Disputatio Vicipaediae:Noli fingere

Coining[fontem recensere]

I am no expert. Please take the following more philosophically than linguistically.

This Wikipedia is special. We have do not have native speakers. We sometimes do not even have words for the things we are talking about. What would be the Latin word for "aeroplane"? Who could tell us?

So the experts try to guess what Caesar would have called an aeroplane. Isn't that strange? How would Schiller have called an aeroplane?

However, we need those words to talk about these things. It seems to be common sense, not to coin words. But in fact we are doing this. If someone finds sources from 200 years ago: What does it help? If you find a 200 year old source for a German word, this might not be the word native speakers would use now.

I have a provocative question: Shouldn't we actively and self-confident coin words? Isn't the whole Latin "coined" when we use it in our days? How would it have evolved? Shouldn't we simply switch to Italian or another modern language when we do not like to coin Latin for our needs? Although, we should give coined words a template "coined". I think there are many titles around which already deserved that template. Depending on what we mean by "coining" ... ;-) --Rolandus 10:56, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is nothing wrong with coinings (and I have been working on guidelines for Latinizing foreign words), however I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for it: this place is to describe, not to create. As for aeroplane, the word in common use appears to be aëroplănum, even though the etymology would prefer aëroplānum. This word is used by the Latin news sources such as Ephemeris and the Nuntii Latini (both the German and the Finnish). —Myces Tiberinus 00:27, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

movenda, neologismus[fontem recensere]

Recommend changing this to Vicipaedia:Neologismus, or, to better copy the en equivalent, if someone cares to, Vicipaedia:Noli neologismos fingere, or Vicipaedia:Vita neologismum, though some tirones may think that we mean vita, -ae, f. in the latter... See Disputatio Usoris:Alex1011#forte.--Ioshus ^(disp) 22:29, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I join the discussion: wasn't the debate here whether under certain circumstances we might be obliged indeed to coin new words in this vicipaedia? vitanda yes, but if there is no other way... ? That's how I understood this page. --Alex1011 22:40, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Latinitas got the better of me, Alex, sorry... Of course, you're right, so that's a good argument for simply the former: Vicipaedia:Neologismus, then!--Ioshus ^(disp) 22:57, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An actual classical term for neologism, which Myces discovered and promoted over at Victionarium, is novicium. For coining a word, fingere works. I tend to use pangere myself, though I'm unsure if that has a history behind it. --Iustinus 00:13, 18 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material to read more about coining[fontem recensere]

Please, can somebody provide links on this topic? For example: Given there is a man which does not have a latinized name. It seems that is it not ok to latinize his (family) name. However, if this man chooses a Latin name by himself, we should use this latinization, as I understand. Even if this person does not have a clue of Latin? Is there material which answers such questions? --Rolandus 09:08, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio:Pytho Montium? —Mucius Tever 12:46, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I meant external sources. --Rolandus 12:51, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]