o nome próprio (Antoponómico, justamente porque é próprio, ser escrito no original?

why is everithing always translate to Latin in Wikipaedia, Ex. People's names, considering that in fact thei are their proper nouns (Anthroponomical), why not to writ it in their original form?

For many of us, it has a more profound effect. What particular article are you referring to?--Jondel 05:00, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

Help Please![recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi, I am Surya, a Tamil Wikipedian. I plan to submit a paper in Wikimania 2011. (Here). So, I need some information about your Wikimedia projects such as,

  • When did it start?
  • By whom? (igniter behind it.)
  • What are the projects currently running?
  • Technical problems (like Typewriting etc.,)
  • Support from people
  • Support from the government
  • Future plans
  • Common challenges & problems you are facing.

(Kindly please grant me as much as you can! Please please please...)

--Surya Prakash.S.A. 16:53, 18 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)

Hi Suya. I'll try to answer to these questions, but I'm sure other coleagues here will be able to give you more details. The Latin wiki began in May 2002, as far as we can tell. It might have been started before, but we do not know when exactly or by whom, as it is impossible (or we don't know how) to go further back in our own archives.
I do not think there are any specific projects tunning. We began the Porta Eruditionis to help schoolkids with their Latin, but it seems that they ceased to work in vicipaedia some time ago. We haven't heard of them since. By large, the contributions to the wiki are done according to the users' preferences or fields of knowledge. You can tell these patterns in the monthly pages (vicipaedia:Pagina mensis)
The Greek government does not help us at all, and I cannot think why they should do it.
As for future plans, the only one I can truly think of is to improve the quality of our articles (both in terms of content and of Latin grammar) by May 2012, in order to celebrate our 10th anniversary.
Lastly, challenges... I cannot point out one right now. I can only think of the ocasional attempt to close the Latin wiki on terms of being writen in a "dead language".
As I said, I hope it helps, but other more eloquent people will be able to give you further details.--Xaverius 17:42, 18 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
By the way, NB that there is no Classical Greek wikipedia (it was aborted by the Language Subcommittee), and the only wikipedia in Greek that exists is the modern Greek one, which doesn't count as a Classical language. I've seen in your presentation proposal that you want to talk about Classical Greek, and I thought you should know this before asking at el:wiki--Xaverius 17:46, 18 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Xavier. This info will help me sure. I never forget your help. Thank you for your reply & an advise. (Greek Wiki). Thank you friend...

Surya Prakash.S.A. 10:28, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)

Own subpages that can be deleted[recensere | fontem recensere]

Can an admin delete some of my own subpages? (See this list) I need this pages no longer. Thanks
Kann ein Admin einige meiner Unterseiten löschen? (siehe diese Liste) Ich benötige diese Seiten nicht länger. Danke --Labant 13:35, 9 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Sollten jetzt alle gelöscht sein! --Aylin 13:55, 9 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Projects?[recensere | fontem recensere]

I haven't found any project pages on Vikipedia and after reading one post on here, it sounds like Vikipedia doesn't have any. This is my take but tell me what you all think. My experience on the English Wikipedia has been that projects help to improve articles of a specific topic because they help to focus editors who have knowledge in the subject but would otherwisenot have found the articles. Most have rating systems which help to show which articles need the most work and categories to point out articles within their scope. I'm wondering if anyone would support the founding of a few projects (I'm currently working on improving articles on the chemical elements if anyone is interested) to start off and see if they work well and we can expand from there.

Ullas curas(correct?) in Vikipedia non possum reperire, et expositio post lego, videtur Vikipediam non continere ullam curas. Credo: On Anglico Vikipedia, curae capitulos in specialem materia iuvant meliorare quoniam defigit editores qui sunt sciens in illa materia sed alioqui non reperti sunt. Ergo rogo: aliquid conditum pauci suscipient ut possimus comperire si laborant bene.

this may not be the proper place to post this, if you know of a better place, please move it there. Gratias ago vobis. Cbrick77 18:53, 30 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy this to the Vicipaedia:Taberna, which is perhaps the best place. Please continue there. Andrew Dalby 11:45, 31 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Salve amici![recensere | fontem recensere]

Ego non liber tempus res habeo, sic hic scribeo. Quid facere possum? Gadeo et rideo. Tamen maestus sum. Ave! -- 91.2.201.126 12:39, 11 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

de Amoeneburgo scribere cupio.[recensere | fontem recensere]

Claudia sodalibus s.d.p. quamvis non sine macula mendaque scribere soleo in lingua amata Latina, cupio scribere de Amoeneburgo oppidulo Hassiana ubi quoque anno conveniunt amici Latinitatis in Septimana Latina Europaea. mihi peritiores Latinitatis si corrigere possint menda eventualia, libenter id faciam. precor me doceatis quomodo sodalis communitatis Vicipaediae fieri possum. curate ut valeatis.

Iam incipe! Cur non? Inscribe primo hic. --Jondel 05:07, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

articulatah doniski harberde like whoatinski[recensere | fontem recensere]

i have trouble learning other languages, help.

I would like to help you if I can.--Jondel 05:01, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Translation please[recensere | fontem recensere]

hi. can you translate this articles please =>> Specialized city and this =>> Types of cities by geographical regions. Thank you very much !. פארוק (Diskussion) 23:00, 12. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Why no macrons?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Why does the Latin Wikipedia not mark long vowels?

Macrons aren't part of the conventional writing system for Latin nowadays, so we don't use them. But of course these conventions have changed; the Romans did occasionally mark long vowels with an apex (looks like an acute accent, as habére) or, for i, with an extra-long letter. And we conventionally use v for consonantal u (as in venire) but we don't use j for consonantal i (as in iam) -- the Romans generally didn't use either, and at some periods the custom was to use both. So saying "we don't use macrons because that's the convention" is a bit of a cop-out; still, that is the best reason we've got. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:20, 15 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
I might add that it makes it easier to contribute. For most people and most keyboards, typing with macrons is much slower. Also, not everyone who uses Latin has learned with macrons, so many potential contributors wouldn't know where to place them. Andrew Dalby 15:32, 15 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)