E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Hic colloqui possumus.

De pagina prima[fontem recensere]

Bonum annum 2019 amicis Vicipaedianis voveo. Si paginam primam inspicis mutationes videbis quas hodie temptavi. An "paginam cottidianam" (inter recentissimas selectam) videre placet? An rubricas emendare oportet?

Alia quaestio: paginam primam faciei mobilis inspiciens, eas res tantum videbis quas in sinistra columna faciei plenae habemus. Si faciem mobilem mutare possumus (id quod nescio!) quas res ibi addere suadebis?

Happy New Year to Vicipaedian friends. If you look at the Pagina prima today you will see the changes that I have just tested. What do you think? Is it OK to have a daily page, chosen from among our most recent new pages? Do we need to change the headings?

Another question is about the mobile view Pagina prima. If you look at it on mobile view you will see only those items that we have in the left column of the full Pagina prima. If we can change this (currently, I don't know if we can) what other items would you add to the mobile view Pagina prima? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 2 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Mendum[fontem recensere]

Salvete, vidi paginam nomine "Michael hirschler". Ibi vidi quoddam mendum. Nomen enim "hirschler" scribitur littera magna / maiuscula neque littera parva. Quomodo hoc mendum mutare possum?

Paginam correxi, sed necesse erit fontem addere textumque augere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 3 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

De pagina prima, pars II[fontem recensere]

Quando potes, s.t.p. paginam primam tam plenam quam mobilem, omnibus browsers omnibusque devices tibi accessibilibus, inspice!

  • An paginae primae, plenae et mobiles (sicut hodie stant), utiles et pulchrae tibi videtur? Quomodo melius ordinare possumus?
  • An malis aliquas res (e pagina plena aut mobili aut ambobus) omittere, aliquas res novas inserere?

De his quaestionibus, o amici, placita vestra date! paginamque primam, quotidie renovatam, quotidie visitate ...! Gratias ago ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 4 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

The "pagina cottidiana" that Andrew introduced and maintains is, in my view, a great idea to feature a new page every day, which invites readers to check back to our pagina prima often, and which shows the activity in the creation of articles on diverse subjects here on Vicipaedia. I therefore suggest that we swap the positions of "Pagina cottidiana" and "Pagina mensualis" on our main page. That way, the "Pagina cottidiana" will become more prominent and our main page will invite readers to check back more often. What do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 14:10, 10 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Nemine contradicente, I have made the change. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:50, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Starting today, our pagina prima in mobile view contains the same content as in desktop view (but for the gray content menu bar that would take up quite much screen space on mobile view). Feel free to comment here on the content and appearance of our pagina prima (in mobile view and/or in desktop view)! --UV (disputatio) 22:03, 11 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the main page, but I miss a link to Specialis:nuper mutata in the mobile version. Is there a way to include it in the side bar? --Aylin (disputatio) 05:42, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
I never noticed. That's an important link for small-to-medium wikis such as ours. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
As far as I see, Specialis:Nuper mutata does not yet work in the mobile version, see mw:Reading/Web/Advanced mobile contributions#Special Pages. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:04, 20 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Editbox[fontem recensere]

For the past few weeks, the box for inserting these items hasn't worked; clicking on them no longer has an effect:

    – — … * † ‡ ← → ↔ ↑ ↓ • § ¶ • [[]] | {{}} ~~~~ [[Categoria:]] {{DEFAULTSORT:}} #REDIRECT [[]] • <ref></ref> <ref name=""></ref> <ref name="" /> <references /> • <nowiki> </nowiki>

(They can still be copied & pasted into texts.) Can their original functionality be restored? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:01, 6 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

I'm very glad you raised this. I thought it was just me, because it had happened to me once before. If it's you as well, that's practically a quorum :) Perhaps someone who understands will respond ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 7 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
For reference: I've checked the options listed among the preferences and haven't found anything that looks pertinent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 7 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that our MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js uses "mw.toolbar.insertTags" in two places but "mw.toolbar.insertTags" was disabled around Oct/Nov 2018. I am not totally sure about this, but possibly it would be sufficient to replace in our MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js
mw.toolbar.insertTags(elem, "", "");
$('#wpTextbox1').textSelection('encapsulateSelection', {pre: elem});
mw.toolbar.insertTags(elem[0], elem[1] || "", elem[2] || "");
$('#wpTextbox1').textSelection('encapsulateSelection', {pre: elem[0], post: elem[1] || "", peri: elem[2] || ""});
but I cannot try this out because editing our MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js is not open to editing by all our magistratus any more, but editing this page has meanwhile been limited to meta:Interface administrators. We could either ask one of the meta:Stewards at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous to perform this change, or, if there is community consensus, I could serve as interface administrator and then try the change myself. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:47, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we name UV our interface administrator. Does anyone disagree?
Sit usor:UV "magistratus a faciebus". Addite, s.v.p., placita vestra. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Summo studio consentio! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was my computer when I last tried them. But yes, I think UV should try that!--Xaverius 13:39, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Consentio ego quoque. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:18, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Certe consentio. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:11, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Creetur --Iustinus (disputatio) 08:55, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Sic scribatur, sic fiat! (Etc, etc etc) UV is interface adminitrator now. Adam Episcopus (disputatio) 12:13, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

The fix to MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js seems to have worked! You may need to clear your browser's cache for the change to take effect. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:17, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It's working again for texts being edited; however, it hasn't regained the ability to insert symbols into the Summarium (summary box). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:51, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
It works for me too. Thanks, UV, that's a great relief!
As for the summarium (mentioned by Iacobus), I don't think I ever did that or saw a reason to do it. I get a drop-down box, so, if I wanted one of these groups of characters in the summarium, I guess I'd paste it in once, and then I'd be able to choose it next time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
I often use an arrow to show corrections of small errors; e.g., yesterday: "annic→annis". IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
I made another change to MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js, and inserting text or characters should now work for the summary box as well! You may need to clear your browser's cache for the change to take effect. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:47, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
It works! Thanks, UV! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:30, 12 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Urbs Lacus Salsi[fontem recensere]

Estne nobis mos certus, quo lege nomen loci declinandum sit, cum prima eius vox terminus geographicus est, e. g. Urbs Lacus Salsi: cum rogamus ubi?, respondemus modo locativo (Urbe Lacus Salsi) aut praepositione (in Urbe Lacu Salsi) utendum est? (Nugae sunt ista, certo scio,; sed fortasse recte aut falso fieri possunt.) --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:46, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Ipse scriberem Urbe Lacu Salsi, cum in vel sine in, sed non Urbe Lacus Salsi. De more certo nescio, — tota Vicipaedia ad respondendum perscrutanda est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:54, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
In Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar (#386) legimus: "Appositions are put in the Abl. commonly with in; when the appositive has an attribute, the proper name regularly precedes: Neapoli, in celeberrimo oppido." Ergo, ut videtur: Lacu Salso, in urbe Utensi. ¶ Nomen autem Urbs Lacús Salsí casum genetivum adhibere videtur, de quo Gildersleeve iterum (#361): "A special variety is the use of the Gen. after such words as urbs, oppidum, flumen, etc. This is not found in Plautus and Terence, occurs perhaps but once in Cicero, and seems to be confined to a few cases in poetry and later prose." Ergo: (in) urbe Lacús Salsí. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:30, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Lacus Salsus est ... lacus salsus; adiectivum "salsus" cum nomine 4. decl. "lacus" congruit. Urbs non est lacus, sed iuxta lacum sita: ergo appositionem nullam hic habemus. Est "urbs" (nom.) "Lacús Salsi" (gen.). Si ibi sumus, aut locativo nudo ("urbe") aut cum praepositione ("in urbe") locum nostrum exprimimus, sed non est cur casum genitivum mutemus, qui relationem inter urbem et lacum semper denotare debet. Ego igitur aut "urbe Lacus Salsi" aut "in urbe Lacus Salsi" scribo.
Eodem tempore scribens, aliunde incipiens, ad eandem finem quam Iacobus perveni! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:37, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Recte, ibi Lacus genetivus est, in Urbe Lacus Salsi, sed non in urbe Neapolis. Gratias. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:50, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Dixerim "in urbe Neapoli" (casu ablativo = locativo). Ibi re vera appositionem habemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:54, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Horst[fontem recensere]

Nonnumquam praenomen theodiscum Horst video latine versum Horatius. Id mihi videtur res dubia esse. Nam illud linguae veteris theodiscae, vel veteris anglicae aut germanicae, est, hoc autem veteris linguae latinae. Suntne testimonia istius aequationis? --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:42, 23 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Bisexualitas/Amphiphylophilia[fontem recensere]

In Vicipaedia "homophylophilia" sed non "homosexualitas" scribimus. Ego unum alii non praepono. Sed video nos "bisexualitas" scribere. Et dubio si verba inter se congruunt. Nonne "amphiphylophilia" (αμφιφυλοφιλία) scribere debemus? Sigur (disputatio) 11:57, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Minime ita. Graeca enim vox ἀμφί non significat ambo, sed circum. Fortasse ἀμφί commutasti cum ἂμφω? --Bavarese (disputatio) 13:55, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Scientia carente Neograece scripsi. "Amphophylophilia" igitur? Sigur (disputatio) 15:18, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Ita, Neograece el:αμφιφυλοφιλία scribitur. O tempora! O mores!
Cavete autem: si verbum Latinum fontibus fidelibus confirmatum iam habemus, fere nunquam verbum sine fonte a nobis confectum substituimus. Oportet fontes quaerere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Fons vocabuli bisexualitatis hic invenitur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:33, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Sed hic "bisexualitas" est qualitas entis binorum sexuum (hermaphroditi), non propensio sexualis! Sigur (disputatio) 13:08, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
An (hic p. 147 apud Google Books) etiam? An (hic p. 249 apud Google Books), ubi (mihi videtur) bisexualitas ab hermaphroditismo quaqua ratione distinguitur? Incertus sum. Theodisce difficiliter lego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Theodisce bene lego :). In Primo fonte bisexualitas clarissime ordo binorum sexuum est; in altero verisimiliter etiam ita est (bisexualitas=species binorum sexuum; hermaphroditismus=species cum individuis bina genitalia habentibus; unisexualitas=species sine variis genitaliis). Sigur (disputatio) 13:48, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Si "bisexualitas" alium sensum habet, si "αμφιφυλοφιλία" lectori classico sensum dubium dat, si "amphophylophilia" (*"ambisexualitas") nullibi usque adhuc exstat, quid? Verbum "διφυλοφιλία" (> diphylophilia, sensu "amor duorum sexuum", cf. bisexualitas) bis Neograece reperio hic et hic (fide Google). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Diphylophilia optio mala non est. Lemma Anglicum Pansexuality etiam initio in Vicipaedia Neograeca verbo πανφυλοφιλία convertum est. Ita verba homophylophilia, diphylophilia et panphylophilia congruere potuerunt. Sigur (disputatio) 19:59, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Bene! Regulis phonologicis Graecis obtemperans, παμφυλοφιλία "pamphylophilia" praefero. Neograeci aliqui eadem orthographia utuntur, e.g. quater in hoc foro. Sed rem minimam esse censeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 26 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
De pamphylophilia nondum in Vicipaedia Latina scribimus, sed mihi gratum est. Quod attinet ad diphylophiliam, opinionemne de eo alii Vicipaediani habent? Sigur (disputatio) 11:10, 26 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
Quia Andrew et ego assentimur verbo "diphylophilia" cum alii nullam opinionem habeant, nunc eas res mutabo. Sigur (disputatio) 18:33, 27 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Articulus[fontem recensere]

IacobusAmor and I had a little discussion about subdivisions of legal texts, and it was not evident for either of us which way to go. If you take as an example the EU Treaty, it is divided into titles which have chapters which have sections which have articles which have paragraphs. In order to have something immediately understandable, I'm tempted by titulus-caput-sectio-articulus-paragraphus to translate this (some laws also have "parts", for which "pars" would be an obvious option). On the other hand, I know that it will never be perfect, as e.g. a "section" in a British statute is something equivalent to an "article" in a French law, which in turn is equivalent to the "Paragraf" of a German law (to make the confusion complete, Bavarian laws have "Artikel" as have some federal German ones as well). So, it's all pretty complicated, but that is why my first idea was to stay close to the "indigenous" words. Disputatio incipiat! Sigur (disputatio) 21:39, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Latinizing Greek feet &c.[fontem recensere]

We seem to be having some confusion here about how to Latinize Greek feet. Stearn (Botanical Latin, ed. 3a, p.99) tells us: "Compounds of -pus (-footed, -based), acc. sing. -podem, gen. sing. -podis . . . are similarly declined [as -botrys, -glochin, and -odon]." In the case of chilopus (thousand-footed), for example, that would give us the plurals chilopodes, gen. pl. chilopodum, and so we might well go on a drug-induced trip, venture into the third declension, and see aves chilopodes (thousand-footed birds), gen. pl. avium chilopodum. Taxonomical names, however, ending in nom. pl. -poda, appear to be plurals of an assumed -podum, in the second declension. That seems to be modern usage, as in: Nomenclator generum et familiarum Chilopodorum, including data from 1958 to 2005. Also hic, usque ad 1957. The same usage appeared thus in 2017: "Species novae Chilopodorum cavernicolorum Balcanicorum." Examples of contrary usage may be found, but we may have two things here: an adjectival plural, as in chilopodes, -um (third declension), suitable for describing anything at all, and a taxonomically restricted noun-adjective, as in chilopoda, -odorum (second declension), applicable only to a particular classificatory grouping. Can more evidence be found? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 8 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Not easy, is it? Oddly enough, I looked for Google evidence on "Myriapoda" (which occurs in the same article Scolopendromorpha that I think we're talking about and that I edited today) and found a good 19th century source for the genitive plural -um, see Nomina systematica generum Myriapodum, tam viventium quam fossilium. The only Google sources for "Myriapodorum" were ... Vicipaedia.
Now that you impel me to look for the genitive plural of "Chilopoda", which I didn't till now, I find a comparable 19th century source confirming "Myriapodum" and adding "Chilopodum" (title page and middle of page 25 apud Google Books), and I also find that on Vicipaedia the well-known myriapodist IacobusAmor chose "chilopodum" as gen. pl. twice in the text of Cormocephalus rubriceps and of Chilopodum domesticum. How often he has chosen "chilopodorum" I haven't checked ...
But forgive me, this is just a cheap dig. The fact is, as I see it, there isn't full consistency on this in the literature. Afterthought: it's possible that 19th century zoologists were better at handling Greek-type declensions in Latin than their late 20th century colleagues. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:33, 8 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Mönchengladbach[fontem recensere]

I'm preparing a little stub for the town of Mönchengladbach. The problem I have with it, is that the town is in short known as "Gladbach", which is duly attested in Latin as "Gladbacum" (with variants like "Gladebacum" or "Gladebachum", also the adjective "Gladbacensis"). The official name has been lengthend in the 19th century to better distinguish it from the town of "Bergisch-Gladbach", but even today, locals simply say "Gladbach", as long as there is no ambiguity.

To start the article, I was thinking of something like this:

Gladbacum[footnote with source] (Theodisce "Gladbach") vel Theodisce hodie plene "Mönchengladbach", id est Gladbacum Monachorum, est urbs in Germania et Rhenania Septentrionalis-Vestfalia, circiter 262 200 incolarum.

I could explain the official name change later on.

But then what should the page title be? I haven't found a source saying that Bergisch-Gladbach was also translated as Gladbacum, but that's rather probable. Therefore, "Gladbacum" alone would seem problematic. Both towns are in the Rhineland, so it's difficult to add a clear geographic qualifier. I think that as "Gladbacum" is attested, it should be there, but can we dare "Gladbacum Monachorum" although only half of it is attested? Or something like "Gladbacum (Mönchengladbach)"? Any other ideas?

And by the way, does anyone know how to get this into Wikimedia Commons? It's old enough so that there couldn't be any copyright issues, but it's stuck in the German Wiki for now. Sigur (disputatio) 08:11, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

I'd keep it just as you present it, adding perhaps a {{convertimus}} after Gladbacum Monachorum. Or even maybe something on the lines of "Gladbacum est nomen olim datum urbi hodiernae Mönchengladbach, quae Latine est Gladbacum Monachorum, blabla"--Xaverius 08:33, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
I agree. In some cases longer modern names don't need to be literally converted to Latin -- the short name remains valid and the lengthening achieves nothing -- but in this case, since the lengthening makes a useful distinction, and I think non-locals nearly always call the place by its longer name, we should go with it. "Monachorum" is a perfectly good translation and it is used in other similar names.
In the text, we just have to tell the truth. We don't pretend that the Latin name "Gladbacum Monachorum" is already used if it isn't. We admit that it's our translation and we say why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
This kind of naming occurs elsewhere too. France, for example, has Colombey-les-Belles and Colombey-les-Deux-Églises. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:29, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Use of italics[fontem recensere]

A side issue: in standard typography (at least over here), words cited as words, rather than the things they represent, are italicized (less often, put between double quotes). So definitions of the form "X is the name of a thing" require X to be italicized—and for a lemma, that would be a silly thing to do when, as here, the definition can be made to read "X is a thing." Quotation marks might even be sillier. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:22, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

On Vicipaedia we most often use italics for words that are not Latin, especially in contexts where it's helpful to distinguish them from words that are Latin. Hence, in the first paragraph of Gladbacum Monachorum, the German name goes into italics (I've just fixed that: OK I hope?) to distinguish it from the two Latin names. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's another function of italics. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:41, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Interface with Commons[fontem recensere]

Currently, if you click on an image to see more details, you see -- on the Commons site, just below the image title -- the words "E Wikimedia Commonte". This looks like a joke, though someone may have intended it seriously. I'd love to convert it into real Latin, but although I have an account at Translatewiki I have no idea how to find this message. Can anyone help?

A direct translation of the English could be "E Communibus Vicimediorum", but the accurate statement (since the page is "at Commons", not "from Commons") would be "apud Communia" or "Fasciculus apud Communia Vicimediorum". That's what I would say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:10, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is a quite intricate thing. The MediaWiki software does not handle Latin declensions properly. Still, some time ago, I managed to teach a subset of Latin declensions to the MediaWiki software so that the MediaWiki software at least handles the Latin site names listed ad Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/grammar decently. "Wikimedia Commons", however, is not a Latin site name and in particular declensions of non-Latin names will most probably fail with sometimes funny results.
I fear that there are not too many people who, like you, have edited their commons preferences to display commons with the Latin user interface. Still, you could try to persuade an admin on commons to change commons:MediaWiki:Tagline/la to an at least grammatically correct wording. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:06, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, I see how it works now. Indeed, if "Wikimedia Commons" were a compound of "mons", the result would be perfect. You're right, I only see this message because Latin is my chosen language at Commons, and, understanding so much, I can face the consequences bravely. But maybe I will try to persuade someone to correct the tagline ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Afrikaans[fontem recensere]

We have a lemma "Lingua Africana" which is supposed to mean "Afrikaans". There is a footnote, but it doesn't give a source for this usage. The only other place where I've found this translation is, and that is probably based on Vicipaedia in the first place. In any language I know except Afrikaans itself, adding the adjective for "African" to "language" just means what it means in English: an African language (In Afrikaans, the convention is to use a compound noun if you want to say "African language: "'Afrikataal" instead of "Afrikaanse taal", see here). So, I think this is confusing and the lemma should be "Afrikaans", unless someone finds another Latin word somewhere (but I've searched a lot and in vain).

Now, it does bug me to have a word you can't decline and I'm wondering whether we couldn't say "Afrikaans sive Afrikaner" (the latter adjective is rather ethnic than linguistic but can be used for the language as well) and add a footnote saying that we inflect it like "liber" but that we have invented that: "Constat linguam Afrikaneram*, quae..." with the footnote "* De forma vide liber, -a, -um, sed extra Vicipaediam huius usus testificatio vix inveniri potest." Sigur (disputatio) 17:23, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

I would be against "Afrikaner -a -um" without a source -- and I suspect there won't be a good source. By all means prove me wrong!
You are right that "Lingua Africana" is a bad name. If we drop it, we still have the option of "lingua Afrikaans", declining the word "lingua" so that we always know the intended case. We often have to use that solution, it's a natural thing to do with indeclinable names. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
We could add meridionalis to Lingua Africana. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:56, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

If I had a source (even a bad one), I wouldn't be suggesting the footnote I'm suggesting :). As to Lingua Africana meridionalis, in Dutch they sometimes do that ("Zuidafrikaans"), but it would still be ambiguous (there are quite a number of South African languages). Sigur (disputatio) 19:21, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

I think Maria's suggestion is worth considering. It suggests to me a second possibility, "lingua Africana (Batava)". This is how we distinguished the two languages that are called "Scotica": we call one lingua Scotica (Gadelica) and the other lingua Scotica (Teutonica) (these correspond to terms that are sometimes used in English). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Hard to be enthusiastic about that, but it would take away the ambiguity, at least. Sigur (disputatio) 20:45, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I found this as well: Disputatio:Kimberley (Africa Australis) (and I just can't decide whether "australafricanus, -a, -um" would be less ambiguous or not...) Sigur (disputatio) 21:09, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Meridionalis is postclassical. Australis is classical, and Ovid has polus australis for 'south pole'. Austrinus, too, is classical, as Piny has vertex austrinus for 'south pole'. And so australis and austrinus seem good for everywhere in Africa (not to mention most of South America). Meridianus seems classically more restricted to the equator and latitudes north of it (though of course that distribution could be a feature of imperfect sampling). Note also that we have the continent & country of Australia, not Meridiana. ¶ So Lingua Africana (Australis) might be best. Doesn't afrikaans in its own language mean simply 'African' or 'African-ish'—h.e. '(lingua) Africana'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:32, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
It does indeed, and that's why our current "Lingua Africana" agrees with our general rule (if there's no Latin source, and if the name is translatable in common words, we do so) but I think one must agree that it is annoyingly ambiguous or misleading or both.
Yes, "Australafricana" exists in biological Latin, and it would correspond to the Dutch term "Zuidafrikaans" mentioned by Sigur above [and the language we're discussing originated at the very southernmost point of Africa]. Not to be dismissed, I think ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:43, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what adjective we would use for anything South African. If that is going to be anything else than "australafricanus", then I vote for that term for the language!
On a side note (concerning IacobusAmor's comment): My understanding is that "meridies" means "noon" and by extension the direction where you find the sun at noon: south. If that is so, you definitely don't want to use the word for anything in the southern hemisphere, because that's were the sun at noon is in the north! Sigur (disputatio) 21:54, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Africaans vel Africana (Batava), Africana Batava, Batava Africana mihi meliores videntur; nam meridionali/australi addito ambiguitas manet: multae linguae in Africa Meridionali/Australi in usu sunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:11, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Or we go back to Cape Dutch and say "Batava Capitensis"... More seriously, I'm thinking more and more that one way or the other only some combination with "Batava" can take away the ambiguity. Sigur (disputatio) 22:25, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
"Batava Capitensis" is nice and historic. As a straight translation of what was once a standard term, yes, I guess it would be OK.
In general, I agree, it's desirable to have a different adjective for languages and for nation-states. I'm sure we can achieve that in this case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:42, 20 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Should I conclude from the silence that everyone can live with Lingua Batava Capitensis'? Fine with me! This would then be the page name (which, as I've been rightly reminded of recently, would percolate through into Wikidata), but in the introductory sentence, I would suggest to give alternatives in bold, something like this:
"Lingua Batava Capitensis, vulgo Afrikaans (quod adiectivo Africana convertitur, sed hoc adiectivo ambiguitas manet), est lingua Germanica in Africa Australi atque..."
Looking at the article further down, I'm wondering what the adverb is supposed to be. "Batave Capitenter"? Not that I would ever count on it in Latin, but my intuition has doubts... A compound (Capiti-Batave...)? Any other ideas from real Latinists? Sigur (disputatio) 19:32, 21 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Exempli gratia:
"Lingua Batava Capitensis<ref>fons</ref>, vulgo Afrikaans<ref>I.e. simpliciter Africana.</ref> etc.
"Lingua Africana (Batava){{Convertimus}}, vulgo Afrikaans etc.
aut aliter. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:00, 21 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:] Nonne tu Latinista verus es? Mea mente paginam movere potes ad Lingua Batava Capitensis cum sententia prima sicut proponis.
"Batave Capitenter" non amo! Adiectivum duplex in adverbium duplex aegre convertitur, sed, loco adverbii, ablativo uti potes ("lingua Batava Capitensi"; "hac lingua"). Argumento commentationis semel definito, Latinistae rarius, quam scriptores linguarum vulgarium, repetere solent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:23, 21 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Latinistae veri unum verbum inter duo in Victionario requirere non solent... Sed bene, movebo. Sigur (disputatio) 21:04, 21 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

De translationibus nominum "Seaplane" et " Seaplane Base"[fontem recensere]

Quaestionem a disputatione mea movi:

Renovatiovicipaediae Andreae salutem dicit. I found myself lost today; as already shown in the title, I was wondering how to translate those 2 terms I need for a page here on wiki. It has been not a long time since I've been into Vicipaedia, so I'm not sure how to create a proper discussion about the topic, but definetely I did notice you as one of the most active user around the site and I thought you could help me. Thank you. RenovatioVicipaediae (disputatio) 23:40, 22 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

It's often best to ask on the Taberna, so I'll move your question there and we'll see what other editors suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 23 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Hydroplanum, ut Leo Latinus affirmat, basestatio? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:31, 23 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Western etc.[fontem recensere]

Et mea vice rogo: quomodo western Latine sit? Leo ibidem hippodrama, hippocinema dat. Possibile est, sed haud semper de equis et equitatu in western agitur. Revolucrale nequaquam intelligo (qui revolucrat?). An alia verba iam proposita sunt? Quomodo cowboy? Num bubulcus? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:28, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Cum locutores multarum aliarum linguarum cowboy et western ab Anglico sermone mutuati sint, quin etiam nos ad hanc mutuationem decurramus? Etiam Leo Latinus, cum hippodrama suadet, vocabulum mutuaticium commendat, quamquam Graeci hodierni γουέστερν dicunt. Itaque cowboy et western, cum ad certum genus artis referuntur, termini technici esse videntur, qui insigniter difficiles translatu esse solent. Nec vaccis neque aliis rebus bubulis cowboys illi in pelliculis westernis prodeuntes multum detineri videntur, nam suum mundum fabulosum incolunt. Tamen facile concedo vocabula ab Anglico mutuata vix et aegre declinabilia esse. ¶ Sin autem more anthropologorum de vita et operibus cotidianis variorum bubulcorum (cowboy, gaucho, vaquero, &c) narrandum sit, consentaneum videtur bubulco uti appellatione generali, cui indicium quoddan geographicum appendi possit. Neander (disputatio) 18:25, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Nomina generum artis re vera paene nomina propria sunt, et western non solum genus cinematographiae, sed et musicae, quod nec -drama nec -cinema nominari potest. Et "cowboy" non est "gaucho", quamquam ambo bubulci sunt. Sed cum scribo western, mox corrigo vestern, vesternicus, hmmm..., occidentalis? Country and western - musica Americana rustica et occidentalis? Sed haec explicatio est, non nomen paginae. Nescio, fortasse aliquando western scribam. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:45, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Fortasse tantum occidentalis, -is, scil. pellicula (adiectivum = substantivum). Confer continens, -entis, scil. terra. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:16, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Pellicula occidentalis ut lingua Africana est, eandem dignitatem et eadem damna habet. Purum est, sed incertum, et, ut lectores intelligant, explicatio quaedam addenda erit (pellicula occidentalis<ref>I.e. western.</ref> etc.) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:59, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Ita: locutio "pelliculae occidentales" mihi dicit "pelliculae in cultura occidentali creatae" (si haec cultura una et definibilis sit). Responsum utilem non habeo :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:21, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship[fontem recensere]

I'm thinking of starting an article on "Citizenship" (listed here), but I'm wondering what it should be. "Civitas" is the first thing to come to mind, but we already use that for "state", and sometimes for "city". Ambiguous enough, as it is. My next idea was "Status civitatis" but that reminds me of "Status Civitatis Vaticanae" where, to make things worse, "status" means "state" and "civitas" means "city". At this point, I'm at "Status civicus", but any other suggestions are welcome. Sigur (disputatio) 17:13, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

To not use civitas would be a crime, I'd say. Our Civitas (discretiva) has Status civitatis. But if the Vatican is misleading anything on the lines of Civitas (status) or civitas (ius civium) might do (?).--Xaverius 17:49, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
For English 'citizenship', Cassell's (1968) and Traupman (2007) give one and only one Latin word: civitas, with no further explanation. Furthermore, the primary definition of civitas in L&S is "the condition or privileges of a (Roman) citizen, citizenship, freedom of the city." The suggested status civitatis might seem to mean 'citizenship status', which would seem so general as to include noncitizens. (Q. "What's your citizenship status?" A. "I'm a resident alien.") So I'd say Xaverius, who generously tore himself away from his rugby scrumming so as to comment, is on the right track with regard to our trying to avoid gratuitous criminality. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:26, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
I usually keep an eye on here! And I have been working a lot recently on citizenship after Rome and the use of civis in 6th-7th c. texts, so this immediately drew my attention!--Xaverius 10:19, 26 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. If there is nothing else, I think I will go for "Civitas (ius civium)" then ("Civitas" alone is already taken and thus not an option). Sigur (disputatio) 23:25, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
I agree with others that "civitas" is the correct term. In fact its use in the sense of "body politic, state" must really be derived from this, but both uses are common in classical writers, notably Cicero. Hence it eventually came to be a synonym for "urbs", and we do see examples of that on Vicipaedia (notably in the name of Civitas Capitis), but it's better to avoid that usage in general -- "civitas" has enough meanings already. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 25 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Listing the redlinks[fontem recensere]

Does Vicipaedia have a list of redlinks ranked by the number of articles in which they appear? The purpose & utility of such a list would be obvious. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:21, 10 Martii 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered about this myself, but now you have asked, I've sneaked around a bit. Found this. Sigur (disputatio) 18:38, 10 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Macte! Gratias! This is a surprise, but many of those at the top of the list have titles that suggest that they're among the oldest redlinks in the whole project! Nobody wants to deal with them! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:45, 10 Martii 2019 (UTC)
The list is certainly useful. I have the impression Lesgles has regularly worked from it.
Keep in mind that many of the items are in that list because they feature in just one infobox or navigation box that appears on that number of existing pages. So the need for the new page (and the reliability of its name) may depend entirely on the judgment of the Vicipaedian who created the one infobox or navbox. That having been said, if the list gives people ideas for new pages, that's great!
That and other useful automatically-compiled lists are accessed via the "Paginae speciales" link on the left, or by typing Specialis:Paginae speciales. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's far from anyone's idea of the most important missing articles (VP:10000 is better for that). But I've sometimes found it satisfying to knock them off. And right now the ones at the top are Roman subjects (linked to from Formula:De Roma antiqua), which would certainly be good to have. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:05, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Yes, adding articles on the 10K list is important, but so is the blueing of redlinks. I was surprised, however, at the numbers at the high end of the tally. Using the Quaerere box, I'd noticed that Inflorescentia was a redlink in thirtysome articles, and that seemed like a lot! So I promptly added the article. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:14, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Macte! Lesgles (disputatio) 13:18, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like Specialis:Paginae desideratae, the former version of Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae desideratae, is actually being refreshed, despite the note at the top. Perhaps Usor:UV can confirm this; it might save UVbot some work.

Yes, Specialis:Paginae desideratae has been working again for some time now. I have now updated the description of Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae desideratae accordingly. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:24, 15 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Typographical bother[fontem recensere]

For the past week or so, Vicipaedia has been ignoring linebreaks in texts composed offline and uploaded into the harenarium (an editing page of the "fontem recensere" kind). The result is one huge paragraph, with not even a blankspace marking where the paragraph breaks should be. This has been happening whether the texts had been composed in Microsoft Word or on an email platform. Can anything be done about it? If the condition persists, the addition of long articles (and long bibliographies) will have to be minimized. Time is not infinite, at least for mortals. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:38, 10 Martii 2019 (UTC)

This is not something I've noticed, as I normally compose directly in the Wiki edit window, or else in a text editor; I've never found MS Word useful in this context. Others could perhaps help ...
Do double line breaks solve the problem? That would be my first move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)
No, nor do triple linebreaks. All linebreaks disappear. I don't recall precisely when the problem began, but "about a week ago" would be close. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:06, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Mutationes (modestae) primae paginae nostrae[fontem recensere]

Mutationes quasdam in pagina experimentali Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova vides. Res utiles e Porta communi in columnam dextram inserui, et praecipue "translationem hebdomadis" quaque hebdomade inter Vicipaedias omnes propositam, apud nos ab Usor:UV monstratam. Quibus rebus mutatis, portam communem cum pagina prima contribui suadeo. Ita unam portam, quotidie renovatam, omnibus lectoribus praebere possumus. Quid dicite, o amici?

Quis novas nugas "Scin tu ...?" quaque hebdomade addere velit?

Please look at Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova: you will see some (modest) proposed changes to our pagina prima. In the right column I have placed the most useful items from the present Porta communis. This includes the "translation of the week", a cross-wiki project which UV maintains here: I think it will get better visibility on the pagina prima. I suggest that if this material is incorporated in the pagina prima, the porta communis can then be merged with it. We will have a single front page or portal, updated every day, to welcome all users. What do you think?

Who would like to add a new "Did you know ...?" once a week? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 22 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Would another magistrate check . . .[fontem recensere]

. . . to be doubly sure that the deletion of Morphema ["Aylin (Disputatio | conlationes) delevit paginam Morphema ‎(contenta fuerant: "{{delete|No userful content.--WikiBayer (disputatio) 06:17, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)}} ProRealTime help videos")"] was well advised? Of course it may have been, but could we be sure? Certainly an article having that title is mandatory, even for a small wiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Quite some pages link to it, including Pagina prima. At the very least a redirect to Morphologia (linguistica) would be warranted, I think. Sigur (disputatio) 12:56, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)
As the quoted material above says, the content of the page was "ProRealTime help videos," obviously nothing to do with morphology. It looks like somebody grabbed a red link to put in something resembling advertising, but rather ineptly as there wasn't even a spam link in the page. So deletion of that page was entirely appropriate, I'd say. But I agree that we should have an article defining morphemes, if somebody feels like writing a real one. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:34, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Aylin was right. Sigur, you certainly could do as you suggest ... but creating a real page on this real topic would be better! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)
OK, fine. I wanted to be sure a vandal hadn't replaced a genuine text with a false text and then Aylin hadn't inadvertently deleted the genuine article. Whoever wants to write it is welcome to do so! Strangely, it seems not to be one of the 10,000 most important articles, though Phonema is. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. Surely both WikiBayer and Aylin checked this, but it's always possible to overlook it and I did just re-check. It was a new page, probably created from the redlink on the pagina prima, at 06:15. I notice that the timelords were on to it very quickly: WikiBayer added the delete template at 06:17 (and evidently meant to write "no useful content").
The good news: this represents one more click on our pagina prima! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)
There's already a general article on morphology, but I agree that we need a technical presentation of morphema which should focus on analytical issues in defining this important concept. Neander (disputatio) 19:55, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Paginae cottidianae[fontem recensere]

A die 3 Martii usque ad 14 Martii abeo. An quis velit quotidie novam paginam cottidianam in pagina prima inserere? Facile fit: praecepta ad caput paginae Vicipaedia:Index paginarum cottidianarum videbis. Si die aliquo omittis, eadem pagina duos dies celebrabitur ... id parvi momenti est.

Novas paginas inter "Nuper mutata" quaerere solebo, a variis Vicipaedianis scriptas, quae ad minimum textum bene legibilem nexumque externum fidelem ... et, si utile sit, imaginem ... contineant. Enumerationem paginarum recentissimarum non iam promotarum ibidem reperis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 30 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Usor:Xaverius respondit! Illo omnibusque gratias ago ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 31 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Quaeso, auxilium ad corrigere[fontem recensere]

Quaeso, auxilium ad corrigere hunc articulum

"Claimnant", "Claim", "Pretender"[fontem recensere]

Salve! I'm currently in the process of working up a draft of an article on the House of Stuart, and I'm wondering about Latin terms for the Latin words for these royalist concepts: claimnat/claim, and pretende, in the sense of " the throne". I want to use them in the sense of the fact that the Kings of England claimed that they were Kings of France, and in the sense that James Francis Edward and his heirs claimed the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland (and France!). Any guidance on translation of these terms? I know simulator, which may work for the more pejoritave use of "pretender" (especially for modern pretenders of dead monarchies), but what about the more neutral claim/claimnant? — Seltaeb Eht | Dice mihi! 22:57, 5 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

According to Traupman, a pretender to a throne is a petitor, as is apparently a claimant to anything; Cassell's, however, has petitor in only a legal sense; for a claimant to a throne, it has no single noun, but suggests a clause: qui regnum sibi adrogat (or adfectat). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:45, 6 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I think claim/claimant in this case at least derives from the legal sense of "claim", so petitor is probably appropriate. — Seltaeb Eht | Dice mihi! 17:27, 6 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

Bonifacius?[fontem recensere]

Nescio, utrum in vicipaedia la. aliquando de hoc nomine disputatum sit. Mihi quidem litterà c pro t scriptum insuetum videtur. Fortasse imprimis scriptio theodisca (et pro! latina more theodisco facta) mihi nota est. Sed quaerens etymologica huius nominis lego in interrete: de bono fato tractum esse. Suntne fontes, quibus coniectura ista bonum faciens nititur? (Si non, nonne Bonifatius scribendum sit?) --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:35, 6 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

In Forcellini Onomastico legimus:

BŎNĬFĀTĬUS, ĭi, m. 2. (bonum et fatum) Gr. Βονιφάτιος in ep. Anat. ad Leon. p. ep. 101. — Bonifatius, hieronica in Pseudomoneta reperitur, de quo Eckkel 8. p. 293. — Bonifacius ex pronuntiatione ortum, quae rursus falsam originationem traxit, nunc bis legitur in titulo infimae aetatis (Corp. I. L. 8. 898., et 9. 3512), in libris utraque scriptura paene promiscue habetur (Cf. Heraeus, Sprache des Petronius p. 29). — Bonifa v. Bonifas per sync. in Inscr. apud De Rossi, Inscr. Chr. T. 1. p. 195. n. 446., ubi tamen Momms. pro Bonifae legeret Bonitae.

Quia ambae scripturae in fontibus reperiuntur, tecum opinor nobis scripturam "rectam" sequi decere. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:21, 7 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Sane Sanctus Bonifacius, vicus Minnesotensis, non neglegendus est? :D IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 7 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

Fan/atic(s)[fontem recensere]

Is there a way we could distinguish between a fan and a fanatic? I think Fanaticus could cover both, but the Lexicon Recentus Latinitatis gives Admiratores studiosissimi. I don't know if maybe Factiosus would be a more "classical" alternative (circus factions?).--Xaverius 14:41, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

Traupman distinguishes between fautor 'fan' and fanaticus 'fanatic'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:48, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Does that fautor derive from faveo then?--Xaverius 16:16, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Cassell's says it does: "originally favitor, from faveo." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:19, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Would then either Litterae fautoribus scriptae or Litterae fautorum work as interim entries for "fan fiction"?
(something on the lines of) '''Litterae fautoribus scriptae'''{{convertimus}} aut '''Litterae fautorum''' (vulgo ''fanfic'' vel ''fan fiction'') est genus pseudo-litterarium in quo [[fautor]]es cuidam historias derivativas scribent de historiis praeclaris ab aliis creatis. His in historiis scriptores fanatici personas et locos proprios narrationum originalium utuntur sed in historiis novis, quae non publicatae sunt ab auctoribus originalibus. Haec litterae fautorum florent in [[interrete]].
--Xaverius 16:30, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
"a fautoribus" I would hope. The agent, when human, deserves the preposition and the reader needs it. Without it, "fautoribus" could mean to, for, with or from, not just by. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:06, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Vicipaedia already has a link to Fictio fautorum in the article on Fictio, but the link is red. You could turn it blue! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:10, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Shorter is better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:19, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

Leonardus[fontem recensere]

Hodie est quingentesimus festus dies anniversarius Leonardi Vincii mortui! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 2 Maii 2019 (UTC)

adiuva me[fontem recensere]

Nos autem quaeritis qui sunt nota cum latine. オムジー (disputatio) 09:08, 5 Mail 2019 (UTC)

De tribus investigatoribus et terrore in via Sheldon Street[fontem recensere]

Why isn't the formula {{Titulus italicus}} working in this article? It's working in other articles that have been checked today. (We may silently pass over the redundancy of "via Sheldon Street.") IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:36, 7 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Others will confirm, but I think it's about the length; I see something in the code about 50 characters or less. In the meantime, we can use DISPLAYTITLE. Lesgles (disputatio) 13:26, 7 Maii 2019 (UTC)
It's working now. Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:34, 7 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the redundancy is painful, but it's a published translation so there it stands ... until the buyers of the book succeed in their demand for a corrected reprint :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 7 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but the world has some long-standing examples of interlingual redundancy, of which the best known in the Pacific may be Mount Maunganui in New Zealand, maunga in Maori meaning 'mountain', so that gives you 'Mount Big-Mountain'. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:34, 7 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Whaling?[fontem recensere]

For the concept of whaling, is everybody OK with balaenatio, from Du Cange's "balenatio, piscatio balenarum"? (Or since, according to modern understanding, whales aren't fishes, perhaps it could be defined as venatio/venatus balaenarum or cetaceorum?) Is there any classical term? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:55, 14 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! It seems that even if the Romans hunted whales, there's no written record of it. I like the conciseness of balaenatio. If we go for the phrase, I don't think we need to be too picky about piscatio, though maybe venatio is in fact better because of the active nature of the activity. From Ælfric's Colloquy: "ire cum multis navibus in venationem ballene" [AS: on huntunge hranes] (DMLBS). Hran, by the way, is "(a small kind of) whale" (Dictionary of Old English). Lesgles (disputatio) 15:19, 14 Maii 2019 (UTC)
The problem of "piscatio" is merely one of classification within the text of Du Cange. It doesn't affect us. We know what the lexicographer means, and the information we are given is 100% good: "bal[a]enatio" is a sourced medieval Latin word meaning "whaling".
It's not only Du Cange and his continuators -- D'Arcy Thompson, also, failed to get hooked by classification. In A Glossary of Greek Fishes (1948), note the title, he includes whales and includes Latin. So he gives the word "cetarius" for a catcher of "κῆτοι = ceti". And I suppose we could use "cetarius" to mean whaler, but we'd have to define it when first using it, because classical usage just seems to imply "catcher of big sea-creatures". Thompson does not note any derivatives of "φάλαινα = balaena".
I bought that 1948 book, from new stock, in London in the 1980s. I could still find the shop, but I expect it sells DVDs now.
Adding for completeness' sake: English balinger (OED, "whaling ship") is said to derive from French baleinier from Latin "balaenarius". I have not seen examples of the Latin word in use with any such sense, but it has existed as an adjective, meaning e.g. made from whale meat or bone. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Summing up the present terminology then: the name of the practice of whaling (which might even become a lemma) = balaenatio. A short definition of that name might = venatio/venatus balaenarum. A whaler (person) = cetarius. A whaler (ship) = navis cetaria. OK? (Or why not balaenarius and navis balaenaria?) All of this is complicated by the fact that Cetacea is a technical term in taxonomy, as are Balaena, the general term for 'whale' (one of the 10,000 most important articles), and Balaena, a genus of whales. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:38, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
On the whale/fish question, by the way, see also Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:29, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Flemish[fontem recensere]

I see two adjectives being used for "Flemish" here: Flamingus and Flandrensis. Both are attested (the latter more than the former), but I was wondering whether we shouldn't systematise either using just one or in the way French and German do, where flandrien (flandrisch) refers to the former County of Flanders or the modern-day provinces of East and West Flanders (Flandrensis), while flamand (flämisch) is used for the (larger) modern region of Flanders (Flamingus). Sigur (disputatio) 06:40, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)

An hanc distinctionem (vel fortasse aliam) e fontibus Latinis extrahere possumus? "Flamingus" mihi gentilicium sonat, "Flandrensis" rem geographicam, sed fontes non inspexi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:39, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
That's another possibility as well. Flamingus is rather rare in the first place, but what I've seen might all be gentilicii. Can it be used as an adjective then? It is used in Communitas Flaminga (which is indeed supposed to relate to people, not a territory) here on Vicipaedia. Sigur (disputatio) 08:37, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Systematization is good! But, as is often the case, the situation is complicated. The word Flemish has five linguistic meanings, but these can all be covered in a single article, as in the English wikipedia. The word Flanders, however, has two geographic senses: French Flanders and Zeelandic Flanders, and each of these may deserve its own article. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:55, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Not to complicate things, but here are a few more:
Of course none of these refer to specific geographical boundaries. Just gramatically speaking, unless we find a source for flamingus adj., I think it should be Communitas Flamingensis/Flandrensis/Flandrica. I'm also a little hesistant about making a sharp distinction that isn't in the Latin sources (and Dutch/Flemish seems to get by without the distinction). Lesgles (disputatio) 15:20, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
So, I think that we can retain Flamingus as a noun and for the time being exclude it as an adjective. Now, for the adjective, we probably should either pick just one (at least within one article; I'm thinking of Belgica) or use them according to an objective criterion; just having an arbitrary mix is too confusing. Sigur (disputatio) 16:37, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
And, Iacobe, the two main geographic senses of "Flanders" are (a) the former County of Flanders and (b) the modern Region of Flanders. The two you named (French Flanders and Zeelandic Flanders) are little bits that were parts of (a) but are not part of (b) (due to the fact of not being in Belgium in the first place). Sigur (disputatio) 19:12, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! That makes for four geographic senses, each of which deserves its own article. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:28, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)
@Lesgles: I confirm, Dutch has no distinction as flamand/flandrien in French. I've heard them lump together the names of the modern provinces (Oost-West-Vlaanderen) when they want to refer to the old county (as far as it is in Belgium), but that's the best they can do. Sigur (disputatio) 19:12, 15 Maii 2019 (UTC)

I intend to go through the article "Belgica" which might benefit from some little revisions here and there. At this point and pending any further insights, I think I will put all relevant adjectives to "Flandricus, -a, -um". It's the most straightforward one I can think of when I start from "Flandria" and it makes a nice parallelism with "Wallonicus" (as in "Brabantia Flandrica" and "Brabantia Wallonica"). That being said, I have mixed feelings about all of them, so if others prefer a different one, I'll be fine with that, too. Sigur (disputatio) 10:45, 16 Maii 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good for now, and thanks for working on it! By the way, for the old county the predominant Latin name seems to be Comitatus Flandriae. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:42, 16 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Cladogramma[fontem recensere]

Could someone fix the cladogram formula in Eubalaena? and in another whale-related article (one forgets which)? It doesn't print right. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:59, 19 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Currently it doesn't exist, so it doesn't print at all! Sorry, I don't think I can help. The en:wiki Template:Cladogram requires Lua, a language unknown to me. You might try asking Usor:Andreas Raether, who has bravely had a go at Lua. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 20 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Vespere id scrutabor. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:56, 20 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Opus in progressu ... Andreas Raether (disputatio) 20:31, 20 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Macte! Vicipaedia may once have had cladograms that worked (in case that helps). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:55, 20 Maii 2019 (UTC)
And it still does! See Eua zebrina. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:57, 20 Maii 2019 (UTC)
Tatum partim, Iacobe. Donec nullae variabiles necesse erunt: paginae quidem Eua zebrina non sunt, paginae vero Eubalaena quantitas variabilis nomine cladogram est. Nunc breviter versio parva addidi (versionem pristinam clausi - non delevi ...), vide: →Eubalaena←. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:38, 21 Maii 2019 (UTC)

Carmen ad Pietatem a Michaele Angelo sculptam[fontem recensere]

Auxilium vestrum, o sodales, precor. Aliquando fortuito in nostra Vicipaedia legi carmen de illa Pietà: nostris temporibus latine scriptum (prima strophà sapphica, si recte memini), perfectissime, ut puto, elaboratum. Quamvis cupiens id relegere, nomen auctoris oblitus illam paginam non reperio. Si quis vestrum mihi auxilio venire potest, facite quaeso. ---Bavarese (disputatio) 16:51, 12 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Categoria:Mala[fontem recensere]

Is the proposed category "Mala," referring to apples and corresponding with en:Category:Apples (itself a subcategory of calegories "Malus" and "Edible fruits"), OK? or does it want to be "Mala (fructus)"? or what? Vide commentarios "Malum aureum" et "Malum Discordiae." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 14 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead with "Categoria:Mala". The homonym "bad things" is surely not a sufficiently neutral concept to justify a category. With us, too, it should be a subcategory of Categoria:Fructus and Categoria:Malus (the botanical genus). Some pages currently in the latter would probably fit better in your new category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 14 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Propensiones sexuales[fontem recensere]

We have had a page Homophylophilia for quite some time now. Iacobus has now created Heterosexualitas and Bisexualitas. I actually don't have anything against these words (in spite of our earlier discussion above, but what bugs me is the incoherent terminology. If we keep them, we should move to Homosexualitas as well. The way it is now, it doesn't only look messy, but even suspicious. What do you think? Sigur (disputatio) 14:40, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Not suspicious: it rather reflects the difficulty of finding good Latin terminology. The Web offers far more sources now than it did a few years back, hence the task becomes easier. To the etymologist Homosexualitas has the same irritating problem that Heterosexualitas and Televisio have, but the etymologist will bow to the power of sources showing actual Latin usage. Demonstrate that, and then (if sources prove the point) move the page, I suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
The word bisexualitas seems to have been attested all the way back to 1899, but that word could be said to be more purely native, in that it doesn't have the linguistic miscegenation seen in the hetero and homo forms. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:25, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
As for "homosexualitas", the Latin word has (since 1986) strong support in the official incipit-title of the pastoral letter Homosexualitatis problema. We don't yet have an article on this document, but see e.g. the English en:On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. The Latin text of the document is here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:54, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

OK, so, if that is the only criterion, then consider this: Google gave me 13500 hits for "homosexualitas" and 12100 hits for "homosexualitatis", while there were only 2270 hits for "homophylophilia" (of which roughly half seem to be on some kind of wiki or in a text copied from here) and 133 hits for "homophylophiliae". From before August 2006 (when Homosexualitas was moved to Homophylophilia): 113 hits for "homosexualitas"; 91 hits for "homosexualitatis"; 7 hits for "homophylophilia" (of which one on Vicipaedia) and 0 hits for "homophylophiliae". On Google books, I've found "homosexualitas" in decent Latin texts in 1960 ([1] - [2]), in a German one in 1904 ([3]). For "homophylophilia", Google Books gave me three hits pre-August 2006, i.e. two unavailable books (National Union Catalog and Subject Catalog of the Library of Congress) and one obvious linguistic purist already ranting about erroneous constructions from Greek and Latin roots ([4]). I think that one of the hits for "homophylophilia" gives the correct definition: One of many words proposed as a substitute for homosexuality. It never caught on. (granted, this one is supposed to be English, not Latin). I also checked all the online dictionaries on Lexilogos, none had "homophylophilia", two did have "homosexualitas". And not to forget, authorities in the only state on Earth having Latin as an official language use "homosexualitas" ([5]). So, I think that sources for "homosexualitas" are overwhelming, while those for "homophylophilia" are doubtful because most of them probably stem from Vicipaedia itself. Personally, I'm still willing to go the puristic etymologist's way, but only if it allows us to be consistent. (Concerning "bisexualitas", yes we found it as meaning "binary sex system" only, earlier on, but the change in meaning happend to German "Bisexualität" (according to German Wikipedia), so why not in Latin? That's at least as justifiable as "diphylophilia".) Move? Sigur (disputatio) 19:15, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC) (PS: Just in case: Litterae homosexuales or homosexualitatis? Sigur (disputatio) 21:04, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC))

Consentio. Vocabulum "Homophylophilia" paene nusquam, nisi in vicipaedia. Etiam in libro "Neues Latein Lexicon" (1998) nuncupato: "Homosexualität. f Homosexualitas, tatis,f" Jeanthorlon (disputatio) 19:40, 17 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
OK. As no-one seems to stress out about "homosexualitas", I will move the page and start to do consequential changes. Sigur (disputatio) 12:38, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
You pointed out that the page was long ago moved from "Homosexualitas": I didn't know that. The move was made by Usor:Iustinus, who is still occasionally active. Although the evidence for "Homosexualitas" is compelling, I suggest you mention your new move on his talk page and pause for a couple of days before making many "consequential changes". OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
I'll rather draw his attention before moving, then. Sigur (disputatio) 13:34, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
Since the fully Hellenicized term has gained some currency on the internet, why not keep it as a secondary lemma, e.g.: "Homosexualitas sive homophylophilia{{Convertimus}}," much as I did for Bisexualitas. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:12, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
My Intention. Sigur (disputatio) 13:34, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
If we have a sourced lemma, I am in the habit of deleting alternative lemmas that have no sources, and I predict I will soon be deleting the suggeted "diphylophilia" at bisexualitas if it doesn't get a source meanwhile! On the other hand, if we can cite a reasonable source for "homophylophilia", that's fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Aliae res de coitu humano[fontem recensere]

Meanwhile, those interested in the general topic might wish to boost Vicipaedia's score in the list of 10 000 most important topics by creating articles corresponding to en:Foreplay, en:Prostitution, and en:Sexual attraction—or, for that matter, corresponding to other anthropologically oriented topics in the whole list: Vicipaedia:Paginae_quas_omnibus_Wikipediis_contineri_oportet/Expansio/Anthropologia_et_psychologia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

De schizophrenia[fontem recensere]

Categoriam quaero quae ad en:Categoria:Schizophrenia researchers respondeat. "Schizophrenologus" nusquam, "Schizophrenista" rarissime contextu Anglico tantum reperitur. An possum Categoria:Schizophreniae quaesitores? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Mi nomen categoriae Anglicae non libet, quoniam plurimi ductorum istic hominum non totum ad schizophreniam se conferunt/contulerunt; per exemplum en:Patricia Goldman-Rakic imprimis in neuroscientia corticis frontalis, non singillatim schizophreniae, divulgavit; Si quidem categoria haec in Latinam instituatur, tum schizophreniae investigatores concipiam. "Schizophrenologus" seu "schizophrenista" quicumque iuxta schizophreniam esse oportebat, cum "sanus" tum "aeger", rear. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:26, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
Si usitatissimam Latinitatem neglegere liceat, equidem etiam vocem exquisitoris probem, praeterea exploratoris, siquidem Apuleium libeat sequi, apud quem (in Floridis 18.32) legimus, Thalem Milesium [...] naturae rerum certissmum (vel clarissimum) exploratorem fuisse. --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:25, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Motus contra armas nucleares?[fontem recensere]

Ignarus sum, quo modo haec categoria moveatur ad "Motus contra arma nuclearia" (vel ad aliud nomen - sit venia verbo: - Latinius). --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:51, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Movebo et tibi monstrabo quomodo facere, sed, primo loco, an alius quis de optimo titulo disputare vult? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

contribuere potest/scit[fontem recensere]

In mea pagina usoris pro "contribuere potest" velim scribere "contribuere scit", qua voce uti satius esse puto. Nescio autem, quo modo haec mutatio in babel fieri possit. Si placet, ita, quaeso, facite. -Bavarese (disputatio) 13:44, 24 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

This can be changed at translatewiki:: [6]. --UV (disputatio) 18:42, 24 Iunii 2019 (UTC)