Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima/Tabularium1

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Salve![fontem recensere]

Salve! Ego sum Caius Iulius Caesar Octavius Augustus, Caesaraugustea fundator colonisque. Donex eris felix multos amicos numerabis. Ave. Vale atque vale.

propositio[fontem recensere]

Amicis linguae latinae ulricus salutem dat,

Excusate me, but I will write this statement in English. Some days ago, I was for the first time in the Latin wikipedia and I think it's a great opportunity to get Latin more to the front as a living language. but to do this, we have to decide, whether we want just an encyclopedia for the Roman antiquity in Latin or an encyclopedia in Latin as a living language. I would prefer the second solution, and so I did some additions in this direction. Here are my propositions, feel free to comment:

I started with two top-level items: Scientia and Ars. As far as I can see, we could subsumate under these two all other items. I propose for the articles, if possible, this division: Definitio (Good definitions one can find in Isidor. His text is available at my bibliotheca augustana or at the Latin library), disciplinae or genera of the item, Historia (here we can put the items of roman antiquity), nexus interni (inside vicipaedia), nexus externi (weblinks). at the top of the pages I added the categoria information, using the table tool. I changed existing pages only if really necessary. i did some example pages, please have a look:

scientia, ars, ars visualis, ars vivendi, insula, crus.

Further, I would propose - to make the latin readable also for latin beginners - to use expressions which are common in many modern languages, e.g. "traditionalis" is better than "tralaticius" I think.

I would be glad to recieve comments.

valete

ulricus

I cannot say much to the other things, but this is the Latin encyclopedia, not the Latin dictionary; the dictionary associated with this project is at la.wiktionary.org. Also, there is already a category feature built in (use a link like [[category:ars]]); if you use a line like you are using, it may be confusing (it is all right to use such a line — the Japanese wikipedia, I notice, does this — but do not label it "categoriae"). —Myces Tiberinus 23:19 mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I believe the point was missed entirely. I am curious as to whether we should have recent events translated into Latin as well; personally, I think so. After all, we have a page for Canada; and we have a word for America in Latin. I'd say pursue recent events, but perhaps have a focus on events in the Roman time. For example, as of today, we don't even have pages for the seven hills of Rome! It's rather incredulous.
It's an encyclopedia, it should cover everything encyclopedic, of any era (any gaps are due only to chance; there's no reason whatever to expect that Roman-era articles should get any special treatment). As for recent events, that's what m:Wikinews is for. If there is enough interest you may be able to start a Latin edition. —Myces Tiberinus 20:26, 14 Decembris 2005 (UTC)


From Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

cur haec sententia anglica "from wikipedia" in pagina latina??!!

e.g.: "ex vicipaedia" vel "ex encyclopaedia vicipaediana"

cura ut latine valeas

Lingua latina[fontem recensere]

It says "latina lingua" in one place (the heading) and "lingua latina" elsewhere. The latter is correct, I think.

They're pretty much interchangeable. --Iustinus 14:26 aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Censeo multos esse non anglicae linguae locutores qui latinam usant ut alteram internationalem linguam. Nonne absurdum disputationes in anglica mitti ?

Primum, te ORO magnis hortationibus ne sententias aliorum iam scriptas deleas. QUAESO, noli hoc iterum facere!
Dein, absurdum forsitan est et Latina et Anglica linguis uti, sed usus huius Vicipaedia diu constitutus est ut commentationes Latine tantum, disputationes quacumque lingua scribantur. --Iustinus 20:18 mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
De primo : Errare humanum. Noli vindicari.
De altero : Sit usus, at licet usus modificari. Videamus ut ab omnibus intellegantur paginae. Non ego francogallice germaneve scripturus sum, namque nescio quanti lectores intellegant. Latine autem, non ibi sunt qui nesciunt legere (nam quid faciant ?). Nonne ?
Non vindictus sum, sed necesse erat te admonere!
Difficultas est quia contributores sunt graduum diversissimorum Latinitatis, quod proh dolor necesse est (tam pauci sunt contributores nostri ut nemo nisi stultus tirones fugaret). Non solum tironibus difficile est scribere "disputationem" Latine (ne dicam disputationem a tironibus scriptam perdifficilem esse lectu!), sed etiam difficile est correctiones a veteranis datas Latine intellegere. Illa de causa, licet contributores scribant quacumque lingua si eis videatur. Non possum pro certo dicere quot Vicipaediani quibus linguis calleant, sed optime Francogallice scio (et aliquatenus et Germanice ;) ) --Iustinus 16:26 apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

A proposito le conversion![fontem recensere]

Io usava le traduction in interlingua in loco de un traduction ver in lingua latina. Si on devenira un 'administrator', on ganiara le potencia editar le traductiones directemente. Vide instructiones (in anglese): m:MediaWiki namespace.

Nota bene: ligamines con plus que un parola pote esse rompite pro le systema del software antiqua: ars rhetorica non connecta a Ars Rhetorica. On debe mover tal pagines por restaurar le ligamines. --Brion VIBBER 02:55, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Vide: HomePage/Loquenda


Censeo aperire taberna ? Treanna 17:09 dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

wikipedia:taberna aperta. Treanna 16:50 dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

^ In linguâ "europanto" conversâtisne? ^

Rogo disputationem[fontem recensere]

Salvete. Directe dicem, nollens tamen quemque vikipaedianum veterum offendere. Corrigenda sunt multa. Non propter errores quasque magnas et terribiles, sed quaedam incertitudine sententiarum. Videte, ad intellegendum multa scripta paginis incerta sunt (etiam in auxiliaribus, quae auxilium ferre debent). Editiones sint non minimas, sed tantum stilum mutandi, non sensum aut res. Qua re nolo tamen suas magnas editiones inferre sine illam rem disputandi. Rogo ita disputationem de stilo , et maxime de limitibus stili melioris faciendi.
Corrigendum schematibus inveni: vide metapaginam non metapagina.
In nominibus etiam: non mens, quasi anima mentalis (mens, -tis, f) sit, sed mensis (anni pars) latinus. Linas Lituanus

width 85%[fontem recensere]

(Sorry for the English): I just popped in, do you realise that on a 800x600 screen, the title "» V I C I P Æ D I A « · » L A T I N A «" wraps onto a second line. I suggest you make the table wider than 85%.

I've replaced the spaces with nbsp to stop individual words being split up when it wraps. Does it look ok now? Angela 20:41 mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

New logo at http://bowks.net/wiki/la/vicipaedia.png

bowks.net/wiki/la/vicipaedia.png



Hi. You might find this article interesting: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2281926

172.188.56.46 19:43 mar 10, 2004 (UTC)



Archaeologia scientia humana est. Cato 08:17 apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Quidquid latine dictum est, altum videtur[fontem recensere]

155.31.32.253 08:48 iul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Numeri[fontem recensere]

Cur in pagina prima numeri (sicut, per exemplo, numerus paginarum) arabici sunt? Nonne numeri romani esse debent? Problemam intellego: in programmatione, difficile esse potest generare numeros romanos. Non obstans, vobis do consilium meum programmae:

INCIPIT
 ingredere numerus
 milia = humus(numerus/1000);
 quincenti = humus((numerus - 1000*milia)/500);
 centi = humus((numerus - 1000*milia - 
     500*quincenti)/100);
 quinquaginta = humus((numerus - 1000*milia - 
     500*quincenti - 100*centi)/100);
 decem = humus((numerus - 1000*milia - 
     500*quincenti - 100*centi - 50*quinquaginta)/50);
 quinque = humus((numerus - 1000*milia - 
     500*quincenti - 100*centi - 50*quinquaginta - 10*decem)/10);
 uni = humus((numerus - 1000*milia - 
     500*quincenti - 100*centi - 50*quinquaginta - 10*decem - 5*quinque)/1);
 QUANDO milia SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(M);
     milia = milia - 1;
 FINIT
 QUANDO quincenti SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(D);
     quincenti = quincenti - 1;
 FINIT
 QUANDO centi SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(C);
     centi = centi - 1;
 FINIT
 QUANDO quinquaginta SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(L);
     quinquaginta = quinquaginta - 1;
 FINIT
 QUANDO decem SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(X);
     decem = decem - 1;
 FINIT
 QUANDO quinque SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(V);
     quinque = quinque - 1;
 FINIT
 QUANDO uni SIT MAIUS QUAM nullus
     scribere(I);
     uni = uni - 1;
 FINIT
EXPLICIT

Non in lingua precisa computatorium est, sed traducere facile erit.


CalRis25 06:37 iul 23, 2004 (UTC): Hello! That la.Wikipedia isn't using Roman numbers (there is a growing consent on that) has got to do with several reasons, e.g.

  • la.Wikipedia is no Roman Wiki but a Latin Wiki which is a major differenece. It it were a really Roman wiki, things would have to change differently, e.g. Roman numerals, Roman measurements, Roman dates (ab urbe condita), probably only CAPITALS (with no u/g), banishment of all content not concerning ancient Rome.
  • Roman numerals are very unwieldy: they can grow very long and are more difficult to interpret than Arabic numbers.
  • Romans didn't have anything like a "0".

--Faustus 00:35 iul 26, 2004 (UTC)Bene, intellego. Sed, sicut credo, lingua nihil est sine cultura. Ergo, si Vicipaedia in latina erit, eam credo melius si monstravisse culturam aut romanam aut mediaevalis. In epoca imperiali atque mediaevali, utebantur numeri romani. Ergo, si Vicipaedia latina non "vacua" erit (si tenes quid dicam), numeri romani uti debent. Totum dico sine convictione, tum nolo te credens me determinatus. Quid dices?

(NB: Credo melius hoc disputatum transtulisse ad disputationem meam, aut tuam.)


CalRis25 11:42 iul 26, 2004 (UTC): Hello Faustus. Okay, let's move the discussion to your discussion page, even though it might be of interest to others as well. Bye, CalRis.

Linguae Aliae[fontem recensere]

I have created {{VicipaediaLing}} which I recommend correcting then using on the main page. it gives:

Index plenissimusStatistica multilingualis
Vicipaedia in cunctis linguisIncipe Vicipaediam alia lingua


Nomina linguarum nonne latine debent scribi? (Bene, in aliis Vicipaediis nomina linguarum ipsis linguis scripta sunt.)--Faustus 23:29 dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Nova pagina prima[fontem recensere]

disputatio mota ab Disputatio:Pagina prima/Nova:

The overall format looks nice, except for one bit: I'd expect the featured article to be visible without scrolling down; and that blue it's in is a bit strong compared to the brown box it's currently below. —Myces Tiberinus 20:16 sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

CalRis25 10:37 sep 27, 2004 (UTC): Nice job! I would suggest the following changes, however:

  • Remove the Loquenda in the Vincula section as there is no Loquenda-link right now, and probably won't exist for quite some time.
  • Pagina Deia: correct would be Pagina Diei. But I believe that a Pagina Septimanae (of the Week) or Pagina Mensis (of the Month) would be better for the time being as a) la.Wikipedia doesn't yet have that many articles that are good enough for featured article-status, and b) the current coding requires a sysop to manually change the article link, something which doesn't seem to be necessary in the en.Wikipedia. Actually, perhaps the Latin word for article might even be better than pagina, e.g. commentatio or opusculum. Otherwise, cool! Bye, CalRis

CalRis25 10:40 sep 28, 2004 (UTC): Suggestions regarding translations:

  • Complete list -> Index plenissimus.
  • Start a Wikipedia in another language -> Incipe Vicipaediam alia lingua

A minor error: in the text-box "Vicipaedia in Linguis Aliis" the words Vicipaedae should be changed to Vicipaediae.

Paginam primam novam optimam esse censeo. Cur nondum adhibetur? Tempus terit et nihil progressionis video. Agamus! --Wolfgang1018 00:31 dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Vicipaedia in lingua Graeca antiqua[fontem recensere]

Estne Wikipedia pro lingua Graeca antiqua? Quid est nomen eius? Est Wikipedia http://el.wikipedia.org, sed videtur mihi esse pro lingua Graeca MODERNA.

Secundum ISO 639 Vicipaedia Palaeograeca (Οὐικιπαιδεία?) in http://grc.wikipedia.org/ erit, sed nondum adest. Fortasse possumus facere. —Myces Tiberinus 17:06 oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Extra bracket[fontem recensere]

There's an extra bracket before Lingala in the table of links to other Wikipedia languages.

It's fixed now. Gratias ago! Adam Episcopus 03:16 nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Usage standard for words which have changed their meaning since Roman times?[fontem recensere]

Many Latin words have changed their meaning since Roman times. Most Latin dictionaries give the Roman meanings only. What is this Wiki's official usage standard about such words? Examples are:-
WORD :: ROMAN :: MODERN
larva :: ghost :: young stage of insect etc
lemur :: ghost :: a sort of mammal
chaos :: the Void, Space :: disorder
petallum(?) :: sheet of metal :: part of a flower
explodere :: to hiss a bad actor off the stage :: to explode
detonare :: for it to stop thundering (as in weather) :: to detonate

And many medical and anatomical words:-


fetus -a -um :: pregnant; just having given birth ::
fetus (4th decl) :: the process of giving birth; offspring :: unborn baby
// "foetus" is a Late Latin misspelling
cruciare :: to torture :: "to arrange in cross shape" in the cruciate ligaments in the knee

And ulna = cubit meaurement; femur = thigh; tibia = flute; fibula = brooch; etc etc. Are their well-known non-classical anatomical uses allowed here? 81.154.133.29 07:45 nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think that for most of those doublets it is essentially impossible not to use the words in both senses. Obviously we can't throw out the classical meanings, but it also seems stupid to reinvent the wheel when we need to describe explosives or lemurs. Some of the modern words will be more appropriate with otherwise classical Latin than others (I'm quite sure you'll find fetus used to mean fetus if you look in the right authors), and even when a words classical meaning is vastly different from its neologistic one, it will often be clear from context which one you mean (though you may need to include a note on the usage). --Iustinus 128.135.126.47 17:21 nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Front Page Graphics[fontem recensere]

The images wiki-la.png and vikipaedia.gif on the front page use different spellings.