Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 14

Compendia

VP:T

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.

Hic sunt tabularia! Disputationes antiquae ad specialia tabularia motae sunt. Si vis, hic infra scribendo in talibus tabulariis quaerere potes (auxilium).

34,000

Credo commentationem numero 34,000 fuisse Mucimum (verbum Latinitatis dubiosae!) ab anonymo nostro rerum politicarum scriptore heri creatam. Andrew Dalby 10:30, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Hierosalemitanis?

Salvete, I would like to understand the form "Hierosalemitanis" in "Pauperes commilitones Christi templique Salomonici Hierosalemitanis" ...? (cf. [1] and: [2])--Utilo 15:53, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

A more usual spelling would be Hierosolymitanis. There are several Latin spellings for Jerusalem; a common form is "Hierosolyma", and the adjective is "Hierosolymitanus -a -um". Andrew Dalby 16:14, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

gratias tibi ago!--Utilo 18:03, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your first link: the second won't open up for me. My impression is that (apart from the spelling, which may or may not be OK) there is an error in this phrase "Pauperes commilitones Christi templique Salomonici Hierosalemitanis": I would expect Hierosolymitani gen. sg. to agree with "templi", or Hierosolymis locative "at Jerusalem". But checking Google suggests that in other occurrences of this phrase the word "Jerusalem" isn't there at all: it is nearly always "Pauperes commilitones Christi templique Salomonici". Andrew Dalby 20:48, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

It's just what I thought about it, unless there is a form "Hierosalemita, -orum" (N. pl.) for Jerusalem (which I couldn't find yet). I did some work on the site of "ordo religiosus" and wanted to find out the traditional (or official?) name of the order within the Catholic church.--Utilo 17:34, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Anglice: pet

What's the best Latin to correspond with the English categories "Birds kept as pets," "Pet mammals," "Pet molluscs," and so on? The noun pets is usually given as deliciae and amores (both pl.), but these don't seem to work, unless an appositive is OK ("Aves deliciae," &c.). To see what such categories might look like, I tried a few having the form of Aves curatae 'cared-for birds' and so on, but that may not be optimal. Other adjectives that come to mind are dilectus, amatus, and carus. Would Cicero prefer one of these? or another adjective or participle? or a syntactical structure altogether different? Also, what's best for the highest-order pet category, en:Category:Pets? It includes "pet equipment," "pet foods," "animal and pet magazines," "United States Presidential pets," and so on, and these will someday need Latin names too. IacobusAmor 20:16, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Haustier: animal domesticum which of course isn't a giant leap. How we get pet food pet equipment etc out of that I'm not sure.--Ioscius ^(disp) 21:38, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

That should be easy (something like alimenta animalium domesticorum), but is it really the best phrase? It would seem not to exclude unwanted household animals, like bedbugs & dustmites, and not necessarily to include pets that aren't ordinarily kept inside the house, like the pony in the barn and the koi in the pond, and certainly not the pet sharks that live in the ocean and show themselves when the kids of a certain Samoan village sing the appropriate song. ;) IacobusAmor 01:21, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to learn that song ;]

Maybe domitum works better for the horses.

Bedbugs and dustmites are most certainly excluded from animal domesticum in my head, but I see your semantic point. Any ideas?

--Ioscius ^(disp) 01:32, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that while the[in ] Latin it [ the word ]feels strange or don't seem to work, main stream dictionaries all over the world will translate to (a )standard Latin word/s. --Jondel 00:53, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jondel, not sure I caught your point here...--Ioscius ^(disp) 01:34, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ioscius. Belated Merry Xmas. I looked up and wanted to translate 'pet' before , but felt it strange to use the workd delicias ('pleasures,favorite ). But I said to myself, chances are a Latinist from Germanany , Japan, Finland etc will more likely understand it as delicias since their dictionaries would translate the same way. I do feel that something like 'animal domesticum' does translate to our sense of pet. In Spanish, there is 'domestico' (or perrito for the dog). --Jondel 01:49, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Got it. You may be right. Happy holidays to you too! I think in this case domesticum might be best. Deliciae might be better for little birds than dogs and cats, but I might just be reading too much Catullus. Can you find deliciae referring to other animals? --Ioscius ^(disp) 20:14, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Putaverim dilectum seu animal dilectum melius fuisse ad pet reddendum quam domesticum quia Anglice pet adhiberi potest et ad homines describendos.--Rafaelgarcia 23:56, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Ioscius erravi. Cum Rafaele adsentio etiam adhunc. 'Dilectum' seu 'animal dilectum' melius quam 'domesticus' sit. Quod Hispanice domestico, domesticus melius latiname fuisse rebar. Nonne 'domesticus' fundos(farm) et agros(sententia 'agriculture' ) adhibet? I meant deliciae not delicas, sorry earlier. De Aliciun rebar('delicias( acc )in mundi sectabar amore). I think delicae could refer to for example a horse for personal use, or pet fish or pet spiders which boys keep. Possibly even a personal droid/robot in a scifi movie could apply to delicia. I have Cicero and Livy which takes forever to read.--Jondel 01:12, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether the fact that 'pet' expresses a concept which is particular to English might have created some confusion. Whereas in English the general term for aquarium fish or hamsters which are kept for companionship, 'pet', includes the notion of affection, this is not the case in other languages such as German (Haustier), French (animal domestique), Russian (Домашное животное) or Arabic (حيوان منزلي), which call them 'domestic animals'. I cannot find any attestation for 'deliciae' used for animals (Val. Max. speaks of a catellus quem puella in deliciis habuerat - but this is a different use of the expression). Deliciae means 'favourite plaything, darling, etc.', and I suppose this is the reason why dictionaries have used it to translate 'pet', which includes that notion, too.

It is true, of course, that a 'domestic animal' is not quite the same as a 'pet': While I do not think many people would classify bedbugs as domestic animals or free-ranging sharks as pets, 'domestic animals' do certainly include cattle, chicken etc., which are kept for use rather than companionship. But in German we live quite happily with the same ambiguity (the term 'Heimtier' used by the German wikipedia to distinguish animals of companionship from other 'Haustiere' is not very common). Animal domesticum is well attested (canis, aves; but also pecudes). Animal dilectum is not; it would have been as opaque to a Roman as if we called pets 'beloved animals'.--Ceylon 17:30, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I'm astounded by your statement, since here in the States a 'domestic animal' is certainly distinguished from a 'beloved animal', and the latter is exactly what a pet is regarded as: an animal treated as if it were part of the family, almost like a child, complete with health insurance policies, hair dresser, warddrobe and funerals: they are generally kept in the house and often have their own room, but that isn't regarded as distinguishing. I would think articles for each of the two concepts would be called for.--Rafaelgarcia 18:06, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Here is how the various romance language wikis translate pet: ca:Animal de companyia, es:Animal de compañía, fr:Animal de compagnie,it:Animale da compagnia, pt:Animal de estimação; only the portugese one matches 'animal dilectum', the others correspond more closely to 'animal convictionis'; none that I can see translates to 'Animal domesticum'; the spanish page offers a synonym 'mascota'. Although a page for both domestic animal and pet is called for; the failure to distinguish the two concepts is rather a defect than a feature of an encyclopedia.--Rafaelgarcia 18:32, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether a history of pets exists - this would be extremely interesting not least because of all the cultural and sociological implications (differing over space and time) you are alluding to. In continental Europe, while many households certainly have pets, on the whole they seem to be a minority, and maybe some of the more bizarre equations to human family members have not caught on as much as in the US. Possibly the concept of owning an animal for the sole purpose of keeping you company is something which by comparison could be less familiar and therefore less deserving of a linguistic category of its own in Europe? As for antiquity, the Romans most certainly kept pet animals, e.g. the various birds given as gifts. Caligula's horse en:Incitatus would probably be another fine example. But did they have a general term for those animals? If they did, my impression is that it was animalia domestica despite the ambiguity. But I agree that an encyclopaedia should be more exact. In that case, if there is no attested term, I would suggest to use circumlocution rather than making up a new word, something like: animalia (domestica) quae societatis causa pascuntur. Of course such a phrase could only be used in context. For a lemma, if needed, we would have to think of something else.--Ceylon 18:57, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand: are you objecting to 'animal dilectum' because of some ambiguity that worries you in the meaning of the phrase or simply because you've not seen the phrase before? If the first, what is the ambiguity that worries you? If the second, why is that a problem if the meaning and origin is explained in the beginning of the article.--Rafaelgarcia 20:11, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not having made this clear enough. I do not think animal dilectum should be used for three reasons: It is not attested, it is unidiomatic (there are no similar fixed combinations with dilectus), and it cannot be understood intuitively. Terms which literally translate (and will therefore be understood) as 'beloved animals', 'beloved birds' etc. will not make good categories (which is what IacobusAmor was looking for). Categories do not come with further explanations attached - they should be clear as they stand.--Ceylon 20:25, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I missed the part about categories. I agree that "animalia domestica" would work for categories with additional context: Animalia domestica Praesidium Americanorum = "household animals of American presidents"; I agree that the phrase "animal dilectum" is somewhow incomplete/confusing with out a reference as to whom the animal is beloved: "animalia dilecta Praesidibus Amercanis" ="beloved animals of american presidents". The bible has many examples of dilectus being used in this sense, especially "filius meus dilectus"...that inspired me to recommend for pet, but when used in this sense some modifier, like meus or Praesidibus, indicating who loves always appears. What you mention about categories isn't true. You can provide extra information at the head of a category page. We do not do it here but we can. Also we can put an explanatory article at the head of the category that explains the name, which is what Vicipaedia usually does.--Rafaelgarcia 21:05, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on idioms, but a very little contribute: in Italian, Animale da compagnia and Animale domestico are almost synonims, with the only difference that the second is more common. I think in Latin the comprehension would be easy and immediate with Animal domesticum and also Animalia domestica as a Categoria.--Poecus 21:21, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Anglice: shellfish

What's the best Latin for this concept? As used in English, it includes molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Cassell's gives concha (which will eventually do particular duty as a species and is therefore unuseful here) and conchylium (which would seem too exclusive). IacobusAmor 14:06, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you are going to write about: Zoologically molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms are rather different species, when speaking about food (resp. cooking) "The term shellfish is used both broadly and specifically. In common parlance, as in having "shellfish" for dinner, it can refer to anything from clams and oysters to lobster and shrimp. For regulatory purposes it is often narrowly defined as filter-feeding molluscs such as clams, mussels, and oyster to the exclusion of crustaceans and all else" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellfish)--Utilo 17:53, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

What's needed is something equivalent to en:Category:Edible shellfish (including edible molluscs & edible crustaceans), itself a subset of en:Category:Seafood = Categoria:Cibus marinus. IacobusAmor 18:02, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

In modern zoology Conchylia is a genus of moth in the family Geometridae (defined 1857). Beyond science conchylium seems to be quite fitting for that concept: Georges 1913 has among other meanings: "conchȳlium, ī, n. (κογχύλιον), das Muschel- od. Schaltier, I) im allg.: ostreis et conchyliis omnibus contingit, ut cum luna pariter crescant pariterque decrescant, Cic. de div. 2, 33. – II) insbes.: 1) das eßbare Schaltier, bes. die Auster, Lucrina, Hor.: exstructa mensa, non conchyliis aut piscibus, sed multā carne subrancidā, Cic.: nondum prima verba exprimit (infans), conchylium poscit, Quint." - The term is rather open and seems to include all you need (molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms).--Utilo 18:32, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Quomodo operam dem?

Avete! Novus sum apud Vicipaediam, et creatum in Vicipaedia curae esse volo. Si aiquis tempus haberet, mihi diceretne, quomodo incipiam creatum in hac encyclopedia. --20:01, 29 Decembris 2009 Usor:Martinus567

Salve, Martine. Tibi respondi in tua pagina disputatoria. Gratias tibi ad nos advenienti! --Ioscius ^(disp) 20:11, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Typographical note: boldface vs. parenthesis

Boldfacing highlights, but parenthesizing hides. Therefore, putting boldface inside a parenthesis creates visual conflict. Compare these models:

1. Augustina Bessa-Luís (nata Maria Agustina Ferreira Teixeira Bessa in Vila Meã. . . .

2. Augustina Bessa-Luís (nata Maria Agustina Ferreira Teixeira Bessa in Vila Meã. . . .

3. Augustina Bessa-Luís, nata Maria Agustina Ferreira Teixeira Bessa (Vila Meã. . . .

The first model shows the current lemma. Both of the other models are internally more consistent; the third most closely resembles structures like these:

Gulielmus II, accurate Fridericus Gulielmus Victorius Albertus de Borussia. . . .

Olea europaea, antique olea, est species. . . .

Angiospermae, olim Magnoliophyta, sunt plantae florentes. . . .

Pisae (-arum, f.), olim fortasse Peithesa (Italiane: Pisa) sunt urbs. . . .

Anscharius Wilde, plenius Anscharius Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde, fuit scriptor. . . .

Delphinus, rite Delphīnus (-i, m.), est quodlibet multorum mammalium. . . .

Do people agree that the third model shows the best form? IacobusAmor 14:20, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

No, I think there's too much boldface in model 3: it hurts the eye, so to speak. Andrew Dalby 15:07, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a high proportion of the quoted matter (all by itself) is bold; but in context, followed by thousands of words, the proportion diminishes greatly. Further, the multiple use of boldface in that manner is exactly what the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (perhaps the most widely used dictionary in the United States) does. For example:

dwell \'dwel\ vi dwelt \'dwelt\ or dwelled \'dweld, 'dwelt\; dwelling [ME dwellen, fr. OE dwellan to go astray, hinder; akin to OHG twellen to tarry] (13c) 1 : to remain for a time. . . .

latinize . . . vb -ized; -izing often cap, vt (1589) 1 a obs : to translate into Latin. . . . IacobusAmor 12:00, 31 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Also, to be picky, people are not born with a name; and I feel it maybe isn't necessary to italicise a place-name that we have been unable to convert to Latin? So I would make several adjustments to any of those models. I usually use one of the following forms

4. Augustina Bessa-Luís (Lusitane Maria Agustina Ferreira Teixeira Bessa; nata in Vila Meã ...

5. Augustina Bessa-Luís (vulgo Maria Agustina Ferreira Teixeira Bessa; nata in Vila Meã ...

6. Augustina Bessa-Luís (nomine primordiali Maria Agustina Ferreira Teixeira Bessa; nata in Vila Meã ...

(which one I choose might depend on the exact relation between the Latin name and the other one, e.g. whether our Latin is a version of her original name or her later name). I think 4. is our commonest form, and that's the one I would generally go with.

More generally, I suggest boldfacing only those forms that we (as encyclopedists) consider normal Latin terms for the subject. I suggest italicising (and, if there are many, relegating to footnotes) forms that would only be used in other languages and forms that are non-standard or not recommended Latin. So I would bold Olea europaea and Olea (one scientific, one classical, both good Latin). I would definitely not Latinise Oscar Wilde's full name, and definitely not bold it either, because we are not recommending using this as a common term; the only interesting thing about it is that it's the name his parents gave him, and if we alter it (by Latinising it) we are losing even that interesting detail. Andrew Dalby 15:07, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, my option is sort of combination of (3) and (5), e.g., instead of "Carolus Burton Gulick (Charles Burton Gulick; natus apud Jersey City die 30 Septembris 1868; mortuus in White Plains die 23 Maii 1962)", I'd put it "Carolus Burton Gulick, vulgo Charles Burton Gulick (natus apud Jersey City die 30 Septembris 1868; mortuus in White Plains die 23 Maii 1962)". In the former, there's methinks a bit too much stuff in the parentheses. What do you think? --Neander 21:28, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's reading about the editors of Athenaeus! Yes, I take that point. It looks like a good layout to me. Andrew Dalby 22:38, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I've always been writing (and correcting new articles) following this model:

Ioannes de Encina (Hispanice: Juan del Encina; natus 12 Iulii 1468 – mortuus 1529 sive 1530) natus Juan de Fermoselle, fuit ....

Biscoctum Vasconicum (Vasconice: Biskotxa; Francogallice: Gâteau basque) est libum Vasconicum, praecipuum ....

--Xaverius 22:51, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

More comparisons: the Cher examples

Xaverius's examples show more or less the style that used when I began here. It seems not to be the most usual style in wikidom. (What we may expect to be inside parentheses is birthplace, birthdate, deathplace, and deathdate; putting more there may enlarge the parentheses beyond easy reading.) In the Merriam-Webster dictionaries cited above, all forms of the lemma are in bold and outside parentheses. Perhaps it would be worth looking at a range of possibilities (for this purpose, footnotes, links, &c. are here omitted).

GROUP 1: Catalan, Czech, Dutch, Finnish, French, Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Vietnamese set variants of the lemma bold and outside parentheses (Dutch, in this particular case, has a typo, which I've corrected here):

Cheryl Sarkisian LaPiere, més coneguda com a Cher (nascuda el 20 de maig de 1946), és una actriu, cantant, compositora i artista estatunidenca.

Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPierre, známější jako Cher (* 20. května 1946) je americká zpěvačka, skladatelka, tanečnice, herečka, producentka a módní symbol.

Cher, geboren Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPiere (El Centro, 20 mei 1946), is een Amerikaans zangeres en actrice van Armeense afkomst.

Cher, oikealta nimeltään Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPier, (s. 20. toukokuuta 1946 El Cantro, Kalifornia) on yhdysvaltalainen laulaja-lauluntekijä ja näyttelijä.

Cherilyn Sarkisian La Pierre, connue sous le nom de Cher, est une actrice et chanteuse américaine, née le 20 mai 1946 à El Centro en Californie.

Cher, nome d'arte di Cherylin Sarkisian LaPierre (El Centro, 20 maggio 1946), è una cantautrice, attrice, produttrice e presentatrice televisiva statunitense.

Cher, właśc. Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPierre (orm. ՇԵՐԻԼԻՆ ՍԱՐԳԻՍԵԱՆ ԼԱ ՓԵՌ, ur. 20 maja 1946 w El Centro w Kalifornii) – amerykańska piosenkarka i aktorka filmowa.

Cherilyn Sarkisian (nacida en El Centro, Estados Unidos; el 20 de mayo de 1946), conocida mundialmente como Cher, es una cantante, actriz, compositora, diseñadora y productora estadounidense.

Cher tên thật là Cheryl Sarkisian LaPiere, sinh ngày 20 tháng 5 năm 1946 tại California, Mỹ, là một diễn viên, ca sĩ, nhạc sĩ và nhà hoạt động giải trí.

¶ Bulgarian and Russian do the same, adding only transliterations (indifferently roman or italic) inside parentheses:

Шер (на английски: Cher) с рождено име Шерилин Саркисян (Cherilyn Sarkisian) е американска поп певица и актриса от арменски произход по бащина линия и 1/16 чероки-индианка по майчина линия.

Ше́рилин Саркися́н ЛаПье́р Бо́но О́ллмэн (англ. Cherilyn Sarkissian LaPiere Bono Allman; 20 мая 1946, Эль-Сентро, Калифорния), известная под псевдонимом Шер (англ. Cher) — американская поп-исполнительница, автор песен, актриса, режиссер и музыкальный продюсер.

¶ English (Group 2, below) sometimes belongs here in Group 1; for example: "Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August AD 12 – 24 January AD 41), more commonly known by his cognomen Caligula (pronounced /kəˈlɪɡjʊlə/), was the third Roman Emperor, reigning from 16 March 37 until his assassination on 24 January 41." Likewise Hebrew, Indonesian, Romanian, and Turkish (all Group 2 below).

¶ German (Group 3, below) sometimes belongs here in Group 1; for example: "Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (* 31. August 12 in Antium; † 24. Januar 41 in Rom), postum bekannt als Caligula, war von 37 bis 41 römischer Kaiser."

¶ Hungarian (Group 4, below) sometimes belongs here in Group 1; for example: "Caius Caesar, közismert nevén Caligula (Antium, 12. augusztus 31. – Róma, 41. január 24.) római császár, Germanicus és Agrippina fia."

GROUP 2: English, Indonesian, Turkish, Hebrew (not shown), Norwegian (not shown), Romanian, and Welsh set the lemma bold and inside parentheses:

Cher (born Cherilyn Sarkisian on May 20, 1946) is an American pop singer-songwriter, actor, director and record producer.

Cher (terlahir Cheryl Sarkisian LaPiere pada 20 Mei 1946), adalah seorang penyanyi Amerika Serikat, penulis lagu dan aktris.

Cher (tam adı Cherilyn Sarkisian Սարքսյան, Sargsyan), (d. 20 Mayıs 1946, El Centro, Kaliforniya), Ermeni asıllı ABD'li pop şarkıcısı, oyuncu, yapımcı.

Cher (născută în 20 mai 1946 sub numele Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPiere) este o actriţă, cântăreaţă, compozitoare, autoare, producătoare de filme şi designer de modă americană.

Cynhyrchydd recordiau, cantores a chyfansoddwraig caneuon pop o'r Unol Daleithiau yw Cher (ganed Cherilyn Sarkissian, 20 Mai, 1946).

GROUP 3: German sets variants of the lemma in italics inside parentheses:

Cher (* 20. Mai 1946 in El Centro, Kalifornien als Cherilyn Sarkisian, auch Sarkissian) ist eine US-amerikanische Künstlerin, die seit Mitte der 1960er Jahre durch ihr Auftreten und Wirken in Musik, Film, Fernsehen und Mode zu einer popkulturellen Medienikone wurde. Sie ist eine Oscar-, Emmy-, Grammy- und dreifache Golden-Globe-Preisträgerin.

¶ Serbian does the same, but indulges a parenthesis inside a parenthesis: "Шер (енгл. Cher, право име Шерилин Саркисијан Лапјер (енгл. Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPierre); Ел Сентро, Калифорнија, САД, 20. мај 1946) је америчка пјевачица и глумица јерменског порекла."

GROUP 4: Hungarian sets variants of the lemma bold & italic inside parentheses:

Cher (teljes nevén: Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPierre Bono Allman, El Centro , Kalifornia , 1946.május 20.-) amerikai énekesnő, színésznő.

To my eye, the cleanest style is the apparently majoritarian one: variants of the lemma set bold and outside parentheses. IacobusAmor 13:47, 31 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that! There might be a difference between us only in what we consider to be "variants of the lemma". I'd like to know your feelings about my phrasing above, which I paste in here:

I suggest boldfacing only those forms that we (as encyclopedists) consider normal Latin terms for the subject. I suggest italicising (and, if there are many, relegating to footnotes) forms that would only be used in other languages and forms that are non-standard or not recommended Latin.

To me, this means not boldfacing, but italicising, the very long full names of the kings and Wildes of this world (because they are not "normal Latin terms" for the subject). More generally, it means not boldfacing, but italicising, alternative terms that are "not Latin". My reasoning is that we are writing and people are reading us in a specific language -- Latin -- and one of our tasks as encyclopedists is to inform readers what is/are the most suitable terms for the topic in this language. Using boldface to highlight the recommended/normal Latin terms is an eye-catching way to do this. Andrew Dalby 10:28, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

What should we do with local names for kings/places/dishes then? Do you reckon they are better italicised or boldfaced? and should these be inside or outside the parenthesis?--Xaverius 12:31, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I would urge that local, non-Latin names for the subject should be italicised, not bolded.

I usually put them inside the parenthesis; but I take Neander's point that our parentheses contain too much, and I would happily change my practice and put non-Latin names outside the parenthesis. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I've checked dictionaries at hand, and lemmata seem always to be boldfaced. Cassell's, for example: "drachma (drachuma : Pl.) -ae f." Likewise White's: "drachma (-ŭma, Plaut.), æ, f." Likewise, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary: "drachma \'drak-mə\ n, pl drachmas or drachmai \ˌmī\ or drachmae \-(ˌ)mē, ˌmī\." Likewise the OED. ¶ Aside: note that the comma in "-ŭma," is set bold; for hundreds of years, until nontypographers got ahold of the presses (as in Wikipedia), printers have been setting commas & periods in the same font as the immediately preceding word. IacobusAmor 14:30, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries don't set a good example: I have seldom seen printed text more difficult to read than that of American English dictionaries. But then, they are designed for staccato consultation. Encyclopedias, by contrast, want you to read on. That having been said, all the dictionaries agree with all the Wikipedias on your last point: lemmas go in boldface. No one's proposed to change that. Andrew Dalby 15:58, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think maybe 90% of the time this parenthetical information—whether in parentheses or not—is bad style, and would better belong in an infobox (like formula:Data hominis) rather than cluttering up the first sentence at all. —Mucius Tever 16:02, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Is that better treated as a separate issue? Speaking for myself, I am against biographical infoboxes: they seem to force one to oversimplify matters that may be very complicated. Perhaps our convoluted initial sentences do the same! but there we have a solution: to make the sentences simpler and say what we mean in more than one sentence. I think our first job is to state facts (and doubts) in clear text. If people then want to add an infobox, for me that's mere marzipan on the cake. OK, I admit, nowadays I eat my marzipan :) Andrew Dalby 13:40, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

The reason I'm with Andrew in not wanting to rely on infoboxes is that what people will quote is the text in the article, not the infoboxes, and we want to have basic info right there to be quoted. For a biography, we could move all birth & death data to an infobox, but then a quotation of the lemma & its definition would be quite spare. However, I agree that some of the current parentheses contain too much, especially when a single parenthesis includes alternate spellings of the name + birthplace + birthdate + deathplace + deathdate). ¶ Incidentally, words for "born" and "died" are obvious in such parentheses and can be omitted. IacobusAmor 14:30, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

The point about what other people will quote hadn't occurred to me. It's true. But also, if there is an infobox, visitors are tempted to rely on it to the exclusion of the text. A researcher relying on the Wikipedia infobox contributed to the recent political spat about Titian's-age-at-death in the House of Commons: one notes the utter irrelevance to current events of British political debate :( and the increasing dependence on Wikipedia :) Andrew Dalby 10:16, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Nunc quid facere debeo?

Salvete! Quid agem, si fasciculum imponere volo? Responsa multas gratias!

Sub "Arca ferramentorum" invenies "Fasciculum imponere", quod tibi pungendum est, patefacietque tabula in qua nomen fasciculi imponendi scribere oportet. Fasciculum eligere potes e fasciculis computatoris tui. Si utere fasciculo antea imposito vis in pagina quadam a te scripta, tantum debes inscribere nomen fasciculi in parentheses quadras, in forma [[Fasciculus:''nomen fasciculi''.jpg|thumb|''descriptio imaginis'']]

Spero me tibi utilem fuisse. Si quidquid umquam tibi necesse est, amice, sine curis pete.--Poecus 20:51, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Suasum est non imponere fasciculos apud nos. Si est fasciculus OK sub regulis Vicimediorum Communium, quaesumus illic imponas. Si est nefas sub illis regulis, quoque nefas est apud nos.

Vide Vicipaedia:Imagines imponere et commons:Special:Upload.

Gratias! --Ioscius ^(disp) 22:52, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Vobis multas gratias ago,vos mihi multa adiuvavistis!

--Martinus567 09:38, 31 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

"Amabo te" iterum!

Ad capitulum huius paginae. "Quaeso" utere, quaeso, non latinitate Plauti. [82.36.89.155]

Curnam a Plauto solo "amabo te" credis esse dictum? E locis Ciceronis haud paucis liceat mihi haec specimina dare: ad Atticum 2.2.1 cura, amabo te, Ciceronem nostrum; ad Quintum fratrem 2.8.4 Amabo te, advola; ad familiares 8.6 Amabo te, si quid, quod opus fuerit Appio, facies, ponito me in gratia;de oratore 2.69.278 amabo te," inquit "da mihi ex ista arbore quos seram surculos." --Neander 03:04, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Quis de Cicerone curat? Homo taediosissimus erat. [82.36.89.155]

Translatio Vicimediana

Ecce nuntii novi in supplementum priorum nuntiorum "nuclearium" facti, quos ego hortatu Christiani Brown Latine reddidi. Nil obstat, quin, si quid aut perperam aut infeliciter scripserim, in melius mutes, tametsi potius dissuaserim de mutationibus mutationis causa faciendis, sicut "X et Y" => "X Yque" aliisque eius generis. Translatio mea "dynamici" generis est, nam non omnes enuntiationes Anglicis auribus bene sonantes alienis concinunt. Non igitur de eo agitur, ut aliae linguae quam fidelissime in formam Anglicam redigantur, sed potius de eo, ut salvá re genius cuiusque linguae quam optime conservetur. --Neander 18:47, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Neander, gratias tibi ob translationes, sed nota quod nomen CBrown re vera est Casey Brown, non Chris Brown. Fuit erratum meum eum misnominare. De translationibus eius generis melius opino esse facere ut fecisti quam convetere verbatim.--Rafaelgarcia 20:08, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Pulchre factum, Neander. --Ioscius ^(disp) 23:41, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Videte s.v.p.

... Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia Vicipaedianis. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Let's play Asteroids!

I'm currently taking formal classes in Latin, so I'm trying my hand at some very small articles. I was here in July working on the Intellegentia artificialis and Terra Mariae articles (as User:Autophile), and I realized that until I knew Latin well enough, such long articles would end up being disasters. So instead, I put up a simple two-sentence article: 50033 Perelman. After adding 50240 Cortina and 50412 Ewen, I realized that all the pages for small asteroids which have virtually no information other than orbital parameters and discovery would look the same.

Assuming that these pages look OK, would it be in poor taste to develop a script which grabs the relevant data from the JPL Small Body Database Browser and creates a page for each asteroid, as long as the page does not already exist? The reason I say "in poor taste" is that it would add several tens of thousands of small, unimportant pages to Vicipaedia. The script would put in a marker in each generated article so that if the template for the script changed, all the marked articles could be regenerated. --Robert.Baruch 20:03, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Propose moving this to a project page of some sort, or a user sub page? --Ioscius ^(disp) 23:04, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Andrew Dalby 09:58, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Haec disputatio mota est huc: Usor:Robert.Baruch/Asteroids
Multum etiam disputandum est.
--Ioscius (disp) 13:49, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Ad Vicipaediam reditus laete reperio novas paginas asteroidum 6-1000. Aliquas observationes in paginam Usor:Robert.Baruch/Asteroids nunc addo. Andrew Dalby 13:17, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Decimal point

Consensu omnium disputantium constitum est uti puncto decimali, non autem comma, in numeris scribendis. Ut plus disputes, clamato hic: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Fractiones decimales#consensus.--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:45, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Virus: Whitaker's Words?!

So I was just experiencing some bad virus on my laptop, and after a few months of scans and professional help, it turns out that a Latin dictionary seems to be partly responsible. I had downloaded a Whitaker's Words dictionary program (which I downloaded here) for my laptop, and several different antivirus programs listed it as a high-risk threat. I know this has nothing to do with Vicipaedia, per se, but I wanted to warn you all since there's a chance many of you may have the same program. I was also curious whether anyone else experienced similar problems. Thanks! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 00:39, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I've downloaded words onto every computer I have been able to - PC, Mac, and Linux - in the United States, Italy, and Slovenia (might even be a couple in Montreal...) - for pretty much the last 8 years, including my girlfriend's, brother's, students', best friends', libraries', teacher's, faculty lounges', used car salesmen's offices', secretaries', etc without any trouble at all. The only problem is it frequently has awkward or wrong translations and it's missing an awful lot of Latin words. Viruses, never. Sorry about your computer trouble. That's really weird though. --Ioscius ^(disp) 00:04, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Where do you download it from? That link up there? (i.e. this one?)--SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:06, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to join efforts and add all those missing words to "Words", it would be nice to add the most used in modern life. I would love to help but I am afraid that my Latin knowledge right now is just ridiculous, not to mention to help in a task like that. By the way, I never had any trouble with Words, but I am using it with Linux. --Vallatum 23:48, 17 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Esse praepositum

Quid significat haec formula? Ecce:

Est mora prolongatio cunctatoria diei actionis alicuius.

Est periculum possibilitas mali eventus.

Est "nihil obstat" declaratio iuridica indicens publicationem alicuius scripturae non interdici.

Devine & Stephens dicunt esse praepositum esse "esse existentiale," Anglice conversum 'there is'; ergo Est mora prolongatio cunctatoria diei actionis alicuius = 'There is a mora a cunctative lengthening of someone's day of acting' (i.e., someone's legal case). Cur est mora, non mora est ??? IacobusAmor 12:33, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I was taught that when two things are equated, X est Y. But for existence, X est (or possibly est X). M&F: "But, forms of the verb sum, when used as a link verb, rarely come last." Possibly any order than the above indicates special emphasis. So I would argue that Est mora prolongatio cunctatoria diei actionis alicuius means "Mora is a whatever.", that is: it really is that, and not something else. I don't like it. -- Robert.Baruch 01:26, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Bradley's Arnold: "81. But if great stress is laid on the verb it is placed at the beginning": Est caeleste numen.: There really is (or there exists) a heavenly power. So I would conclude that X est Y and X est are the normal versions, and anything else is emphatic. -- Robert.Baruch 01:30, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

We have the same ears, and have been reading the same sources, it seems. :) IacobusAmor 03:12, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Esse postpositum

Aliud exemplum: "Ecclesia Evangelica sive Evangelismus Protestanticus Christianus qui decennio 174 in Britanniarum Regno coepit est." IacobusAmor

Non amo. I think if this were spoken by anyone other than a poet, a Roman would be surprised at the end by est. It sounds too much like it would be an auxilliary for coepit (impossible though that is). I was taught that unless one were trying to be fancy or emphatic, one should translate using the most obvious and unambiguous word order. Again, I would prefer X est Y. With X Y est, I would be tempted into thinking that Y is in apposition to X, and then I would be annoyed that the est at the end forces me to reparse the whole crazy thing. -- Robert.Baruch 01:41, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

In Taberna more than a couple of years ago, I began highlighting sentences in which a form of the copulative esse was the last word of a definition, separated by miles & miles of verbiage from the nouns it was joining. Apparently, some students were taught that it's a verb, so it must go at the end. If you want to see the debate, with numerous examples, go into the archives. Every now & then an egregious example turns up, and I copy it into the record, as here. IacobusAmor 03:15, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Aliud exemplum: "Cuba secunda civitas in mundo ob indicem alphabetizationis secundum relatum 2007/2008 Programmate Consosciationis [sic] Nationum pro Evolutione est." IacobusAmor 13:33, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Do you correct them when you find these examples? I can't imagine they are clear Latin. -- Robert.Baruch 14:37, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Usually. It's a point of wonderment that some pedagogues, somewhere in the world, may be teaching students always to put this est at the end of a sentence. Unfortunatety, the authors don't often tell us where their style comes from. IacobusAmor 14:58, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Aliud exemplum: "Friburgum, “Fribourg” Francice atque “Freiburg" Germanice, urbs 36'544 (anno Domini 2004) incolarum et caput Reipublicae et pagi eiusdem nominis est." IacobusAmor 15:02, 18 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Item: "Ursicinus archiepiscopus Ravennaticus ab anno 533 usque ad annum 536 fuit" Anglice fortasse: 'Archbishop Ursicinus of Ravenna was from the year 533 to the year 536'. Titles that in Latin usually go in apposition to the right usually in English go to the left: Ioannes Rex 'King John' et Ioannes Rex Anglicus 'King John of England'; ergo (mistakenly, of course) Ursicinus archiepiscopus Ravennaticus 'Archbishop Ursicinus of Ravenna'. IacobusAmor 11:45, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Item: "Castrum Plebis, deinde Civitas Plebis (Italiane: Città della Pieve), oppidum Italiae et municipium circiter 7 748 incolarum, in Provincia Perusina et in Umbria regione est." IacobusAmor 13:36, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Item: "Savo (-nis, f.) (Italiane: Savona) Urbs Italiae et municipium circiter 62 000 incolarum, in Liguria regione et caput Provinciae Savonense est." IacobusAmor 19:19, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Item: "436 116 advenarum nationem Octobris anni 2009 habitantium, secundum Ministerium Rerum Internarum Cechum inter quos praecipui circuli Ucraini (132 481), Slovaci (75 210), Vietnamienses (61 102), Russi (29 976), [[Poloni] (19 790), Germani (14 156), MoldaviDIS (10 315), Bulgari (6 346), Mongoli (5 924), Statunitenses (5 803), Seres (5 314), Britanni (4 461), Rutheni Albi (4 441), Serbi (4 098), Valachi (4 021), Cazachi (3 896), Austriaci (3 114), Itali (2 580), Batavi (2 553), Francogalli (2 356), Croatae (2 351), Bosniaci (2 240), Armenii (2 021), Uzbeci (1 969), Macedones (1 787) et Iaponienses (1 581) sunt." IacobusAmor 23:48, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Citing a website

Robert.Baruch's addition of a footnote citation to Usor:Robert.Baruch/Test 990 Yerkes‎‎ impels me to make a point that's been in my mind. It often happens on en:wiki that someone cites a website and adds "consulted on x date". There is probably even a rule somewhere saying that they have to.

I think this is in general a bad practice for an encyclopedia, though it is a very good practice for an academic paper. My reasoning is

1. why do people publish academic papers? To argue or "prove" the validity of an advance in knowledge. This requires the citing of other people's work that supports the advance (or doesn't support it) and naturally one has to cite precisely what they published, and it has to be verifiable that they published it. In the case of a website, this involves saying when it was available on line.
2. why do people publish encyclopedia articles? To present the state of knowledge as it stands. This may require citing other sources that extend the knowledge, or that give supporting evidence or further sources for it. But the citations are not to support the writer's argument (one's not supposed to be making an argument, and in our case the article's anonymous anyway), they are to give the reader additional routes to knowledge and to those academic arguments in which we ourselves are not to take sides. So the only use of the citations is if the link works. The reader doesn't care at what date the anonymous Vicipaedia article consulted that page: to the reader it only matters that it is there "now".
3. Yes, I know, Wikipedia has rules about verifiability. But as far as footnoted references are concerned, these rules don't work and never did. Anyone can change the text while leaving the footnotes alone (I warn about this at length and give examples in The World and Wikipedia, and I come across more examples all the time). In any case if the external page referred to has been changed or has disappeared, there is usually no way to verify what the Wikipedia article claims it used to say.

So the dates of consultation given in references to external sites are no use for verifiability, and no use to the reader of the Vicipaedia article. So, either "hide" them (if they could be of some use for internal housekeeping, but I can't see what use that would be) or, in my view, don't give those dates at all. They are useless.

Does anyone agree? Andrew Dalby 11:14, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely. The reasoning behind keeping the date is presumably that, as a webpage gets revised, its truth changes, and a citation must refer to the particular truth as it was on a particular day. (As the world gains speed, how long do we have to wait before the standard style requires that citations refer to a particular minute and even a particular second?) When translating texts from Wikipedia, I've cut some dates of consultation. I'd agree that, at a minimum, they should be hidden. If there's a reasonable counterargument, let's hear it! IacobusAmor 13:35, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you an incriminating question? I won't quote you on this, but ... About those dates you didn't cut: did you actually consult the websites, or did you just take it that the English editors had done so? You see where I'm going: in that case, the cited site may not precisely support what you wrote in Latin; it may support what the English page said at the time when you translated that page, but only if no one altered the relevant text of the English page after the site was consulted -- and only if they themselves didn't copy the reference from someone else without rechecking it. Andrew Dalby 18:28, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style isn't much help. Well, it may show where the idea came from that an access date could be included: "If an access date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation" (see Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide accessed on 10 Ian 2010, ha ha!) -- Robert.Baruch 15:11, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

That gives an interesting sidelight. To paraphrase, "Do it if other people think you ought to do it." Otherwise, you may think for yourself. Andrew Dalby 18:10, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Erk? Giving access dates in a website reference isn't a Wikipedia thing; it's a standard reference style—it's how I was taught in school, for example, long before Wikipedia. It may, in one sense, be useless, but no more than a lot of other information that goes into references (e.g. why do I care who the publisher is or what city it was printed in?), though it's on a par for usefulness on giving the copyright date of the book. (As for whether it should be "proving" anything or not, as far as I understand it the purpose of the citation in Wikipedia is not to prove that it is true but, ideally, to prove that it is being said. Of course citations can be 'broken', but that's possible in any case.)

Anyway, besides inutilitas for Wikipedia's purposes it seems the only argument you have against them is "In any case if the external page referred to has been changed or has disappeared, there is usually no way to verify what the Wikipedia article claims it used to say." But I do have to say that, when a cited page has changed, it's ridiculously more useful to have a date in hand to narrow down what I'm looking for instead of browsing through fifty to a hundred Internet Archive entries—or possibly thousands of revision history entries in the case of wikis. —Mucius Tever 15:26, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, you, Myces (I'm guessing!) weren't being taught at school to write encyclopedia articles. I am arguing that "standard reference styles" need to differ depending on the purpose of one's writing and the needs of one's audience: that's what I was taught at school.

And I am also arguing, yes, that if it's useless it shouldn't be there. Indeed, I've wondered whether there is any use in continuing to cite publisher and place-of-publication when (in the case of modern books) an ISBN is handier. But the reason publisher and place-of-publication was once useful is because, in the old days, the information would help you or your library to identify (and acquire) the book.

However, the publication date of a book or article being cited is on a different level of usefulness, because it gives at least an approximate indication of when the information was (or was accepted as) up-to-date. Don't let's drop that! If web pages give a similar date I would be all for citing it [added later: and, like Robert below, I already do]: unfortunately, all too often, they don't give a date at all or make it hard to find.

I admit, though, in theory, that you might use the date on a Wikipedia web citation to search the Internet Archive. I've never done it. Have you? Andrew Dalby 17:26, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not normally in this exact situation — I don't often look at the things Wikipedia cites, unless they are attached to particularly striking statements — but frequently I find myself hunting through histories trying to find things. —Mucius Tever 23:24, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, I too admit it's not 100% useless. I just think, the simpler and more cogent the details appearing in references, the quicker it is to create them and the more people are likely to use them. Andrew Dalby

Even thirty years ago (now I'm dating myself), I was told to include the publication place. I would dutifully go to the copyright page and copy down "New York, London, Paris, Chicago, Los Angeles". Personally, I've found publication place to be totally useless, preferring instead to go with publisher and date, so that if the publisher goes under or merges, at least you can look at the history to see when in that publisher's career the book was theoretically made available.

As for website dates, I would add the date if the article on the web is dated, just as magazine or newspaper articles would be dated. Not because it's a useful location aid, but because it's a useful indicator of how old the information is.

As for access date... I agree that it's probably less than useful. I think Wikipedia frowns on online sources, preferring to rely on printed works, but of course enforcing that is like herding technocats, because a vast amount of useful information is online, and more coming online every second. -- Robert.Baruch 20:31, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

For comparison:

• Chicago Manual of Style (CMS): "If an access date is required by your publisher or discipline, include it parenthetically at the end of the citation."
• The American Psychological Association (APA) Style says this: "Retrieval date: Include retrieval date if the cited content is likely to be changed or updated. No retrieval date is necessary if the materials are the final version, such as a journal article or book." (emphasis added).
• NLM/Vancouver Style (used by Biomedical Journals): always include citation date.
• Modern Language Association (MLA): always include citation date.

The CMS, APA, MLA, and NLM/Vancouver are pretty much the major publication standards in English. 2 of 4 require citation date, 1 requires it if "the discipline" requires it, and the last has it as optional. It looks like the major style guides lean towards including the access date. -- Robert.Baruch 20:43, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't much surprise me; I still feel that what they prescribe for academic books and papers doesn't necessarily fit our needs. But, finally, if as Mucius says the date could eventually be useful to someone in searching the Internet Archive, I guess there's no reason not to include it -- hidden -- if we really did consult it ...

Thanks, interesting responses -- Andrew Dalby 20:55, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I would argue that Wikipedia is less than an academic work, but more than a magazine. Nevertheless, Wikipedia keeps getting referred to and compared to encyclopedias -- probably because it says it's an encyclopedia. I don't recall how encyclopedias handle references, because I can't recall the last time I used a print encyclopedia.

I don't know about hiding the access date. I don't think it would distract if we included it. Although I would probably update the Formula:Web cite to make the "Accessed on" phrase in parentheses or square brackets to match better one of the Big Style Standards. Right now it doesn't look so good.

Here's a nice reference for four standards used in the humanities (MLA), social sciences (APA), history (CMS), and sciences (CSE): Research and Documentation Online -- Robert.Baruch 21:02, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, as we do now with the "Ling" template, we could make the access date in the "Cite web" template appear in grey. Andrew Dalby 09:47, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Translatewiki.net update

• Currently 74.84% of the MediaWiki messages and 7.95% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at translatewiki.net. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 13:51, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

• PS Please help us complete the most wanted messages..

Conversio bona?

Omnibus salutem,

opem rogo rursus conversione cuiusdem viae, id est viae commercialis, quae porrigitur ab Italia usque ad Europam borealem. (hu:Borostyánút; en:Amber_Road; de:Bernsteinstraße). Nomen eius imponebat a succino sucino , nam per eam portabat illud. Solum in dictionario succinum sucinum inveniebam, sed non hanc viam. Ideo exgogitavi succinum adiectivum facere, id est succinus 3 sucinus 3. Sic exgotavi Viam Succinam Viam Sucinam. Peto, si inveniebatur melior, huc scribere. --Martinus567 17:49, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Melius scribas sucinum,-i (< sucus) et sucinus 3 (inde: Via Sucina). Saepe (saepius?) pro sucino ēlectrum, ī, n. (ἤλεκτρον, adi.: electrus 3, semel etiam: electrifer 3) invenitur. Sucinus 3 legitur Plin. 22, 99 (sucina novacula), Mart. 4, 59, 2 (gemma), Mart. 6, 15, 2 (gutta)--Utilo 20:51, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Vix melior invenietur quam Via sucina (cum u longa). Alter Martinus \\Neander 20:57, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)\\

Mea sententia Via sucina est via e sucino facta. Problema simile attigit id quod Anglice Silk Road et Theodisce Seidenstraße appellatur. Diu mecum deliberatus constitui hanc non Viam Sericam - quae significaret aut Via e serico facta (quod non!) aut Via ad Seres ferens (non tam malum!) -, sed potius Viam Sericariam vertendam esse (sericarius = quod ad sericum respicit), secundum exemplum Viae Salariae, i.e. via salis transportandi (vide etiam disputationem). Hoc etiam exemplum secuti "Amber Road"/"Bernsteinstraße" vertere possemus Viam Sucinariam, dummmodo ne sucinarius neologismus esset. --Fabullus 09:20, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Profecto haec haud invita Minerva excogitasti! Equidem protinus Viam Sucinariam acceperim, nam formulá usitatá composita est. Quamquam nusquam testatum esse videtur verbum sucinarii, est penuria fortuita, quae "fingere nolendi" regulá eximi debeat. --Neander 12:13, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Salvete omnes, etiam ego inveniebam "sucinum" in vocabulario, sed tum in Vicipaedia hoc nomine non positum est, solum cum duo litterris 'c' , id est 'succinum'.Sed te recte dicere credo, sic sit sucinum. Neander Fabulleque, tum sit magis Via Sucinaria! --Martinus567 17:05, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Licet vox sucinarii (vel succ-) in litteris classicis non inveniatur, utuntur eá auctores Latini Undevicesimi Saeculi: vide hic et alibi. Credo igitur Viam Sucinariam illam "fingere nolendi" regulam non fracturam esse. Ceterum cur, Neander, hoc sucin- illo succin- anteponis? --Fabullus 17:38, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Antepono, quia ab editoribus (Plinii, Martialis, cett.) anteponi videtur. --Neander 19:49, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Lemma succinum ad sucinum movi. Uterque Martine, vale! --Fabullus 08:12, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Categoria:Camerae Repraesentantum Civitatum Foederatarum

Auxilium peto de nova categoria. Categoria:Camerae Repraesentantum Civitatum Foederatarum legati nomen iustum est? A lot of time ago somebody created Categoria:Legati populi, but it seems to me too generic. Vide exempli gratia Ronaldus Paul Categoria:Legati Populi Texiae --Helveticus montanus 08:46, 16 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

That's a good example for showing what's wrong with the present category. Ron Paul is not a representative of the "people of Texas": he's a representative of the people of the 14th congressional district of Texas. States that send more than one representative to Congress divide into congressional districts. Additionally, all states divide into legislative districts that send representatives to the state legislatures. These districts are not usually coterminous with the congressional districts. So in addition to categories for representatives (legati?) sent by congressional districts to Washington, there should be categories for representatives (also legati?) sent by state legislative districts to state capitals. At the next level down, the counties, representatives to county commissions may represent districts within counties, but these people (or at least the ones I know about) are called "county commissioners," not "representatives." IacobusAmor 13:09, 16 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

So, to answer Massimo's question, if we're replacing "Categoria:Legati populi" (which is indeed too vague, it could refer to almost any country) with a new overall category, what should the new name be? Is Categoria:Camerae Repraesentantium Civitatum Foederatarum legati, as he suggests, acceptable, or what would be better? Andrew Dalby 13:21, 16 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Waiting the discussion's results, I begin to use the category for my new entries--Helveticus montanus 10:38, 17 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

cs iw to the Main page

Hi, there was a request on Czech Wikipedia, if you can link via interwiki Czech Wikipedia Main Page, from your Mane Page? The link would be [[cs:Hlavní strana]] than.--Juan de Vojníkov 10:21, 17 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

It is linked already, in the section "Vicipaediae super C paginarum", linked under "Cesky (Bohemice)"--Xaverius 10:53, 17 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

And link it via interwiki, what is a standard is a problem? Its user unfriendly to browse templates looking for link.--Juan de Vojníkov 13:03, 18 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Here we onlo link directly to the wikis which have over 200.000 articles, I do not really know why--Xaverius 18:48, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

No really good reason, I don't think, Xavi. Some decisions are because of good Latin, some because of good style, some just because... Feel like reopening the discussion about it anyone? --Ioscius^∞ 22:31, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't cost us to have them, and as our Czech user remarks, it would be user friendly--Xaverius 23:35, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean certainly doesn't bother me. I don't even think it would be redundant to add the links to the left and keep the categories at the bottom. On the left you may choose whatever wiki you like, at the bottom you can search the one that's right for you kind of thing? --Ioscius^∞ 17:46, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

It seems a good idea. Unless someone comes up with a good reason, we should add all iw links in our pagina prima.--Xaverius 17:52, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

All 272 links from meta:List of Wikipedias? In my view, it would not be too user friendly to show a list that includes several wikipedias with less than 100 articles, even five wikipedias with less than 10 articles and two wikipedias with no articles (other than the main page) at all! Furthermore, a list that long makes it difficult to find the language one is actually looking for. I agree that the list might be longer (although that makes it more tedious to maintain and update regularly), but I am not convinced that adding all wikipedias would be the most user-friendly way to go. --UV 23:27, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

If the problem then is that our current list is too short, maybe we should list al wikipedias within a certain range; over 20.000 articles, for instance--Xaverius 02:02, 23 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

¿Iacobopolis?

Urbe chilensis in: Michaela Bachelet, Sebastianus Piñera et al. Iacobopolis non est Insulae Sanctae Helenae. --Ciberprofe 18:09, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Nomen quod hic utimr Sanctiacobos necnon Iacobopolim pro urbe Chiliense esse--Xaverius 18:46, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Conventicula vicipaedianorum

Hanc paginam creavi: Vicipaedia:Conventicula vicipaedianorum. Difficilissime conventiculum creabimus, sed fortasse possibile sit! --Xaverius 19:47, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Conventiculum Romae in mensibus aut septembre aut octobre propositum est!--Xaverius 00:20, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Senato

Vicipaedia has recently gained several dozen examples of senato (the total right now is 48, but a few are old). Will whoever is inserting them please correct them and stop adding new ones. IacobusAmor 15:25, 20 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean, Jacob? I've been gone a few days... --Ioscius^∞ 22:32, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the misstake, I'm slowly correcting them --Helveticus montanus 22:36, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

album

Is there a Latin word for album? Nooj 08:20, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Album is itself a Latin word (Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_5#The_Beatles), althought I do not know if it can be used in the English sense of "album".--Xaverius 09:48, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

According to "Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch Latein" album can mean "list, register", so imho it could at least be used in the sense "album of music".--Chris1981 19:35, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

In the article Chris de Burgh I jus' used "Grex Cantuum" or "Group of Songs" anglice for the word album. 208.103.66.69 22:22, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

As a note, for studio albums i said Greges Cantuum in Pergula facta or songgroups made in the workshop. Then for live stuff I said Greges Cantuum ante populum canta or songgroups sung before the crowd. 208.103.66.69 22:26, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

RADAR

Quomodo dicitur RADAR sive Radio Detection and Ranging latine? In pagina Navis submarina hanc rem descripsi vocabulis "res deprehensionis radiophonice" donec melior eam dicere scio. 208.103.66.69 23:32, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

radioëléctricum instrumentum detectórium--Chris1981 23:52, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Forsan RID?--Xaverius 23:57, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Non est malus... Sed Index WORDS me dicit Detector esse "Late, Uncommon" sed etiam Deprehensio esse "uncommon" et non nova. Placet melior mihi Res (sive Machina) Deprehensionis Radioelectricae... Sed Uicipaedia nos iubet noli fingere.... Nescio. Si paginam radioëléctricum instrumentum detectórium creo possum addere "vel Res Deprehensionis Radioelectrica"?... Vocabulum abbreviatum melior est... RID... declensionis RID-um -i (ex verbo instrumento de nomine suo)... Et necesse est utor litteras ë et é in titulo paginae? Gratias pro responso tuo! 208.103.66.69 00:36, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

aut "Detector/Machina Desprehensionis Radioelectricus/a" Detector Radioelectricus describit RADAR nonne? 208.103.66.69 00:39, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Nunc pagina Radioelectricum Instrumentum Detectorium sive RID (per paginam discretivam) creata est.

Defit nomen radioelectricum instrumentum detectorium quia ei abest significatio nominis Anglici ranging ('quomodo spatia inter se coniungunt'); praeterea, signum RAID (aut RID) litteris est deformis. Subicio Anglicum RADAR = Radioelectricum detectorium ac rectorium vel Radioelectricum detectorium ac relatorium = Latinum RADAR. IacobusAmor 11:32, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Etiam Pitkäranta in lexico suo radar (n/indecl) praebet. --Neander 12:49, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Quia uti verba indeclinabiles? Sunt ne hac verba quae linguam latinam in linguam romanicam mutaverunt? Possumus-ne creare declensionem pro hoc verbo? Radar-is? Declinatur quomodo Rete? 208.103.66.69 16:49, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Et lingua Latina classica nomina indeclinabilia noverat ut gummi, sinapi, pascha, pondo, git, frit. Vide hic, hic aut hic. --Fabullus 17:48, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Cassell's gives sinapi, -is, f. & n., and says pondo was the ablative of archaic pondus, -i, but it doesn't have lemmata for frit and git. IacobusAmor 19:27, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

exact is Nigella sativa. exact is a part of a stalk of grain (but in taxonomic Latin is a sort of fly, still called the frit fly in English; Oscinella frit (Linnaeus, 1758).). —Mucius Tever 01:34, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

(Dang, I'm falling behind. That was in answer to a question removed a couple of days ago). —Mucius Tever 01:43, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ita quidem. Si autem declinare velimus vocabulum q.e. radar, exemplar probabile sit lacunar, exemplar (nimirum!], cochlear, cett. --Neander 18:49, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Gratias pro auxiliis vobis. RADAR iam dicitur Radar (-is. n) quomodo exemplar. Astronavium 01:11, 23 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Antiquitas Sera

Chris1981 and myself have thought about creating a Late Antique portal, but we were not sure about the translation. As the term was coined by Peter Brown, it is doubtful that any Latin text would refer to our period in such a way. We have opted for Antiquitas Sera, but maybe Antiquitas Tarda is naother option? what do you think?--Xaverius 10:14, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Antiquitas recens ~ recentior ~ inferior. IacobusAmor 11:50, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about "Antiquitas inferior" I tried to see the equivalent in geological terms, and I'm bepuzzled by the "late Cretaceous" being "cretaceum superius".--Xaverius 17:57, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

The reason for that is physical, so to speak. Late Cretaceous layers lie above early Cretaceous layers in the rock, so they are "upper Cretaceous" :) Andrew Dalby 09:58, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I should know better my stratigraphy!--Xaverius 10:07, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Antiquitas posterior (cf. [3], [4], &c.). --Neander 18:35, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

If you want to include the later Byzantine periods and the muslim world maybe it should say so in the title, e.g. Porta Antiquitatis posterioris atque Imperii Byzantini.--Chris1981 19:23, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I was just following the model we have here, which includes the earliest Islamic period (Umayyad) and the pre Dark-Age Eastern empire in Late Antiquity.--Xaverius 19:33, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about a Novissima-section? There is a major exhibition about the vandals in Karlsruhe until February 21.--Chris1981 05:59, 23 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

that looks interesting. I'll see if I can make one. On other things, the actual location of the porta is just a test. Once we are happy with it, We'll move it to Porta:Antiquitas posterior--Xaverius 11:42, 23 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Antiquitas vel Aevum Antiquum?

Seems to be redundant.--Chris1981 04:20, 24 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Recte dicis. Pagina Antiquitas multo melior videtur: Aevum Antiquum paginam redirectionis facere possumus. --Fabullus 10:59, 24 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Paginam redirectionis feci.--Chris1981 01:17, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

36,000

Multae paginae me absente creatae sunt! Credo Aikido fuisse commentariolum no. 36,000, ab amico nostro modesto interlinguaphono inceptum. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

hoc esse potest?

Salvete!

feci quemdam commentationem de Comitatu Castriferrei, et cum incepiebam, malum titulum eae dedi, idest Comitatus Castraferrei. Oro vos id emendare, qui potest! Titulus rectus: Comitatus Castriferrei!

gratias agerem multas! --Martinus567 16:51, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Iam id feci--Xaverius 16:54, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Magister

Iam legi paginam paginarum desideratarum, et la prima pagina quae vere desiderata sensi erat dedicata magistrem. Sed quando illam volui creare, accepi iam deletam esse. Quare? SebastianHelm 21:23, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Antiqua pagina erat "non stipula", i.e. exigua et male scripta (vide Vicipaedia:Hierarchia paginarum). Licet novam paginam incipere! Andrew Dalby 12:37, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Deletam paginam non in toto videre possum. Ut videtur ea offerebat omnia stipulae criteria. Solum fontem forsitan non praebebat, sed illum adiungere multe facilius quam rescribere totam paginam. SebastianHelm 18:09, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Si paginam incipere temptas, fere omnem textum paginae anterioris in capsa vides. Potes igitur "copiare", si vis. Andrew Dalby 18:27, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Ut paginam incipere vel volebam, sic nunc timeo iterum deleturam esse, quia peritia Latina mea ne satit expectationes vestras. SebastianHelm 19:27, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Paginam igitur in Scriptorio adde. Andrew Dalby 19:53, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Veni hic propter desiderium adiutare iste encyclopediae, ne propter aliquod scribere quod restabit inutile per annos. Iam accepi epistulam tuam in pagina disputationum mea; respondebo illic amplius. SebastianHelm 21:16, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Suadente Sebastiano (vide etiam Disputatio Usoris:SebastianHelm) paginam restituo! Andrew Dalby 13:22, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Pitzilemum or Pichilemu

Any Spanish or English-language speaker could translate es:Pichilemu or en:Pichilemu or simple:Pichilemu to Latin please? --MisterWiki 05:59, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Por favor, please, correct it, corríjanlo. --MisterWiki 03:15, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Capitals

Unam legis e paginis de

aevis historicis

disserentibus

---

Antiquitas

• Aevum Classicum
• Antiquitas Posterior

Medium Aevum

Novum Aevum

• Renascentia
• Reformatio
• Aevum Illuminationis

Vide etiam
* Aeva archaeologica
* Aeva geologica

How do we spell historical ages? Do we capitalise only the first word, or also the second? - Golradir 21:09, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

It looks exceedingly odd to write the equivalent of middle Ages, stone Age, iron Age, copper Age. To my eye, capitalizing or lowercasing both words would look better. IacobusAmor 00:09, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

"Langenscheidt's Taschenwörterbuch Latein" translates Middle Ages with "aetas quae vocatur media", doesn't seem to be a very good dictionary though. Stowasser doesn't capitalise antiquitas, except for the title of the Antiquitates of Varro--Chris1981 03:57, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

We don't capitalize antiquity in English either, any more than we capitalize ancient times and the good old days. As for Langenscheidt, that's a definition ('the age that's called the middle one'), not a name. IacobusAmor 13:43, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Both Hofmann's Lexicon Latinum[5] and Lacus Curtius[6] regularly capitalize both words in a name.--24.183.186.151 13:32, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

OK. And I guess we then also write Medium Aevum Posterius? Could a moderator fix the categories? - Golradir 23:19, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

And could someone move Aetas aenea to Aetas Aenea? - Golradir 23:25, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Per your request I moved it, although perhaps we haven't heard from everyone on the subject. It seems the capitalization occurs whenever the two or three word combination is a "name" as opposed to a concept. Thus "Res publica" is a name on a page about the Roman concept of "public affairs/the state"; While "Res Publica Sinarum" is the name of a page about the "Republic of China". Thus the whole issue rests on whether the name refers to a generic concept where the adjective is merely modifying a noun, or the proper name of a thing. In the case of Medium Aevum, I would think it is a proper name referring to a specific historical period rather than a generic concept of "middle age".--Rafaelgarcia 23:58, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

But see Disputatio:Aetas ferrea. Personally, I think the tendency to capitalise these things is yet another specimen of English hegemony. Basically, it's the question of conventions, but perhaps surprisingly, conventions are also matters of cultural identities. Methinks, "Aetas Ferrea" etc. is as strange as the English convention according to which book and article titles are written with capital letters à la What Computers Still Can't Do (by Dreyfus), etc. I'm sure even this convention can be backed up by fancy rationalisations, but still I'm bound to remain unconvinced. But of course I'm ready to follow the norms, when publishing something in English. But when it comes to Latin, I plead for tolerance: there is no established norm according to which we ought to write either "Aetas Ferrea" or "aetas ferrea". I know I can't resist the ongoing Anglification of our world, and therefore I know I can't order people not to write "Aetas Ferrea". But as long as I'm with y'all, I hope nobody will change my little minuscules to capitals. I very seldom do anything impulsively, without knowing what I'm doing. Well, perhaps this outpouring is an exception... :-) --Neander 02:29, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in my native tongue we don't use capitals at all: hoge middeleeuwen instead of High Middle Ages. - Golradir 04:28, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I feel rather European on this, probably because, as a library cataloguer, I was taught to capitalise as little as possible. We wrote Can you forgive her?, not Can You Forgive Her? (I mean the Trollope novel). Andrew Dalby 10:07, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, capitalization and other stylistic matters depend on what kind of citation you're creating. A citation in a footnote might look like this:

Andrew Wiese, “‘The House I Live In’: Race, Class, and African American Suburban Dreams in the Postwar United States,” in The New Suburban History, ed. Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 101–2.

An entry in a bibliography might look like this:

Wiese, Andrew. “‘The House I Live In’: Race, Class, and African American Suburban Dreams in the Postwar United States.” In The New Suburban History, edited by Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue, 99–119. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

An entry in a list of references cited might look like this:

Wiese, Andrew. 2006. “The house I live in”: Race, class, and African American suburban dreams in the postwar United States. In The new suburban history, ed. Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue, 99–119. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

See these samples from the Chicago Manual of Style. IacobusAmor 15:04, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

What about Mythe et épopée, I. L’idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens (by Georges Dumézil)? Should it also be à la Chicago manual Manual like this: Mythe et Épopée, I. L’Idéologie des Trois Fonctions Dans les Épopées des Peuples Indo-Européens? --Neander 16:00, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

If "Mythe et épopée, I" is a series title, it's set roman (capped), with arabic numerals, and placed after the title of the book; if the title of the book is in French, the Frenchy style of capitalization is retained:

L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples Indo-Européens. Mythe et Épopée, 1. IacobusAmor 16:08, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

But Mythe et épopée, I. L’idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens is a book title tout court, a trilogy with different subtitles. Would the whole title be capped or not? --Neander 16:34, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I've found a French website that does capitalize all the words, but I gather that that's unusual. Nevertheless, the evidence I've seen indicates that the first volume might best be bibliographed (in the United States) like this:

Dumézil, Georges. [1968]. 1986. L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens. Mythe et Épopée, 1. Paris: Gallimard.

This example was made more complicated when the publisher issued all three volumes under one cover; it's conceivable that that book would best be bibliographed thus:

Dumézil, Georges. 2002. Mythe et épopée. 3 volumes in one. Paris: Gallimard.

If you want all three titles, maybe this would work:

Dumézil, Georges. 2002. Mythe et épopée. 3 volumes in one: 1, L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens; 2, Types épiques indo-européens: un héros, un sorcier, un roi; 3, Histoires romaines. Paris: Gallimard.

If the item were a multivolume work, an example in the Chicago Manual of Style would seem to lead to this form:

Dumézil, Georges. 2002. Mythe et épopée. Vol. 1, L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens. Vol. 2, Types épiques indo-européens: un héros, un sorcier, un roi. Vol. 3, Histoires romaines. Paris: Gallimard.

Consult a professional in the Library of Congress? IacobusAmor 18:01, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the extraordinarily clear guidance. The French way of doing it is the familiar one in all Nordic countries, I think. Now, what about DE OPTIMO GENERE ORATORVM? Should it be "M.Tulli Ciceronis De Optimo Genere Oratorum" or "M.Tulli Ciceronis De optimo genere oratorum"? --Neander 19:24, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that we ourselves have an existing practice for book titles when they happen to be titles of Vicipaedia pages. With English ones we capitalize every major word; with those in other languages (including Latin) we capitalize only the first word (plus proper names within titles). It's not specially consistent, but it resembles the style of other Wikipedias, and it doesn't startle the horses (or the English speakers), many of whom like to see their titles capitalized. :) Andrew Dalby 21:43, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

This is a good enough practice, easy to comply with. Obviously there's no existing practice concerning Aetas Ferrea and aetas ferrea and the like. Given that someone starts an article on "Aetas Whateveriana", and someone else, an article on "Aetas whicheveriana", before long we'll have "Aetas whateveriana" and "Aetas Whicheveriana" by dint of innocent and independent movements. Perhaps this is as it should be in a democratic system. This is certainly an evolutionary process that is going on, and evolutionary processes tend to take time. Maybe the issue will be settled by 2200 or so. :-) --Neander 22:46, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I willing to go with whatever. However, my own mind tells me I should distinguish a proper name such as Civitates Foederatae Americae (which may or may not have a literal meaning) from a simple concept name such as Relativitas generalis. And I just don't see a difference between Civitates Foederatae and Aetas Ferrea in this regard, since the words are meant not as descriptive phrases but as proper names. By CF we mean a particular set of federated states in america and not federated american states in general; by AF we mean a specific period in human history characterized by iron weapons, not simply any given age characterized by iron. I don't think Hofmann could have been drawing from english norms since he was Swiss and his intended audience was probably German and Swiss.--Rafaelgarcia 15:53, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

A few comments: (1) Every language using Latin alphabet marks proper names by capitalising the word used as a nomen proprium; when it comes to compound propria, English capitalises all members of the compound (e.g. On the Nature of Things); this convention is in principle as arbitrary as not-capitalising other members of a proper noun (e.g. Sulla natura delle cose). (2) I'm in agreement with your intuition concerning relativitas generalis, but judging from the fact that the article begins with the words "Relativitas Generalis ..." (not by your hand), intuitions concerning what is a proper noun seem to vary. (3) WRT our moot point "Aetas Lapidea, Ferrea..." vs "aetas lapidea, ferrea ...", I think a good case can be made for the claim that, say, aetas lapidea is a common (compound) noun (nomen appellativum). The aetas lapidea hasn't ended at the same time in all cultural niches. Therefore, it doesn't seem right to say that the aetas lapidea is a proper name. In fact, it seems clear that aetas lapidea is a common noun characterising as it does a certain type of cultural-economic-technological setting. Of course, it's possible to use Aetas lapidea derivatively as a proper noun in the context of periodising, on the basis of archaeological evidence, (pre)historical phases of technological development in a certain definite cultural-geographical area. But I fail to understand why the proper name Aetas lapidea should be written "Aetas Lapidea". By the way, at present, Vicipaedia is the only Wiki that writes De Rerum Natura, while other Wikis write De rerum natura, even the English one (en:De rerum natura ), after the movement carried out one year ago. I think this is a telling case against writing "Aetas Lapidea", even when it's being used as a proper noun. --Neander 14:41, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, English-speakers probably resist Aetas lapidea because stone Age, iron Age, and such look horrible in English (as would Stone age, Iron age, and such); accordingly, your argument might meet with more success over here if it proposed either Aetas Lapidea or aetas lapidea. ¶ The long-term trend in American English is toward what Chicago calls the "down style," involving fewer & fewer capitals. ¶ What was the "movement carried out one year ago"? ¶ Re the DRN: Despite the lemma, the text of the article says "Literally, the title translates as On the Nature of Things. . . . Accordingly, On the Nature of Things is Lucretius'[s] personal statement of truth to an ignorant audience." Over here, the book is usually called the DRN. The spelling Drn would look strange indeed. Sometimes, an element of typographic display affects contexts; that's perhaps why the capitals are there in the first place, and why they persist. IacobusAmor 14:52, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

For all that, De rerum natura is our rule for book titles, and I hope no one minds if I now apply it ... Andrew Dalby

Italicized, of course? IacobusAmor 18:14, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Aren't book titles compound proper names? Given that they are, doesn't this fact carry over to other compound proper names too (such as Aetas lapidea). I fail to see the difference that makes the difference. --Neander 15:49, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on capitalizing a word for age? It's not the european Onion or the eiffel Tower. IacobusAmor 15:52, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. I haven't proposed "eiffel Tower" or the like. What I'm proposing is writing aetas lapidea, when used as a common noun, and Aetas lapidea, when used as a proper noun (and of course when beginning a lemma or a sentence). --Neander 16:14, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Financial investor et al.

How would one translate invest (v), investor (n), investment (n) in the context of finances? The only previous mention I have found in Vicipaedia nostra is investor in Rupertus Murdoch (et annis nuperrimis fit gravis investor in...). The closest I could come is faenero(r), faenerarius (faenerator), faeneratio, but these all seem to relate to a lending with interest. I suppose that could be a form of investment, but one doesn't usually expect interest from investment, but rather profit. Any ideas? -- Robert.Baruch 22:27, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

For 'invest', Cassell's offers: (in re) pecuniam conlocare, occupare, ponere. For 'investment', Cassell's says: "render by verb." IacobusAmor 00:04, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I like that: to set up or arrange money. I've got to download me a Cassell's. -- Robert.Baruch 00:27, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Conductor (in re commerciali "deal maker/entrepreneur"), negotiator ("businessman trader"), and dominus collega ("owner colleague") are admittedlly not exact translations (the last combo I think is grammatically correct) but I offer them as alternative ways to conceptualize what an investor like Murdock, etc. "is" or "does" in essence. For the "investment" is invariably the outcome of a negotiation involving a contract bringing together certain commerical elements in order to achieve an econnomic end. The last phrase "dominus collega" would follow I think if the investment produces acquiring part ownership (e.g. buying stock), but would not apply to currency trades and other types of trader activities like derivatives.--24.183.186.151 01:26, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Ubi est pagina specialis "Nuper mutata"?

Ubi est pagina? IacobusAmor 18:33, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Ubi est pagina? O magistratus, ubi estis? IacobusAmor 21:29, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Nescio, Iacobe. I can see it in my computer. I have no clue what it may be--Xaverius 22:52, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I can see it, too. But even if the link on the left is missing, you can still find the page here: Specialis:Nuper mutata. --Aylin 23:02, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

No, I couldn't. What the screen showed was the title Nupev [sic] mutata and maybe a little more verbiage, and the rest of the page was blank. Was somebody doing a little short-term hacking? Meanwhile, somebody vandalized the nuntii page, and somebody made silly insertions in Apis mellifera, but those changes have been reverted. IacobusAmor 01:22, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it may have been, it was reverted, but I still cannot trace what might have been...--Xaverius 10:59, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

It should be not a little troubling if somebody can make & unmake changes without leaving a trace! IacobusAmor 15:13, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what you saw was just due to some updating of software which necessarily occurs every once in a while to fix bugs, expand options, etc...Some of the options in the wiki software are controlled by editing configuration files from the linux command line. Evidence of the changes would not appear under Nuper mutata but would appear in the various operating system logs. By making the wrong changes at this level, one can wreck the whole interface. That is why only a few people (down in FL I imagine) deal with the interface at that level. --Rafaelgarcia 17:47, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I wish I'd photographed it, because my memory is that it showed several signs of vandalism (or pranksterism, or call it what you will). Its first word was definitely Nupev, not Nuper. It did indeed "wreck the whole interface," in that no recent changes were visible: the page was effectively blank. IacobusAmor 18:49, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

de censura paginarum e 'Latinitatis' ratione

Salvete omnes!

Cum videbam paginas Vicipaediae Latinae, nonnula in causa haec "censurulae" super rem sitae sunt: "huius rei Latinitas est inscipicienda, vel dubia, maxime dubia, corrigenda, ac maxime corrigenda, vel "non Latine" In quod manu sunt? --Martinus567 10:08, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

In tua manu, si corrigere vis! Tales paginas potes in Categorias Latinitatis reperire. Andrew Dalby 11:12, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Meam paginam Libertas informationis inspectate, amabo te.

Libertas informationis: my best shot. Have at it! -- Robert.Baruch 18:31, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Biography Boxes

I'm not going to write this in Latin, because I need to be quick about it, but is there any way that we can add new fields to the biography boxes, or create new ones? Because the one that I've used in Andreas Murray seems a bit lacking from the English Wikipedia's version, which has Nationality, and specialised information. This would really help, as I hope to be continuing my work on British politics soon. -- [ Usor:Veritaslux ]

Personally I don't like biographical infoboxes much -- I feel they oversimplify things that are often quite complicated (and nationality is often one of these things!). Maybe others more enthusiastic will reply ... Andrew Dalby 20:44, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

There sure is! We have a few options available to us:

1. You can go to Formula:Data hominis and edit it yourself, adding in whatever you feel necessary. If you don't know the programming at all, it's not very hard to learn.
2. You could just list the things you want added, and I can do it for you, if you can't figure out the programming.
3. You/I could add a whole new infobox(s) for specific category(s), such as one for atheletes (or we can even be more specific than that, if you think it's an infobox that will actually get used a lot)

Everyone, feel free to list your opinions! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 02:33, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Aliquo bene mea Latina probat ...

I know it's completely awful.

By the way, what's up with your blocks? Fiber seemed to be a genuine attempt to add something to the encyclopedia (although badly), and the IP that made it got a 1-year block. Yet the guy that vandalised Formula:Nuntii got only 3 days! Pantocrator 20:33, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Securi feriantur omnes aio vandali! IacobusAmor 22:37, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

There is usually not much point in applying a block to an IP address, unless (a) one knows that the same address is being used repeatedly for vandalism, or (b) the vandalism is actually continuing up to the moment of the block; but I must say I sympathise with Xaverius, who reacted to the Nuntii vandalism with a shortish block. I don't understand the Fiber case, but no doubt Rafael, too, had a good reason. Andrew Dalby 20:54, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The page you mentioned was utterly worthless and unencyclopedic. The proper place for this sort of entry is at uncyclopedia] not here.

Creating pages with crap in them has been going on for a while recently as part of cross wiki abuse, which has led to numerous deletions and blocks across the various wikis. I perceived this as part of that chain of abuse. If he wants to be unblocked he can always contact one of us. --Rafaelgarcia 21:01, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, how does one do that here? There doesn't seem to be any unblock mechanism as there is with the English Wikipedia. And entries at Uncyc. are supposed to be funny ... Pantocrator

The mechanism is you email the sysop who blocked you and ask to be unblocked and promise not to do whatever again.. We're small so nothing formal is needed. Th That page had zero intellectual content. It was the equivalent of spraypainting Jane and Bob forever on a neighborhood fence. One person may argue it is art, but those owning the fense who don't appreciate it are violated by it. Regardless, that sort of stuff doesn't belong here.--Rafaelgarcia 22:30, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

IPs can not e-mail sysops. I think that someone making a test edit from his home IP, then getting a long block with no explanation, and being unable to do anything about it, is a potential editor lost. Pantocrator 22:23, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Rafael, I really think a one-year ban is inappropriate. Come on. Admins in other don't do this, except in extreme cases. Please differentiate good-faith edits from true vandalism and give the appropriate ban. A vandalism is ussually done with malicious intent. Overkills like this are really giving vandals cause to rejoice. We are not that small. There are vatican organizations, Italian and Greek historians and linguists who would probably be reading vikipedia. Spray painting can 't happen on an everybody-can-edit wiki. Don't start an inquisition here.--Jondel 01:19, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I do think there was malicious intent in this case, by the very nature of the page and its content. The other admins can change it if they wish. I'm not. The only reason I wouldn't do it for longer is that I'm not certain the ip address isn't a public one.--Rafaelgarcia 01:37, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In general, I'm with Rafael. Et itero: omnes securi feriantur vandali! IacobusAmor 02:45, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

We do have two templates which are meant to be put at the disputatio of IPs that have vandalised: {{experimentum}} and {{IP vandalica}}, which are meant to reflect the intention of the IP (and can be added by anyone, so if an admin is not around at the moment, they can notice later). As it stands now, I don't think we've ever had to block the same IP in diferent ocassions, as it does hapen at eu:wiki. All in all, here we do not get "usual" vandals (excepting that guy long ago who wrote about eskimoes and butyromalia in Nebraska), only "eventual" vandals, so long blocks may prevent that IP from (maybe) making useful comments some other day.--Xaverius 10:25, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that vandals, some of whom obviously know no Latin, have actually come back to "make useful comments" in Latin? IacobusAmor 10:46, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but it is not always the same person who comes back on the same IP address.

The edit at Fiber was not, per se, vandalic: it was weak and suited to a bilingual dictionary, not to an encyclopedia. In itself it was probably useless to us. Rafael saw a pattern linking with vandalism elsewhere, and I respect that: we have to look for patterns when trying to minimise nuisance edits. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

One example of vandalism may suffice. A few minutes ago, the IP 77.170.185.109 skunked itself for all time, a duration somewhat longer than the week to which Xavi has banished it. IacobusAmor 12:05, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If it ever comes again, I'll make sure to ban him for a long period of time, but for now, a week-long one will keep him away and eventually he'll forget about it. That's what most times happens. I've never had to block someone who had been blocked before - at least here: in eu:wiki, there are persistent vandals that have been flagged with the {{IP vandalica}} up to three times before getting a very-long ban. --Xaverius 23:12, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Uranus

With my recent change to Neptunus, all the planets now are disambigs except Uranus. Uranus (discretiva) should be moved to Uranus, which should go to Uranus (deus). I can't do this obviously. Pantocrator 21:29, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Seems a good move. I've done that now. Andrew Dalby 21:50, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Usor anonymus

Quid significat haec phrasis arcana (quem in formulis et alibi videmus)? Fortasse usor sine nomine? IacobusAmor 12:09, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Mihi valde placet. Usor ignotus etiam possibile est.--Xaverius 23:13, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Sed locutio notissima nomen nescio (vel ibi nomen nescitur??) mihi plus placet! Georgius B 15:56, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nomina satellitum

I have been adding, to the pages on the satellites of Jupiter, sentences about the origins of their names. I have pinned them all down to my satisfaction except the last two, Autonoe and Megaclite. I know who I think Autonoe is, but the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature says that she is the mother of the Graces according to some sources. I do not know who Megacleite is, I cannot find her in any Greek or Latin text that I can search, and so I cannot confirm the statement on the same website that she is the mother of Locrus and Thebe according to some sources. En:wiki is no use here, it just borrows the statements from that website. So, which sources on Greek mythology support those statements? Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby 15:58, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Megaclite seems to be mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions (10.21). --94.79.152.165 16:46, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. First time I've ever looked at the Clementine Recognitions. Thank you! Andrew Dalby 17:03, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

This may well be the only mention (is that a word) of the name in ancient literature. By the way, the Clementine Recognitions seem to have come down to us in a Latin translation only, which I have not been able to locate on the net, but the relevant sentence runs (quoted here): 'Megacliten Macarei (sc. Iuppiter vitiavit) ex qua nascitur Thebe et Locrus.' --Fabullus 10:53, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The real Clemens (Alexandrinus) mentions Megaclo (Μεγακλώ) in his Protrepticus and tells a little story (summarised by Pseudo-Clemens using the form Megaclite). Maybe this is an instance of broken channel. Also Megaclo seems to be a hapax. --Neander 13:16, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As for Autonoe, she must be one of Jupiter's conquests, or is that the idea behind the names of Jupiter's satellites? If so, this one can't be the daughter of Cadmus and mother of Actaeon. However, the mother of the Graces by Jupiter is usually called Eurynome. --Fabullus 11:11, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Genera exstinctae [sic]

This idiot (he's used other IPs)continues to upload his taxonomy stubs with incorrect declension even after I reminded him. As far as I'm concerned, that shows he's disruptive and should be blocked until he gets the point. Pantocrator 23:52, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In his defense, let me point out that he may not have had time in the past few hours to see your reminder; however, if it's the nameless contributor who has added similar articles before, he's been reminded off & on again for many, many months (for more than two years, I think), and that should have been enough time to have become aware that something in his grammar has been amiss. IacobusAmor 00:34, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Also, this crap he's copying is not of very great encyclopedic value. Indeed, English doesn't have these. Pantocrator 23:52, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

He's still continuing after I warned him again. He now needs to be blocked indefinitely, and every other IP he uses nees to be blocked indefinitely, until he responds. This is just vandalism. Pantocrator 00:05, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with him in both english and spanish and he never responds, ever! I've tried blocking him for a month but that did no good. Should we just block him for a year at a time until he communicates and makes it evident that he understands what he doing wrong? I think so.--Rafaelgarcia 00:08, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The thought that it's a vandal has crossed my mind too. The most successful vandals—successful in the sense that their doings last (almost) forever—may be the ones whose efforts are just a wee bit "off," rather than the ones whose egregiousness punches everyone in the face. Also, that someone can ignore for many months the suggestion that he'd benefit from learning grammar that beginners typically confront in the first few weeks of study continues to prove perplexing, not least because the grammatical forms most pertinent to his own texts are few, and they can be learned in less than five minutes. IacobusAmor 00:20, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit!, but I've thought for some time that at least on the smaller Wikipedias, users should be required to register. It might cut down on drive-by vandalism, but it also might at least assign an identity -- a persona -- that implies more seriousness. I don't believe the (scholarly?) nature of Latin allows for casual anonymous editors. There was discussion (Anglice) many many years ago (6 years, an eterity in Internet time) about this, and also (Anglice), on en:. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of allowing anonymous edits. As far as I can tell, the discussion didn't touch on smaller wikis. -- Robert.Baruch 17:51, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

A lot of good content is currently added to Vicipaedia anonymously; it would be a pity to lose all of that.

It is possible (en:wiki did it years ago, as a result of the Seigenthaler incident) to prevent anonymous IPs creating a new page. That would actually stop the spread of poor-quality taxonomic pages (or, at least, if it impelled the creator/creatrix to use an account, it would enable communication). It's a big decision, however. Our contributor of country pages likes to remain anonymous, creates new pages sometimes, and probably would no longer do it. At least two other hard-working editors often work anonymously, and wouldn't be able to enlarge Vicipaedia in the way they are currently doing if we prevented page creation by anonymous IPs. So if it comes to a discussion I would at present argue against taking this step.

Now, about the poor-quality taxonomic pages. There are, I guess, four problems with them:

1. They contain practically no text.
2. The text they do contain is dog-Latin or worse.
3. They push one high-level taxonomic viewpoint (that of Systema naturae 2000 I believe) which is not a reliable source.
4. Instead of building this viewpoint into formulae, which is what wikispecies does and would make it much easier to adjust when opinions change, they hard-wire this viewpoint on to each page.

I think we discussed this before, but I don't think we found a solution. Is there a solution? Andrew Dalby 11:45, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

[Later:] It would be a start, at least, to mark them all with a specific improvement template. At present, unless I'm mistaken, we don't even have a list of them. If they all contained a clear warning "the Latin's bad and the classification is POV", and were categorised as such, that would focus our problem a bit. Is this a worthwhile step? Andrew Dalby 11:56, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Please glance at the template {{Taxinomia dubia}} and adjust the wording wherever needed. Would it be useful to apply this to the pages we're talking about? It could probably be done by a bot, because all these pages contain long strings of asterisks. Andrew Dalby 18:30, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Quare malum est verbum "positio" uti?

Salvete! Magistratus quidam signum interrogationis dedit ad verbum "posito"nem. Quid est consilium potior? Ego, in dictionario quaerere verbum, quae consilia sunt potioria verba? Scio verbum "locatio" alium significato haberi, quam lingua Anglica. --Martinus567 19:05, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nomen Latinum positio Anglice = 'a placing, putting, posture, situation, climate'. Nomen Anglicum position Latine = 'locus, situs, sedes, status'. IacobusAmor 22:13, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In re physica autem positio Latine (secundum Newtonum et Eulerum) idem ac position Anglice dicitur.--Rafaelgarcia 22:41, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Gratias ago!

Declinatio de 'gas'

Gas is indeclinable, and is used as such in a 1805 scientific paper I have. But how, then, is the plural formed?

Another declension, which was given without reference, is gas, -is (3decl.). Is it reasonable to use this for the plural? (That's what I did in my correction to Aer, which apparently assumed gasum, -i.)

Finally, will there ever be (or is there) any other forum on this wiki other than this Taberna? I suppose we don't yet have enough traffic to justify anything like that. Pantocrator 23:54, 3 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Many forms are attested I tried to add all. It's a mess though. As to plurals, indeclinables don't have plurals but you have a set to choose from depending on which (in)declension you prefer: gas, gasia, gasa, aut gasia.--Rafaelgarcia 01:10, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I added the citation to the paper I mentioned (for indeclinable use), as someone took it upon himself to remove it. It isn't a direct link because GDZ doesn't seem to allow links to a particular page (or do they?). By the way, there are also broken GDZ links on Algebra at least, they're probably the same problem as the numerous broken GDZ links on English, I don't know how to convert them.

Seems that it's very easy to start an edition war with Pantocrator. I removed the Oertel-citation because it bears no evidence for the claim that gas is indeclinable. If you wish to show that gas is indeclinable, please cite a locus in which the grammar demands genitive, dative, or ablative, and the word form used is still gas. --Neander 03:09, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Look at the citation I added. Gas is used in all the cases, and the very title begins De gas. This supports also the claim (first made by Iustinus on Disputatio:Gas) that indeclinability was the original form, because it would not be likely to change the other way. Pantocrator 03:29, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for being so inadvertent! --Neander 04:26, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

And those 19th-century papers referenced in Algebra (with those broken links) presumably were not written in Latin; I think that we should give the original titles for works not written in, or translated into, Latin - but it seems a contrary convention has been adopted here.

But perhaps it would be better to have Van Helmont's original definition, if it can be found. Pantocrator 23:28, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Given that their titles are in latin, the articles should be in latin too. Links break over time. I don't think people translated into latin during that period, but rather the other way the translated from latin. Most of the math terminology came from latin into the other languages upto the mid 1800's, afterwards french took over in france and then the other countries followed suit in the spirit of nationalism.--Rafaelgarcia 23:58, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

They are in Latin, I've found them and discovered a general rule for repairing GDZ links here.

However I must point out your dates are wrong. French started replacing Latin in France in the late 17c., not the 19c. Other countries did follow, and the use of Latin everywhere was in the minority by 1800. The links in question were all doctoral dissertations, which many German universities required to be Latin until very late. (Peter Daniels on Usenet mentioned one (not in math) as late as 1894, but I don't know if it was still mandatory then.) Pantocrator 00:49, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I was going by physics and math literature for which the dates are accurate. Non latin languages began to be used for science in the 1700's true, but the best journals and most prolific authors like Euler and Gauss still used latin for quite a bit longer. Most of the terminology in astronomy and math came from those two in particular.--Rafaelgarcia 01:45, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk, since this is getting off-topic. Pantocrator 03:29, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

This is the only place where we all talk.--Rafaelgarcia 01:11, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

... and there are, of course, the disputationes for each page. If you want discussion at a particular page, you can always add a note here on the Taberna saying "please go and look at Disputatio:Gas". Not sure if this answers your question: what other kind of forum are you thinking about? Andrew Dalby 11:50, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As I lovingly caress the copy of the Vatican's Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis that came in the mail today, I chime in: gasium, -ii, n. -- Robert.Baruch 22:04, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

That's already mentioned on gas. But gasum and gasium are really just dictionary coinages; the attested forms in scientific Latin are gas (indecl.) and gas, -is. Vide etiam Disputatio:Anellus. Pantocrator 22:28, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. -- Robert.Baruch 23:31, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Pardon, what point do you mean? I mentioned Disputatio:Anellus because it shows what I think of dictionaries. Pantocrator 21:12, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the brevity. I meant that I agreed with your argument that the attested form of the word is better than the dictionary form, because the attested form can be seen when it is actually used, in actual Latin prose, by people who were (presumably) much more familiar with Latin that we are, very close to the time when it was actually coined, while the dictionary form (as in the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis) has no references, and doesn't explain why their particular choice was made. -- Robert.Baruch 23:27, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we go to the root of the question? The word "gas" was invented by a sixteenth-century Dutchman, JB van Helmont, and he wrote ceratinly his treatises in Latin. If possible, we should check his own texts to see how he used them.--Xaverius 23:32, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

It seems Iacobus already mentioned it without much success at the disputatio of Gas--Xaverius 23:37, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Van Helmont's treatise has been added to Gas as a citation. Pantocrator 23:42, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the point of contention here. Is it that we need to look at Van Helmont to see how he declined gas in all cases and number in order to prove that it was treated as indeclinable? -- Robert.Baruch 04:23, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If that is what we need we can check the text itself (at Google Books), which I have linked to in a footnote: it turns out there are no instances of "gasa", "gasia", "gasis", "gase", etc., just "gas", which is used occasionally as an ablative ("a Gas sylvestri" [7]) or a genetive ("Ut in liquato argento, minutulae atomi auri ad fundum labuntur, sic sidunt atomi Gas labendoque increscunt." [8]). Does this settle the matter? --Fabullus 08:46, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Politicorum peritus?

There are quite a lot of articles on politicians in which the person in question is said to be "politicorum peritus". To me at least, "politicorum peritus" means that the person knows a number of politicians. On a more empathetic reading, maybe "politicorum" is supposed to be the genitive case of a plurale tantum neuter noun "politica,-orum", but as far as I know, the normal Greco-Latin word for 'politics' is politica, -ae. So, politicae peritus would be better. --Neander 12:58, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

For 'politician', Ainsworth confirms this by giving politicae scientiae peritus. And Cassell's, for the record, gives:

'political' = civilis, publicus (with politicus = "relating to political science"); and 'political' is "often rendered by reipublicae (genit. sing.)"

'political questions' = res civiles

'politician' = vir rerum civilium (or reipublicae) peritus

'politics' = civilis ratio, respublica

'polity' = reipublicae forma

On the basis of this, might one expect politicorum peritus to be 'expert in dealing with political scientists'? IacobusAmor 15:04, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right. Accordingly, "politicorum peritus" might be a psychiatrist specialised in taking care of burn out politicians. :-) But seriously, something to pay heed to at least in future articles. --Neander 15:27, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right! I fear the phrase was originally devised for us, at my request, by Iacobus (see antique discussion Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#Vir publicus, Mulier publicus). At that time Iacobus claimed that politica -orum n. pl. was OK for "politics", and I happily went along with this ... Many category names now use this phrase. C'est la vie! Andrew Dalby 16:04, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That was nearly three years ago, and one has learned things since. ¶ However, that 'politics' = politica (pl.) and res politicae comes right out of Ainsworth—and bear in mind that I suggested that 'female politician' could therefore be politicorum perita and rerum politicarum perita, not that it should be. :) IacobusAmor 17:30, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

These phrases were in any case a great improvement on mulier publica, which description had been incautiously applied to Segolena Royal ;=) Andrew Dalby 18:10, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The word 'politics' in english is ambiguous, encompassing many distinct concepts--the following is what I think the various notions correspond to in latin: it can mean

• 'political, public, or government dealings' (but not limited to government dealings) (res publica),
• 'political or economic dealings among citizens (not necessarily pertaining to government)' (res civilis),
• 'political science' (the science that studies what citizens should do in society as well as the science and art of government) (civilitas, unambiguously so according to Words and Lewis and Short),
• 'comparative political science' also known as 'political economy' (the science that studies and compares different socio-political systems, not just government but whole systems)' (politica, from Aristotle's treatise by the same name, and also more specifically in modern context, economia politica (advocating an efficient sociopolitical system), and
• 'political science' (the art or pragmatic science of how to get elected and deal with people to achieve economic or political ends') (in Roman context this is also wholly encompassed by civilitas, but in modern context could be better called ars politica).
• 'office politics', (pragmatic science of dealing with people day to day), don't know: ethica politica?, ars politica privata?

--Rafaelgarcia 18:29, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. However, I see that Cassell's has publicus (-i), 'a state official'; so maybe that would in this case authorize publicus muliebris, or maybe better merely publica ('a female state official'?). But that might be too elliptical or ambiguous for comfort. IacobusAmor 18:21, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Since Ainsworth is an eighteenth-century source, the pattern of politicorum peritus for 'politician' would seem to have been a reasonable one in the eighteenth century; but some of us want to cultivate a more classical idiom; hence, perhaps, the new worry. IacobusAmor 17:33, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

While we're talking about politicians, could anyone suggest the ideal Latin translation of " ... is the Member of Parliament for the Sheffield Hallam constituency"? If so, please go to Disputatio:Nicolaus Clegg‎‎. Andrew Dalby 20:08, 4 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

creavit sententiam munere populi quadragesimi sexti Districti Californiae fungetur, secundum Castiglioni, Aloisius; Mariotti, Scaevola. Vocabolario della lingua latina, latino-italiano, italiano-latino. Quarta editio a Petro Georgio Parroni curata (Taurini, 2007).: vice (o munere) alicuius fungor (eris, functus sum, intr. dep.) essere delegato di qualcuno, to act as somebody's delegate --Helveticus montanus 09:52, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC).

Nupev mutata?

Once again, the nuper mutata page is blank. I here paste in the text that appears when the nuper mutata link is invoked:

Wike/Specialis:Nupev mutata

E Vicipaedia

Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere

Hac in pagina non sunt litterae. Haec pagina forsitan deleta est, vide acta deletionum. Fortasse res cum hoc nomine apud Victionarium Wike/Specialis:Nupev mutata est. Potes etiam hanc rem in aliis paginis quaerere, acta huius paginae videre aut hanc paginam creare.

Here's the actual link: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wike/Specialis:Nupev_mutata. IacobusAmor 19:00, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Computers are obedient things. That text is exactly what always appears when you follow a link to a page that doesn't yet exist. There is no page "Specialis:Nupev mutata", so you are being invited to create one. Don't bother ...

So, where is this link on which you are clicking? In the "Navigatio" section on the left side of the screen? Andrew Dalby 19:54, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes: that's the screen that appears when I click on "Nuper mutata" in the "navigatio" section. Alternatively, from my bookmarked page, this is what appears:

404 error: File not found

The URL you requested was not found.

Did you mean to type http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/wike/Specialis:Nupev_mutata? You will be automatically redirected there in five seconds.

Maybe you would like to look at:

The main page

The list of Wikimedia downloads IacobusAmor 20:08, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with your computer...Try uninstalling and reinstalling your browser...I see the normal link.--Rafaelgarcia 20:17, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

This is a very odd error. Are you sure you don't have a root kit? - i.e. are there other strange things going on with your computer? Pantocrator 22:31, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The computer seems fine. I suspect the error involves the AOL interface, which I prefer for Vicipaedia-reading purposes because its version of this font is more legible than that of Mozilla Firefox, which has no trouble finding "Nuper mutata." 71.178.54.151 13:58, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

That was written & posted in Firefox. Now I'm back in AOL, where the link to "Nuper mutata" is working again—whereas it wasn't working about ten minutes ago: a mystery! IacobusAmor 14:03, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Auxilium

Quomodo possum discere plus super linguam latinam?. --Vubo 04:06, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Si vis, vide nostram Portam eruditionis--Xaverius 23:23, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Praefecti Urbi aut Urbis Philadelphiae?

Socii, scilicet melior est categoria:Praefecti Urbi Philadelphiae?--Helveticus montanus 09:45, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nescio, Massimo. Munus Parefecti apud Romanos erat aut "Urbi" aut "Urbis".--Xaverius 21:17, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

nuntiationes de mensis paginis

Saluete!

Ego me velim nuntiare, quomodo accipire fit signum de pagina mensis: Loquemini:

Cui convenire oportet, ut res signum pagina mensis fiat?

Qui diiudicunt totum?

Solum omnibus mensibus quaedam eligatur? (si ita est, alia lingua usa Vicipaediis etiam sic solum omnibus quaedam mensibus suntne?) Gratias responsis! --Martinus567 14:42, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Salve Martine, vide si vis : Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis huiusque disputationem. --Ioscius^∞ 00:08, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Chemia

I'm starting to look at our chemistry pages. I note that we have the very incomplete dictionary which I moved to Vicipaedia:Glossarium chemicum, but that cites a book that is much more useful, although it doesn't cover more complicated chemical names, which I suppose must be Latinised 'ad hoc'.

Cogito, est tractatus grandis Latine in chemia, potius post Lavoisier?

I'm going to start by correcting the names of some chemical elements, according to that book. It also implies that aluminum and arsenum were allowable Latin names; I'll add the former as an alternative but will pass on the other unless another source is found. Also, we need citations for the names borium and wolframium as it's not obvious that they should be '-ium' rather than '-um' (neither is it for aluminium and silicium, as the oxides end in '-a' (at least in English), but I know those are established).

I moved the alkali metals to Metalla alcalica; change my 'c' back to 'k' is you really insist, but '-ica' is surely better than '-ina' according to our dictionary ('-ica' = 'alkaline', '-ina' = 'basic'); it's also the form used everywhere else including that article's text. Are the names of the inert gases declined '-i' or '-onis'? Both can be found in our pages, but we need to standardise on one. I'm going to standardise on '-i', for consistency with other elements.

I've also started to replace the element boxes on the right with the formulae, which is needed esp. because the non-formula boxes are too big, not to mention hard to maintain. List those done on this page.

Finally, why has the original elementum been moved to elementum (discretiva), while elementum now is used for elementum chemicum? It isn't this way on any other Wikipedia. I recommend they be moved back; it would take a magister to do it. Pantocrator 03:31, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with chemical names and terms, there are latin sources for all of them. Pharmaceutical latin was taught at many universities up until the 1950s. People here in general (not always) have been working from such sources, but they didn't always cite them on every page.--Rafaelgarcia 06:54, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I know. If you can find a reasonable source (i.e. anything but a dictionary from the past few decades) for any name, I have no objection to using it, but keep in mind that there may be alternative names. An immediate problem I'm having is with Formula:Elementa color img - I have the pictures all working now, but I want the second argument (the color term) to be displayed as a caption to the picture. Why isn't that working? Pantocrator 07:27, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

On the formula, you should talk with UV noster, who knows a lot about them.--Xaverius 17:25, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

He fixed it, it seems. No idea why that worked, though. Pantocrator 04:14, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

De vertendo in Anglicum sermonem Latinam inscriptionem vetustam

Vobis auxilium peto, amici, cum mala inscriptione, quam legere recte non possum. Textum scripsi hoc: Disputatio_Usoris:Xaverius#Inscriptio. Gratias vobis ago!--Xaverius 18:16, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Sub-rubbish

I've complained repeatedly about dictionary rubbish infesting this wiki. But how about something ever lower - blogis? That citation isn't even a dictionary, it's just one random guy's musings! It's also a completely ridiculous form, borrowings into Latin (other than Greek i-stems) never become i-stems, if it were to be Latinised, the forms following attested patterns would be blogum, blogus, bloga -ae (if it had a reason to be feminine, which it doesn't), and blog -is. Personally I would leave it indeclinable for now; the verb I suppose must be blogare following the normal pattern.

Now the point is that copying the word formation of random people on the internet makes no sense. It's worse than forming words here on Vicipaedia. We, at least, are more than one person, and can debate the proper form of words, as we actually have on several disputationes. The man that coined 'blogis' doesn't know Latin, anyway, and ridiculously argued that 'blogum' and 'blogus' must be avoided because they sound like 'bubblegum' and 'bogus' (which they don't in any reasonable pronunciation) but what kind of childish argument is that for us to be using?

'Blog' is an ugly word in any language, I say, and we shouldn't debase Latin by borrowing it unless speakers spontaneously do and we need to document it, and that is why we should leave it indeclinable as it is not Latin. This is exactly how you argued against my ringum (which is surely more reasonable than blogis) but apparently you'd rather follow a goofball posting on his own site than a reasonable (comparative) expert on these pages. Pantocrator 04:14, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

:(titulus ad Disputatio:Blog motus est) 
:Pantocrator 05:48, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nonne 'calcem' hic formamus? 'Blog' est abbreviatio phrasis 'web log', quae Latine reddenda est 'ephemeris retialis', unde 'retephemeris' fingi posset si hybrides Graecolatinas sineremus - forsitan puristae praeferrent 'dictyephemeris'. Alioquin, quoniam qui 'blog' creat 'blogista' vocatur, creationem eius 'Blogismum' seu Blogizatum' seu 'Blogizationem' vocare possemus.

"formamus"? VP:NF. Neque, quaeso, finge verba ex elementis et Latinis et Graecis. Nec necesse est fingere verba Graeca! 'Web' Graece vocatur ἱστός, unde pro 'blog' dicunt ιστολόγιο, i.e. 'histologium'. Etiam, n.b. 'net' (rete, δίκτυο) non eandem rem esse quam 'web' (tela, ιστός) — si veram "calcem" vis facere, utendum est tibi verbo 'tela', non 'rete'. —Mucius Tever 14:57, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Heart Transpant?

Cordis translatum ? Quaeso domine, amabo te. Gratias ago.--Jondel 09:15, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If it were "cor translatum" it would be "a transplanted (?) heart". Latum cannot work as a noun, I reckon, so maybe better "cordis translatio"--Xaverius 10:10, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Morgan gives:

.med organ transplant / membrorum translatio (v. insitio) [Latinitas]; transplantatio+ [Vox Lat.;

Latinitas] (HELF.)

So yeah, I'd reckon you're right, Xavi. --Ioscius^∞ 10:13, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

--Ioscius^∞ 10:13, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Even though if it is (quote:) "just something the dictionary writer pulled out of his ass"^{Disputatio:Turris_Eiffelia}--Xaverius 10:29, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Done. Pantocrator 12:27, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, Ioscius, Pancrator, Thank you all for your insights. Organ Transplant articles will be appearing soon. Estne potius transplantatio ? Any way it is easy to change/move the article to the correct name. (It is hard to start one.) --Jondel 11:13, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

De Cohortibus

Following the discussion started at Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby#Cohortes = Parlamentum? on the version of Spanish Cortes in Latin, an usor ignotus kept using cohortes, which is probably the etymology of the word. However, during the Visigothic period, the pre-cortes royal meetings were "curtis" rather than "cohortes" (VV.AA. 1999, "Current sissues and future directions in the study of the Visigoths" in P. Heather The Visigoths: From the Migration Period to the Seventh Century. San Marino.). I do not know if this would settle the matter, but as Regnum Navarrae is our pagina mensis, it would be a good idea to have a clear idea about this, and probably write Curtes Navarrae or Cohortes Navarrae.--Xaverius 10:26, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

What word is used in Latin for Spanish 'Cortes'? I don't believe that the antique use of curtes adds anything to the case for it if the etymology of both is cohortes.

If on the other hand the attested Latin form is Parlamentum we might have a difficult decision to make. Pantocrator 12:06, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In all documents in romance, the word is Cortes. Its etymology is said to be cohortes, but it is arguably also curtis - that is the thing. I haven't been able to find any reference yet in Latin, although it seems clear that parlamentum/parliament was never used in Hispanic contexts.--Xaverius 13:20, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

(I'm currently going through a 16th century edition of the laws of Castille [9])--Xaverius 13:23, 10 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at Ducange ('cortis 1'). Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary ('court') is interesting too. It appears to me that, although medieval Latin curtis / cortis (-is f.) derives ultimately from classical Latin cohors, these medieval forms carry so many new meanings that they may be considered a different word from cohors, deserving a separate entry. --Fabullus 13:41, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Then Curtes Navarrae or Cortes Navarrae would be adequate? I could not find any reference to a Spanish source in Ducange, sadly--Xaverius 13:45, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me! If a source turns up you can always move the page. --Fabullus 13:53, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

essential amino and fatty acids

Scripsi "in seminibus continentur omnia acida amina et acida adiposa hominibus necessaria", sed scire velim quid putetis de essentialia? --Ioscius^∞ 11:42, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Essentialia est mihi OK. Sed, requiris acida aminica ut parallelismum obtineat. Pantocrator 12:41, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Quid significat essentialia, hoc verbum arcanum? Ait Cassell's:

essence, natura, vis

essential, verus, proprius.

essentially, reapse, vere, necessario. IacobusAmor 12:50, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In Latina noua, essentialis esse 'essential' potest. Cassell's est vocabularium classicum solum, estne? Pantocrator 13:01, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Lewis et Short dicunt: "essentia"": "the being or essence of a thing; transl. of the Gr. οὐσία: haec interpretatio (rhetorices) non minus dura est, quam illa Flavii essentia atque entia, Quint. 2, 14, 2; 3, 6, 23; 8, 3, 33: cupio, propitiis auribus tuis, essentiam dicere. Ciceronem auctorem hujus verbi habeo, Sen. Ep. 58, 6. " et etiam essentialiter = "essentially (late Lat.)"--Rafaelgarcia 13:41, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Quia nomen adiectivum essentialis manifesto est verbum philosophiae proprium, nomen quod noster Ioscius quaerit est proprius; ergo: "omnia acida amina adiposaque hominibus propria." IacobusAmor 14:43, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

a favonio

Scitne quis adamussim quando anni sit a favonio. Lege si vis Plinii:

(XIX.56) Deinde utilissima funibus cannabis. seritur a favonio.

Gratias! --Ioscius^∞ 12:30, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Cassell's: Favonius = "the west wind which blew at the beginning of spring." IacobusAmor 12:51, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The Geoponica (which I have just finished translating into English) says: "Most authors, and among them Varro the Roman, say that the beginning of spring is when zephyros generally begins to blow, which is on 7th February, when the sun is in Aquarius." As my footnote adds, Favonius is usually treated as the Latin translation of zephyros. So, plant after 7th February assuming that the weather is not unseasonably cold (as it is here now). Andrew Dalby 13:03, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Odd then, what Palladius says:

3.5 De serendo cannabo: Hoc mense ultimo cannabum seris terra pingui, stercorata, rigua uel plana atque umida et altius subacta. In uno pede quadrato sex eiusdem seminis grana ponuntur.

4.5 De cannabo: Hoc etiam mense cannabum serimus usque in aequinoctium vernum hac ratione, qua in februario disputatum est.

He suggests a month and a half later (12 books, each by the month, so 3,4 = march,april)

Cold here, too, Andrew, and snowing for a solid 40 hours straight. --Ioscius^∞ 13:13, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Or I take it back. Book I is an intro! Book III really is February. Great! --Ioscius^∞ 13:15, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Adiuvate me Latine convertetendo!

Pagina mea facente vocem Latinum quoddam non inveni. Nunc opem convertendo populi Slavi, qui nunc in Bohemiae area sita est.

In varia idiomata usa Vicipaediae http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morv%C3%A1k http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravci http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravians_(ethnic_group) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4hrer Gratias multas ago responsis!--Martinus567 19:10, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Iohannes aut Ioannes?

Salvete omnes. In animo meo cognoscendi rectum dicendi scribendique modum nominis huius est. Immo inveni quasdam chartas Iohannes adferentes, et enim nonnullas paginas in quibus legi Ioannes potest. In hoc definito casu, pagina est mihi scribenda at dum in progressu de philosopho Anglico Iohanne (vel autem 'Ioanne', aut potius?) Lockio. Si quisdam mihi respondere possit, quaeso, id libenter faciat. Valete, Vicipaediani socii. --Alexander Gelsumis 12:08, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Salve optime, Alexandre! Mi paenitet, sed duae formae, "Ioannes" et "Iohannes", in lingua Latina hodierna usuales sunt! Si igitur homo ipse (e.g. in titulis librorum) unam formam selegerit, eam praeferimus. Aliter (ut credo) saepius "John" et "Johann" in "Iohannem" convertimus, "Jean" et "Giovanni" (formas h carentes) saepius in "Ioannem". Andrew Dalby 13:06, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Plurimas ago gratias, Andrea! Oporteatne igitur titulum paginae istius movere ad "Iohannem Lockium"? Vale optime. Alexander Gelsumis 14:51, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nescio. Nexum correxi in hac pagina; sed haec nota nos certiores facit de orthographia critici Francogallici J. de Clerc (qui scripsit, casu ablativo, "Ioanne Lockio Anglo"), minime de orthographia Lockii ipsius! Oportet textum cuiusdam operis a Lockio ipso scripti invenire, si possumus.

Eandem orthographiam "Ioannes" derivare possumus e titulo libri cuiusdam Cantabrigiae anno 1751 divulgati, scil.: "Synopsis compendiaria librorum Hugonis Grotii de jure belli et pacis, Samuelis Clarkii de dei existentiâ et attributis, et Joannis Lockii de intellectu humano. Cantabrigiæ: typis academicis excudit J. Bentham. Sumptibus Gul. Thurlbourn et Tho. Merrill. Prostant venales apud B. Dod, Londini; J. Fletcher, Oxonii; J. Barry, Glasguæ, et A. Kincaid, Edinburgi, 1751". [10] Andrew Dalby 16:05, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nomen 'Ioannes' e Graeca derivatur in qua lingua abest littera "h". Anhelatio asper in principio vocabuli Graeci Latine 'h' redditur, sed in medio vocabuli non inveniri potest. In Medio Aevo "h" saepe in verba adiciebatur ubi non appareri debebat a scribis paedanticis qui conabantur rectius repraesentare verba linguarum Graecae et Hebraeae. Iccirco "h"adici solebat ad nomina Ioannis (Hebraice 'Iuchanan') et Iesus (Hebraice 'Iechosua'), unde formas mediaevales 'Iohannes' et 'Ihesus' invenimus. Hodiernae editiones Bibliarum et textuum liturgicorum semper formas 'Iesus' et 'Ioannes' utuntur. Spero hoc adiuvare!

Notiones istas permagni duco, quam ob rem tibi gratias ago! Vale! Alexander Gelsumis 14:51, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Agentive '-or'

I just made this edit, because I don't think there's such a word as profestrix. Professor has no feminine form, and there's at least one other such case in '-or' but it's slipped my mind. Still, I know Latin automatically forms a feminine form in '-rix' most of the time. Perhaps this difference can be explained by professor being a title, and not a common noun.

Similarly the paper cited at Conductrum uses the word conductor to refer to an inanimate and I think in many cases this is appropriate, as when I found a new editor created Editor hexadecimalis, I did not want to change it to editrum, as I have never heard of such a word. Still people have already standardised on computatrum, motrum, and perhaps others: is '-rum' to be considered a productive suffix now?

Noooooo! and it never was! Your ear is leading you right, and the reason may be that you've (unconsciously?) internalized the fact that the pertinent suffix is -trum, not -rum—which is what it'd have to be to permit such forms as edit-rum and mot-rum, but those forms are irregular because the tee is part of their stems, essential to their meanings, and *edi-trum and *mo-trum should be meaningless (or at least weird). IacobusAmor 22:35, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the misanalysis, he is right that -trum really shouldn't be considered a productive suffix. Yes, etymologically it is the neuter form of the agent suffix seen in -tor, -trix, but it didn't act that way in classical Latin; -trum only appeared in a few words—even -bulum was more common! (We had this discussion back at Disputatio:Chronovistrum a couple of months ago.) (Of course, 'computatrum' and 'motrum' not our inventions and are probably not up to us to censure, but I think we might find enough attestation for more comfortable forms like 'computatorium' and 'motorium' to support moving them if we tried.) —Mucius Tever 01:20, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

[Of course an '-or' word remains masculine when it applies to an inanimate but becomes feminine when it applies to a woman.]

Pardon me if this has been discussed before, but what is the general standard on using an '-or' word for women or inanimates? I know at least to a native speaker of English, it seems completely natural to use '-or' indiscriminately. Pantocrator 21:15, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, dude. I'm 100% sure you say waitress when applicable. Or ma'am instead of sir when your superior is a woman. Or chairwoman if the case warrants. --Ioscius^∞ 01:03, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

These examples don't contravene Pantocrator's point, which I take to be that English-speakers can use -or "indiscriminately" with regard to sex. I suppose he's thinking of forms like actor, antecessor, assessor, aviator, censor, confessor, conservator, coordinator, digressor, educator, (ex)terminator, generator, guarantor, impersonator, incentor, intercessor, intervenor, investigator, legator, lessor, lienor, mediator, mentor, obsessor, oppressor, patentor, possessor, precentor, predecessor, promisor, regulator, spectator, speculator, stentor, supervenor, suppressor, and many others, all of which can refer to persons of either sex. One occasionally sees actress & aviatrix and such, but they're not strictly necessary, and some female performers prefer to be actors instead of actresses. IacobusAmor 01:40, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

'Actress' and 'waitress' are two of the few exceptions in standard English; the general rule has always been that the agentive can refer to men, women, or things without change. No, unless specifically instructed to, I would not say 'chairwoman' - that's bastard English. Pantocrator 12:18, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

About professor I don't know. I would be tempted to say professora but I don't know if that is correct. Both -trum and -torium seem to be the preferred endings for things that do; it's been discussed before. Editorium is the latin word that exists out there for editor. See the links on the computatrum page. There are many other neuter instrument endings, -culum, etc...the discussions are in the Taberna somewhere. Editor hexadecimalis is wrong. Conductor has many meanings (= english contractor, entrepreneur) so that the alternatives are much less ambiguous. About -rum, I think the suffix is -tor,-trix,-trum, and the root is mo- .--Rafaelgarcia 21:46, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The suffix -trix goes back to classical times as the feminine analog of -tor (not -or), so its use is hardly a novelty; for example, victor 'conqueror' and victrix 'conqueress'. Words rightly formed by attested processes are OK; for example, actrix out of actor and directrix out of director. Was profestrix rightly formed? I suspect not, because its masculine analog would have to have been *profestor, but it isn't. ¶ The suffix -tra & -trum is a classical form for instrument & means, as are -bra & -brum (candelabrum, from candela), -mentum (alimentum, from alere), &c. IacobusAmor 22:12, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

There have been some other wrongly formed feminines here, including one "succestrix" which I think I got rid of. I feel sure that "profestrix" had to go. Gender is not sex, and it is quite OK to describe a female using a term that happens to be masculine (just as in French you can describe a man as a "personne" or a "victime", which are feminine words). Andrew Dalby 22:26, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Er... I think you may find that 'profestrix' is quite well attested if you do a google search. Also the analogous 'tonstrix' is found in Classical Latin, and 'confestrix' in Mediaeval Latin. I think it should stand. I quite agree re all these coinages in '-trum' though. They are just stupid. [Scripsit 82.36.89.155, usor sine nomine.]

Yes, but some of those "attestations" are recent, some are dubious, and some cite the word actually to challenge its existence. Any analogy with tonstrix is inexact, because of the problem of the double-ess: to have gotten to tonstrix in the same manner as we supposedly get to profestrix, we'd have to have changed an ess to a tee, but with tonstrix we didn't start from a stem *tonss-. (Or did we, in preclassical times?) ¶ Aside from that, just because a form is attested doesn't mean it deserves automatic entry into the hallowed halls of Vicipaedia; and when we already have a perfectly good classical form for a thing, why invent a new one (or repeat a newly invented "attested" one)? IacobusAmor 23:38, 13 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

'Profestrix' is correctly formed. To take exact analogies, there is assessor, assestrix and possessor, possestrix. The process is *pro-fat- (pro + fateor) → *pro-fet-trik- with reduction of short vowels → profestric- by the regular outcome of *[t/d/dh]-tr dissimilation before r; cf. rostrum ← *rod-tro-, and indeed 'tonstrix' is an example of the same process, even if the "n" muddies the water; tonstric- ← *tond-tric- (tond- as in tondeo). See Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, § 212. —Mucius Tever 01:12, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! So it seems that all the work was done (as suspected) in preclassical times. IacobusAmor 01:18, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for saving me the time and fingers. --Ioscius^∞ 01:24, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised. We live and learn. Thanks! Andrew Dalby 11:15, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in what Mr. Dalby has supporting my suggestion. We do have many examples of successor used for things, and a few for women. Is that word an exception to the rule or something? Pantocrator 12:18, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was caught out above, but I would still say that it isn't logically necessary to use a specifically feminine form just because the subject happens to be of the female sex. Some, in some languages, find such forms offensive; not everyone approves of sexually marked descriptors like "Poetess" and "Actress". What does sex have to do with it? I myself dislike the fact that we have a biographical category "Mulieres", and I dislike the fact that we mark one aspect of sexuality by adding in biographical articles the category "Homophylophilia" while leaving other aspects unspoken. So, even if "profestrix" is permitted to exist, I prefer to call a professor "professor". But this is just personal opinion. Andrew Dalby 12:33, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I have to confess that I have had more than enough of Pancrator noster bandying himself about like he owns the place. Giving harsh warnings to newcomers over absolutely nothing, reverting pages with perfectly fine Latin (I double dare Pancrator to stand in the same room as Iuditha Hallett and tell her that profestrix doesn't exist. The things he pulls ought more result in bans on his own contributions than warnings or reverts of other editors. (sicut exempli gratia noster usor:Ohconfucius sensit...) 1/10 his Latin and reasoning are spot on. I'm afraid the rest of the time he offers offensive nugas in poor grammar to unsuspecting newcomers for no reason whatsoever. Where do you get this stuff? --Ioscius^∞ 00:51, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If I really were acting like I owned the place, I wouldn't even be asking this question. I honestly didn't think profestrix could be a word; it seems I was mistaken. I still don't think it's a good word, given modern standards of gender equality especially, and I regret that I can't find the source that I had. Neo-Latin usage is not likely to decide, given that all professors were male during the time Latin was the language of the university. Also, it's not as though using masculine nouns for women is unknown in Latin.

As for Usor:Ohconfucius, I did not threaten to block or ban him, just remind him that this place is for building an encyclopedia and writing in Latin, not for random experimenation with javascript or whatever. I don't see why that should be controversial. Pantocrator 12:18, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

-trum, -torium

(New section for clarity)

The citation I gave for conductor wasn't meant to say that we should use that word but only to show that someone felt comfortable using -tor for in inanimate. I didn't find editorium in the dictionaries, but I did see monitorium, which is not quite analogous. Traditionally -torium referred usually to places, being a nominalisation of the adjective -torius, -a, -um. Using it for computer programs seems a bit unnatural. Computer programs do seem to have a strongly agentive force, which is why we anthopomorphise them in English a lot.

Using '-tor' would certainly be most natural for modern speakers, given that English and the Romance languages (and others, when they use -or at all) do use those forms. For that reason, I would suggest that demanding '-trum' or '-torium' in all cases might be excessive classicism. I am trying to check out some more old text, but, to take one example, it certainly looks as if motor was indeed used to mean anything that causes motion, and motrum is a late 20th-century invention. I would not be surprised to find the same of others.

The reason I so strongly prefer 19c. and earlier sources is not to be perverse, but because of the difference in how Latin was used. Down to the 18c., and in some cases (e.g. science) to the 19c., most people that published in Latin did so for practical purposes, and were using Latin as a living language. In contrast, the people that have come to Latin recently are treating it as a dead language for which coining new words is something of a game. Pantocrator 12:18, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

"Traditionally -torium referred usually to places" — In English it does; in Latin, not necessarily. Going through L&S at Perseus there are 70 headwords in -end, of which only about 27 have senses referring to places (a few more if you count objects that could be considered containers). I suspect there might be a difference between the '-torium' that indicates locus in quo and the '-torium' which is the agentive '-tor' plus the neuter of the adjectivizing '-ius' which we might use to designate instrument; the former, I guess, would be cognate to the Greek -τήριον, but that's just me conjecturing. Of course, at any rate the metaphor of file/program/resource-as-place exists anyway; hence we speak of paths leading to them, entering data into them, etc. —Mucius Tever 15:37, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I looked, and not more than two dozen has the 'instrumental' use that we're considering here. So it did exist in classical Latin, yes, but can't be called the standard suffix any more than '-trum' can.

But one thing I did find, as I looked through them, I looked for the '-tor' equivalents in many cases, and I found this: trajector. No other ending would do for that, would it? So if it has a strong enough agentive (active) force, '-or' can be used for things. And it's just my opinion, but I think computer programs do have such a force.

So we should, as the physicists did, use motor for the general concept of anything that causes motion, but we may use motrum (or possibly motorium) for the device. The ability to use those different endings is found only in Latin. Pantocrator 16:41, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, "not more than two dozen" is in the same ballpark as that for -torium of place and more than double that of instrumental -trum, which has maybe ten occurrences. "Traiector" is probably not a good example, because (at least in the only example L&S give) it appears to be paired with the masculine noun 'ignis'; the -tor would be just an ordinary nomen agentis that's masculine because it's applied to a masculine noun — a sort of "personification" that's more well-known with the -trix words (e.g. in 'felicitas est fortuna adiutrix consiliorum bonorum'); it might be a poetical construct or it might not, but the example, from the Hamartigenia of Prudentius, is in dactylic hexameter, which introduces all sorts of other concerns. Maybe it appears in less problematic contexts elsewhere? —Mucius Tever 17:40, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for modifying cite web template

Currently when the accessdate parameter in the cite web template is assigned, the result is something like this:

Supplemental IRAS Minor Planet Survey v6.0 (2002). die 15 Feb 2010 lectum

That phrase at the end (modulo arguments about whether it's actually necessary) is quite ugly. I propose that the color be changed, and that the phrase be changed to an ablative absolute -- although I'm not sure that it is good Latinitas to have an ablative absolute as a sentence fragment:

Supplemental IRAS Minor Planet Survey v6.0 (2002). (Die 15 Feb 2010 lecto.)

I personally like to see the access date because it helps me determine if a link is possibly stale. I've encountered more than one link at en: that has no access date, yet is broken.

Opinions, counter-suggestions? Vale, -- Robert.Baruch 21:12, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw any objection to the date if people find it useful!

However, unlike scientific papers, Vicipaedia pages are anonymous. Hence our purpose in supplying the date is totally different from that of a scientific author (as you show). For a scientific paper, the purpose is to help certify the research and reading that's been done by the author; the reference with date remains in print, unchanged, and the certification remains valid, unchanged, until the author's memorial stone has been defaced by rain and frost and all scientific journals have crumbled into dust. The purpose here on Vicipaedia has nothing to do with any author, because no author is named on the page; it is to indicate to a dubious reader when the link was last checked. So, "lecto/lecta" is not the point; the point is "verificata".

I like the format, but I don't think an ablative absolute fits. I suggest the wording (nexus die 15 Feb 2010 verificatus) Andrew Dalby 21:31, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Cassell's: "verify, confirmare, probare"; ergo "nexus die 15 Feb 2010 confirmatus"? IacobusAmor 22:20, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Better. Thanks for verifying! Andrew Dalby 12:36, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

persona=>humano?

I know persona is mask but it's use as 'person' is rampant. Was it used in medieval latin as such? Is it ok to substitute humano? Homo seems more 'masculine'. The meaning should be as neutral /nongender as possible.Thank you in advance.--Jondel 04:32, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

You are right in thinking that we avoid using "persona" for person: we use it for mask or character. I admit, though, that even from Cicero's Letters onwards the sense of person was beginning to develop.

It is usually best to use homo. This word is really not gender-specific in classical latin: the gender-specific words are "vir" and "femina/mulier". Andrew Dalby 12:42, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Andrew is right. Also, in a technical meaning of great importance, persona in legal language meant plaintiff or defendant or witness or individual in question--any person who might appear before the court or in a legal context; perhaps because the court can be likened onto a stage where actors play a drama, and the actors appear not as themselves but as formal legal entitites. In this sense, it survived into the romance languages as "Roman term for person", since, long after other aspects of Roman civilization disappeared, Roman legal terminology continued to be used.--24.183.186.151 13:39, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Also... "humano" meaning 'person'? where does that word come from? But yeah, 'homo' shouldn't feel 'masculine'—that might be contamination from other languages. 'Homo' in Latin is of common gender; Lewis & Short give examples of the word applied to female humans in Cicero, Ovid, and Pliny... —Mucius Tever 04:51, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I don't remember where I got humano. Maybe from the etymology of Human. But there is a humanus. As recommended , I might be make changes to 'homo'. Babae!! I rarely get a 'You are right' from Andrew. Anyway I do feel uncomfortable it being 'person' since dictionaries don't seem to indicate as such. Since, I have agreement, I may be making changes as such. I won't be touching the Persona articles related to justice ('ius') as per anonymous, it may be appropriate in legal-stage context. Thanks to Andrew, Anonymous guy and Mucius. --Jondel 10:01, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

"since dictionaries don't seem to indicate as such" — This may be because quite a lot of the dictionaries (especially the ones online, such as the one you link to) are old enough to be public domain, and the language has changed a lot since then—our use of 'person' as an everyday word for 'man, woman, or child' generically is much more common now than it used to be. (Perhaps Webster 1913's definition of this sense of the word shows the metaphor that produced the sense may have been still felt back then when it says "a moral agent"—i.e. agent ~ actor). —Mucius Tever 15:58, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The dictionaries I link to are the Whitaker Ninja (catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe), all mighty Buddha: athirdway.com. For English Press One, www.dictionary.com where I peruse the Etymology. Perseus is a bit klunky for me. I say "don't seem to indicate as such" because of this :

personalis, personalis, personale ADJ [XXXEO] uncommon

personal; of/relating to an individual;

It is very hard not to use Medieval Latin, or to stick totally to Classical Latin. Like agent/actor, our modern language orientation(say, English) compels us to use the words in the modern sense. In learning foreign languages, this would be "False Friends". E.g. homo is 'not' homosexual. Did you know that other given definitions for person are cutis and kaput? It would create some confusion to use cutis when you want to say person. When reading(or listening) I look out for this other possible meanings but when speaking or writing I try to choose the best entry that creates less confusion but is still within 'dictionary'/standard definitions. --Jondel 23:27, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've already mentioned to you my opinion of Whitaker's Words. But his gloss of 'person' by 'cutis' is probably where another one of those older senses of 'person' — which Webster 1913 defines as "The bodily form of a human being; body; outward appearance; as, of comely person" — intersects with the metaphorical sense of 'cutis'[11] that Lewis & Short define by "the external appearance, surface, outside". It wouldn't be useful to translate the sense of 'person' in question, certainly. —Mucius Tever 01:55, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I will try to avoid Whitaker except for quick checking and 'reverse checking'.(I regret mentioning it) Your analyis of how 'cutis came to be in Whitaker is very informative. They sort of 'reversed recreated the meaning for person.--Jondel 07:16, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Homo is of course the best Latin word. But honestly, if we did need a different 'gender-neutral' word, persona would be the choice, following the evolution in modern languages. And as just pointed out personalis was used; it's only a small step from that (back-formation) to persona. Pantocrator 23:58, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In lingua generali "persona" idem ac "homo" significare potest, in iure autem differentia iam ab tempore Romano est. Tantum homines liberi, non omnes homines, sunt personae; servi in iure sunt res. At collegium (en:legal person) est persona, tamen non est homo. Gabriel Svoboda 21:24, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Conventiculum

Videte etiam hanc disputationem, qui de conventiculo vicipaediae Romae habendo deliberent. --Alex1011 22:24, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Latinisms

From Disputatio:Iosephus Peano:

• As I pointed out before, Cassell's and most dictionaries cover only classical Latin. Objectum, collectio and elementalis are used in New Latin with the meaning of their English cognates. Pantocrator 05:27, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

• Many here expect to find the classical language, insofar as it can be achieved. IacobusAmor 13:25, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If Iacobus really means we should avoid all Neo-Latin words if possible, I must dispute the point. Pantocrator 09:19, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ding! ding! Straw man alert! IacobusAmor 13:08, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The Latin writers of the late medieval and modern period came up with new words and senses primarily because classical Latin was found inconvenient for discussing the ideas they needed to discuss. This is the same reason Latin of the classical and patristic period borrowed or calqued many Greek words. Latin words used by the Neo-Latin writers more than a few times deserve to be considered as much part (or very nearly) of the language as if they were in Caesar.

In addition, those words, because of many having been borrowed into English and other modern languages, are more familiar to the majority of people today.

Pantocrator, I've got to say, if you want your work to be familiar to the majority of people today, sure en:wiki is a much more suitable place? Why is familiarity your goal instead of Latinity? I (and I think most of us) want my work here to be familiar to for instance Reginaldus Foster or Aloisius Miraglia, hardly giving a care to the majority of people today. If that were the case, surely I'd be working in Mandarin, English, Arabic, Russian, Hindi, Spanish, or French, right? Certainly not in Latin. --Ioscius^∞ 13:09, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The period from the 11-19c. comprises the great majority of all Latin texts available today - are we to pretend it didn't happen, and pass right from the classics to the 20th-century 'living Latin' revival? Pantocrator 09:19, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If the New Latin that you're defending involves an up-to-date vocabulary expressed in classical grammar, most modern readers won't object; but if you're defending the grammatical innovations of the Middle Ages (rejected by Latinists of the Renaissance), you'll meet strong opposition. All of this has been discussed before, at length. ¶ As to the classical style in general: that's been the ideal of pedagogy for hundreds of years, and it extends to the vocabulary: Bradley's Arnold tells English-speaking students to call bullets sagittae and Parliament the Senatus. IacobusAmor 12:52, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Iacobe, certe sagittae et senatus grammaticae classicae exempla vix sunt, sed conatus ad vocabularium purgendum. Respectu legibus moribusque hodiernis sagitta a glande plumbea multis modis decerni potest, et quidem parlamentum a senatu.--24.183.186.151 13:06, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Manifesto! (Quamquam parlamentum est conventus senatorius.) IacobusAmor 13:15, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I should like to see some of those previous discussions (here?). I do agree that, although I couldn't call the Latin used by good mediaeval writers wrong, the classical period must be our ideal as far as grammar. I know that most readers would not object to seeing later vocabulary, the question I asked is why you do. Pantocrator 05:55, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Conversio populi "Eskimo"

Salvete! Quomodo convertitur ille populus, qui in terra Canada vivit apud Polum septentrionalem (Ang: North Pol). Escimo? Escimus? Latinizemus vel faciamus formam Latinam (exempli causa "whisky": aqua vitae moro Scotorum parata). --Martinus567 16:40, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Multi hodie habent nomen Eskimo ipso populo derogare; ergo nomen fortasse vitandum est. IacobusAmor 13:00, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As long as these eskimoes aren't from Nebraska... --Ioscius^∞ 13:02, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Heh. In which case, securi feriantur! IacobusAmor 13:06, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

We already have stubs for some of the languages concerned: Linguae Escimaeo-Aleut, Linguae Escimaicae (and notice the reference to David Morgan's dictionary), Lingua Groenlandica. Our general rule is that we don't Latinize. We take existing modern Latin forms if they exist (as in these cases); otherwise we use the most acceptable international or foreign word. In that case, normally we adopt it, unchanged, as indeclinable.

Incidentally, the English for polus septentrionalis is "North Pole", and I like my whisky (or even sometimes whiskey) with an h :) Andrew Dalby 13:24, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC) Andrew Dalby 13:21, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Veniam da, Andrew, parvuliximum loquor Anglice, temptatis lingua Germanica, Hungarica, vel Latina loqui. --Martinus567 16:40, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Et tu veniam da, Martine, de nugis meis! Quaestionem utilissimam posuisti.

Dico enim: vide paginas de linguis Escimaicis quas iam habemus, cum citatione glossarii Davidis Morgan (sed hoc glossarium nondum publici iuris fit). Si verbum Latinum vel neo-Latinum minime reperimus, ob regulam VP:NF praeferimus verbum idoneum "internationale" seu peregrinum selegere et ut indeclinabile in textu ponere. Andrew Dalby 16:47, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Non erat problema, et tibi ceterisque gratias ago multas nuntiatione. Recte dicis, haud eram circumspectus. Vale--Martinus567 18:53, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of categories?

I think Categoria:Zodiaci should be Categoria:Zodiacus, because there's only one zodiac. I think Categoria:Sidus (corresponding to English "constellation") should be plural, sidera, but I am also wondering whether Categoria:Constellationes would be even better because, although "sidus" can mean constellation, it also means star, whereas "constellatio" is unambiguous. Any other views? Andrew Dalby 19:32, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I see now that Iustinus made exactly the same points five years ago at Disputatio Categoriae:Sidus. Time for action, perhaps? Andrew Dalby 19:36, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Emulate what the big wikis are doing. (Why? Because more human computational power has been brought to bear on such questions there than here.) The English article Zodiac has these categories:

Astrology | WikiProject Astrology | Celestial coordinate system | Ancient astronomy | History of astrology | Early scientific cosmologies | Astrological signs | Constellations

The English article Constellation has these categories:

Astrology | Constellations | Astronomical objects. IacobusAmor 19:45, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't see a "no" so I'll take it that's a "yes". I agree those other categories will be useful in due course. Andrew Dalby 12:38, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

roman numerals (again...)

Why do you use Arab origin numbers instead of Roman ones? I propose to change every number to Roman. Ave! --21:36, 23 Februarii 2010 Usor:150.244.252.107

Hello anonymous. This has been discussed at length and decided against for reasons of unweildliness and illegibility especially for the big numbers required to write an encyclopaedia. Please see Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani. Ave. --Ioscius^∞ 22:06, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The name of New Latin

Consistently throught this wiki the name Neolatina or some variation is used to indicate the Latin spoken today. For instance, Lexica Neolatina, Lingua Neolatina, Auctores Neolatini.

This is at variance with standard academic usage, which is represented by the English pages, where New Latin is that used from the Renaissance to the 19th century and Contemporary Latin refers to that used today. This is also a very useful distinction, but our appropriating of Neolatina for the latter means that we have no single term for the former.

I think that the English distinction should be observed here, too. We should distinguish Latina noua from Latina moderna. Pantocrator 04:15, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: editions in the series of Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionaries (popular in the United States) distinguish, for etymological purposes, among Old Latin, Latin, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, New Latin, and Late Latin; also, they identify certain terms as being in the "International Scientific Vocabulary," and some of them look rather Latinate. IacobusAmor 19:33, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

We do have a single term for 17th-19th century Latin -- we use "recentior", as in Categoria:Auctores Latini recentiores etc. I am not sure if that's your meaning, or whether you wanted a term including Renaissance Latin as well as the later period: in which case, no, I don't think we do have a single term for all of that. In any case, I agree it's unfortunate if our definition of New Latin disagrees with that of others. But are the others consistent among themselves? I'm not sure of that. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Secundum Cassell's, 'modern' in lingua Latina est recens, novus, huius aetatis, et per occasionem simpliciter hic, sed scriptores alias formas aliquando adhibent, e.g. 'the modern generation' = homines qui nunc sunt aut vivunt. Secundum Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, modernus est nomen "Late Latin," ex modus. IacobusAmor 12:52, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Vicipaedia is consistent with modern usage among latin writers outside of vicipaedia. This differs from the en.wiki usage (they are wrong; single "New Latin" but ecclesiastica, scientifica and humanistica according to the type of use it was put to) and also from the romance usage (where lingua neolatina means the same as romance language). Stop trying to make us into a copy of en.wiki.--24.107.235.195 13:33, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. From the first pages of Google.

If you meant writers IN Latin, you may be right. But don't accuse me of modeling my usage after English Wikipedia, I am following academic use such as the above. Pantocrator 13:43, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

One does not have to be good at latin to contribute to this wiki. However, for a person who hasn't ever strung together a single grammatical latin sentence since he has come here, evidently barely has a grasp of the meaning of latin words, except on the basis from *only* second-hand sources and intuitions from *english* usages, it is remarkable that you so freely offer such imperious, certain opinions as to what may or may not be correct latin usage of any term whatsoever. You should first learn *enough* latin to achieve a first-handed understanding before qualifying yourself to opine anything about latin with certainty. To attempt otherwise is to present yourself in the role of a boorish m****, and I am assuming you wish to be better than that. --130.215.96.89 18:24, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks are inappropriate (and no better for being anonymous). The question raised is a serious one. I don't have easy access to many sources on this, but my quick impression is that en:wiki may correspond better with modern usage, using the term "Neo-Latin" for Latin from the early Renaissance onwards, than we do, using it for the 20th/21st century Latin revival. So perhaps we should consider a different term for this very recent period. Andrew Dalby 19:18, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

See the news from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate series of dictionaries (above). If professional lexicographers make such distinctions, Vicipaedia might want to; but note that they don't necessarily correspond with the classification used by Wikipedia. Lingua Neolatina might perhaps be equivalent to "Late Latin." IacobusAmor 19:42, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to anonymous, he may have been a little upset about this. --Ioscius^∞ 19:30, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! I hadn't seen that! As a rule (experience teaches), everybody here makes mistakes, but few are outright lies. IacobusAmor 19:45, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

:=o Second thoughts are better.

The German article on this topic appears independent of the English one and uses a similarly broad definition of "Neulatein" (from the 14th century in fact -- as does my old Encyclopaedia Britannica). I disagree mildly with anonymous A above: although "lingua neolatina" can be used in some Romance languages to mean "Romance language", that usage isn't universal in any of them; and several of the Romance wikipedias have articles corresponding to en:New Latin under titles like the Portuguese pt:Neolatim. Andrew Dalby 19:43, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As do all other wikis that have such an article at all. We seem to be out of step with everyone here. Pantocrator 15:04, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between humanistic latin and neolatin is based more on style and attitude towards inclusion of mediaeval vocabulary than on time per se. Whether taxonomically speaking neolatin should be divided further into two categories one for the recent century and one for earlier is hugely debatable since the language is not in principle any different. The lower quality of latin visible today is mostly just due to the fact that any idiot with a keyboard and internet access can post what he wants, not because there is any huge difference.

Indeed, if you look at the content of the various wiki pages pointed to under the name "New Latin", the language referred to is not any different from neolatin. Those wikis merely use page to describe how latin continues to manifest itself in todays world, describing various latin language institutes that presently exist. So if you want a page like that "lingua Latina hodierna" would suffice.--24.107.235.195 13:45, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'the distinction between humanistic latin and neolatin'. Are you alleging that Larin suddenly changed around 1600 among men of letters? ( As for the distinction en:wiki makes between 'New' (noua) and 'Contemporary' (moderna), the difference is in the manner of use, and is fundamental. That New Latin was used as a living language of communication, while Modern Latin is used more as a toy (even by us), and is also subject to a classical purism that would be rejected by people using the language for practical reasons. Pantocrator 15:03, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps referring to modern latin as a "toy" is more of an admission of how YOUR OWN attitude towards latin and this wiki; it certainly explains your distainful attitudes, bordering on malfeasance as you indiscriminately fill pages with incomprehensible gibberish. In any case, please don't pretend to speak for me or for the rest of us. It is insulting.

As to what humanistic latin is, look it up: it is also called rennaisance latin in english. I wouldn't say the change is sudden as no language changes are sudden or uniform, but yes it changed by a lot, because of the neolatin willingness to adopt new jargon for modern things in science, technology, etc., and the less stict insistence on adhering to classical style and idiom, although still valuing it.--130.215.96.89 15:59, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

About the references supra: I glanced at five of the six links provided by Pantocrator. They do not refer to the same timespans. Moreover, most of them in general describe timespans which seem to be delineaged also by other properties than being "Neolatin". For reference, in order, they refer to Neolatin in the following timespans:

1. "the period ca. 1300-1800";
2. "from the beginning of Italian humanism until the present day";
3. N/A (I and Jstoor seem to have a disagreement about cookies);
4. "Latin texts written during the Renaisance and later that are freely available to the general public on the Web";
5. "Neo-Latin texts from or about the Nordic countries, between 1500 and 1800";
6. "Journal of Neo-Latin Studies is the leading periodical in the field of medieval, Renaissance, and modern Latin";

My conclusion is that this is inconclusive as to where the "Neolatin era" started or ended, or whether indeed it hasn't ended (including the Vicipaedia texts in the corpus, I presume!). On the other hand, in this handful of places, Neolatin or Neo-Latin certainly covered older material than that from the most recent centuries.

About stilistic versus purely age-based classification: I'm not an expert of Latin, even if I may have composed a handful (in toto) of Latin sentences. I've several times heard and read about the humanists campaign for classical syntax. As far as understand, this has only partially to do with the vocabulary; it was also a question of returning to another kind of dependency of the abundancy of forms and constructions. As I heard it explained, when the forms tended to blur in the vulgar (spoken) Latin, the spoken and eventually also the written language tended to use more 'extra' words (such as prepositions or demonstrative pronouns), in order to gain clarity. Together with this, there was a tendence to avoid longer 'periods', in favour of a simpler syntax.

Some influential humanists, and especially Erasmus Roterodamus, were depicted as having "hugged Latin to death", by insisting on a classical syntax, and criticising the actual speakers and users of Latin for their 'degenerated' usage. This purportedly contributed quite a bit to Lating ceasing to be such a commonly spoken and written language as it was up to the rainessance.

As I'm no expert, I cannot judge to what extent this would be true. However, I'm fairly convinced that several factors contributed. E.g., I find it hard to believe that creating the Italian written language (cf. the Divina Comoedia) just was a reaction against the 'Classical Latin lovers'; and having access to a standardised written Italian IMHO might diminish the usage of Latin as a means of day-to-day communication in Italy. Georgius B

Many thanks, Usor:JoergenB (I think it was you). My impression from all this is that we probably should stop using "... Neolatina" for the 20th/21st century exclusively. That's not a big issue, really; it mainly means changing a couple of category names. "... Latina hodierna" has been suggested above and seems a good substitute. Does anyone object to that change?

The bigger question remains for any editors who might expand the article Lingua Neolatina. Should this article exist? (on the Italian wiki it doesn't). If it does exist, when should it begin and end? Imposing periods on language history is usually controversial, and this is clearly one such case. Anyway, that will not be settled on the Taberna, but by actually writing the history. Andrew Dalby 20:46, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

('Scuse me; the signature seemingly disappeared in the final editing.) I think "...latina hodierna" is OK; but they might be included as subcategories of the ...neolatina ones. Georgius B 22:53, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

That would of course have been an unfortunate way (per the Erasmus idea above), but the question must be asked, is the Latin of the medieval times really the same language as the classical? Granting certainly that much stayed the same, with such different syntactical constructions, different spelling and pronunciation, different vocabulary and different rules of word formation. Like Gregorius' doubts about the real reason for Latin falling off the face of the Italian peninsula, I sometimes wonder whether it is more plausible that Erasmus choked out an already deteriorating daughter language? --Ioscius^∞ 23:22, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

It was the same language in the way that Shakespearean english is the same as modern American english. The spelling and pronunciation are different, the idioms are different, and different syntactical forms are favored; yet they are mutually intelligible. The changes were gradual and for this reason native speakers regard them as the same language, but to an outsider they appear to be different.

However, as far as I can see, the most abrupt change was between mediaeval and humanistic latin, and those changes were primarily four-fold: orthography (spelling), idiom, and vocabulary. These are in order from biggest to smallest change. The insistence on classical spelling, I think, was I think the biggest change, second the insistence on classical idiomatic expressions in favor of mediaeval innovations, third the conscious purging of the language of new mediaeval terms.

Neolatin, I think, can be thought of a backlash to humanistic latin, proceeding from a realization that the humanists went a little too far: you need some new vocabulary for new things, different/simpler expressions are called for in scientific/non scientific writing and to express foreign ideas, and although classical sounds/spellings are nicer, also modern innnotions distinguishing caps/noncaps, periods, semicolons, etc. distinctions are good.--24.107.235.195 04:14, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "three-fold" rather than "four-fold", or did you forget one item (e.g., grammatical)? Georgius B 15:00, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Were there grammatical differences too? --130.215.96.89 16:25, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

According to our old family Latin grammar (Erik Tidner: Latinsk språklära, 1961), there were also grammatical differences between classical and medieval Latin (he does not mention "Neo-latin"). Some concerned habits more than rules, like employing ille and ipse in positions where they could be used in classical Latin, but were "superfluous" from that point of view; Tidner remarks that they are "on the way" to become determined articles. Similarly, simple verb forms were often replaced by composite ones, e.g. vocabam by vocans eram; I suppose this would have sounded funny but not impossible to old Romans. Accusative + infinitive was often replaced by a relative clause: Scribe, quia ibi est laetitia!, and prepositions were used in many places where they were not 'needed': quinque librae de argento; this construction existed in the classical language, but genitivus partitivus was more common. (On the other hand, medieval Latin in some situations habitually used unadorned case forms, where these were uncommon classically, like the extensive use of ablativus loci: solio residere, and genitivus qualitatis: homines pacis.)

There were also some simplifications in endings, which I suspect would have been considered absolutely wrong from a classical view; e.g., the abl. sg. ending of the present participles was -e, not -i.

I repeat, I'm quoting Tidner; hopefully not misunderstanding too much. I'm no expert. Georgius B 22:38, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

No one questions that there should be a division between classical and mediaeval or between that and renascentia/humanistica. Are we agreed, though, that we need to do something about the modern classification? At the least we need to acknowledge that having an IW from our neolatin article to the others is wrong. Pantocrator 04:40, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that. Our article Lingua Neolatina gives a simple definition that pretty well agrees with the others: "spoken from the Renaissance onwards or after the Middle Ages". In temporal terms "a" + ablative is an inclusive "from", as in "a principio" (from [and including] the beginning) and "ab Urbe condita" (from [and including] Rome's foundation).

What we really need to do with that article is to write it. Andrew Dalby 16:25, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The problem was the formula, which I've also corrected. Pantocrator 16:48, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Spectaculum 'Sesame Street'

Quomodo dicitur latine? Via Sesame? Aut melior est dicere "Sesame Street" ad titulam anglicam originalem? "Sesame Street est spectaculum televisionis pro liberis factum anno 1969 etcetera 208.103.66.69 04:43, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Adeo "Via Sesame" quam propono! --Jondel 07:17, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Quia spectaculi est titulus, titulo 'Sesame Street' oportet uti secundum normas vicipaedianas usque nunc in usu. Postea potes suggerere translationem latinam.--24.107.235.195 13:40, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ita vero. Secundum normas tuemur. Si mutari opus est, potius sit magister qui movere sed omnibus non molestia fit si quisquam hoc facere. Heus! Infans istum seriem videbam et non oblivisci adhunc possum! Memini "We'll take... the car to the zoo... The car to the zoo? The car to the zoo!... wini wini ...wini wini.... " quam dicebant "The Whittle bugs(? Mihi non certe sum nomine ). Qualibet istam Sesame Street iucundam esse debebit addituque laborabo postea. --Jondel 00:44, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

37 000

Credo paginam nostram no. 37 000 fuisse Punctum (mathematica), ab anonymo creatam. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Tunc paginarum 10 000 creavimus in anno singulo!--Xaverius 19:33, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Rectumne est?--Martinus567 14:49, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The use of mediaeval Latin

Lege: [18] a Vicipaedia Anglica.

Tales, qua necesse cogitare modernum, in multae parte est impossibiles facile in Latina pura. Pantocrator 04:34, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

But this very post surely proves you don't even know about intelligible Latin, let alone Latina pura? --Ioscius^∞ 23:18, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Actually the more I read, a funnier point emerges. Latin was actually better for describing the world than English. --Ioscius^∞ 23:28, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nomen Anglicum: scavenger

Quid est optimum nomen Latinum? Nobis opus est categoriae sicut Scavengers pro canibus, diabolis Tasmaniensibus, hyaenidis, myxiniformibus, leonibus, &c. IacobusAmor 14:24, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As a first attempt, Categoria:Morticinis vescentes, "eaters of carrion meat" (vescor seems to take an ablative). Andrew Dalby 15:46, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Traupvir dat cloacarius, quod est, nisi usui, risui. --Ioscius^∞ 16:00, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, he actually has "colacarius" in my copy, but presumably that's a typo. It does of course not appear to translate the animal sense of scavenger, but the original human one "A person whose employment is to clean the streets of a city, by scraping or sweeping, and carrying off the filth."[19] —Mucius Tever 19:39, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The concrete sense of the wanted concept is something like "found-corpse eaters," if that helps. IacobusAmor 20:11, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

In other languages “scavengers” are called: Port.: detrívoro (< deterere + vorare) / necrofago (< gr. nekros + gr. phagein) - Span.: carroñero o necrófago - Germ.: Aasfresser or Nekrophagen - French: nécrophagia / nécrophage - Ital.: saprofagia / saprofago (< gr. sapros + gr. phagein) = saprobo = detritivoro - Moreover there is a Scarabaeus called “Onthophagus necrophagus ARROW, 1931” (http://www.eol.org/pages/995238). So to my mind “necrophagus” is the best choice.--Utilo 22:19, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Cf. etiam: http://www.geodz.com: Ibi sub vocibus “Nekrophagen” sive “Saprophagen” legitur (theodisce): Necrophagi = necrotrophi = necrovori: animalia, quae cadaveribus putrescentibus vivunt, e.g. scarabaei. Sacrophagia (i.e. victus e animalibus nuper mortuis consistens) a saprophagia (i.e. victus in quibuslibet reliquiis cadaverum vel frondis, ligni etc. consistens) distinguitur. Textus originalis: Nekrophagen: Nekrotrophe, Nekrovore, Aasfresser, Bezeichnung für Tiere, die von den verwesenden Leichen anderer Tiere leben, z.B. Aaskäfer. Es wird unterschieden zwischen Sakrophagie (Frass an frisch abgestorbener Substanz tierischen Ursprungs) und der Saprophagie. (http://www.geodz.com/deu/d/Nekrophagen). Saprophage: Saprovore, Totmaterialsverzehrer, Gesamtgruppe der Tiere, die sich von Bestandsabfall in Form von Fallaub, totem Holz, Stroh, Kot (Koprophage) oder Aas (Nekrophage) ernähren. (http://www.geodz.com/deu/d/Saprophage)--Utilo 09:57, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

My small dictionary gives purgator viarum as translation for 'scavenger'. This seems close to the 'cloacarius' glosso, and should be as useless here. 'Necrophag-' sounds better in my ears. The choice of precise ending is another matter.

(Category names should be in the plural; whence -us is less apt. Whether the pl. masc. nom. -i should be used, or the pl. neutr. nom./acc. -a is preferred, depends on the usage in other category names, and by biologists. As far as I've understood, classical Latin used neutrum plural forms of adjectives also as a kind of commune, when items of several genders were considered simultaneously; except where the 'items' were men and women, in which case the masculine gender had priority. If this is correct, then from the classical point of view adjective plurals as category names ought to be given neuter form.) Georgius B 15:06, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's odd that so many of the dictionaries would only have that older sense of scavenger; is the biological use so recent? Anyway, given the contents of the category, presumably it'd be neuter plural to agree with animalia. —Mucius Tever 17:09, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Greek phagos is rather a nomen agentis. But of course Greek is Greek and Latin is Latin ..?.. --Neander 18:44, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

By 'nomen agentis' I suppose you mean as a substantive? Out of 93 words in -οφαγος given in Liddell and Scott, only six are given as substantives (τυροφάγος "name of a mouse", πιμελοσαρκοφάγος "sepulchre of fat", ὀψοφάγος "one who eats delicacies", οἰσοφάγος "gullet", ἰαμβειοφάγος "glutton at iambics", βουτυροφάγος "butter-eater"). All the rest (including νεκροφάγος) are ordinary adjectives and would decline like 'eccentros' in Latin. Or am I misunderstanding you? —Mucius Tever 20:17, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not misunderstanding me. It was simply a momentary (I hope) fit of inadvertesis blockheadiensis :-/ I stand corrected. --Neander 20:48, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

According to the OED, the first known use of the word in the biological sense, as wanted here (applied to the scavenger beetle, etc.), dates from 1596. So then is the consensus for: categoria:necrophaga? My only worry about it is this: sensu stricto, necrophagi sumus nos homines: we consume hardly any meat that isn't dead! A distinction that may be missed in the literality of necrophagus is that, for the animals to be grouped under this rubric, food is generally (fortuitously) found dead flesh, rather than (as with predatory animals & humans) hunted dead flesh and (as with humans) farmed dead flesh. IacobusAmor 17:27, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes it occurred to me, too. Would encephalonecrophaga be zombies? --Ioscius^∞ 17:52, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

----

I think this is another case like the 'mechanema' one — it could apply to other things, but does it in practice? The only example use Liddell and Scott have of νεκροφάγος is (apparently) applied to birds, and my dictionary still gives νεκροφάγος for "scavenger" (and vice versa) in modern Greek. —Mucius Tever

Sure, I wasn't arguing against the usage, just making a joke about zombies (which one should do at any available opportunity. --Ioscius^∞ 20:28, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The habit tacitly to exclude our own species in diverse biological contexts is a problem, but hardly something solved right here. Besides, the (non-human) categories are a bit floating. I've read that hyaenas both hunt themselves and eat meat from prey brought down by others, e.g., lions; and that on the other hand lions both hunt themselves and eat meat brought down by other hunters, e.g., hyaenas. This makes the classification a bit arbitrary. However, I don't thing this has any bearing on the category name here and now.

As for including Homo in the Categoria:Necrophaga: Speak for yourselves; I'm a vegetarian (and I'm not alone); you could possibly claim that the major part of humanity technically are scavengers, but don't include me:-). Georgius B 14:43, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Western France is back online. I celebrate by pointing out (as I'm sure you others see really) that there is a very clear distinction between those who eat meat that they find dead (which is what the words "carrion" and "morticina" mean) -- I took it that these, dogs, vultures, etc., are what you intend by scavengers -- and those who stick strictly to meat that has been killed for the purpose (including cats and those humans who eat meat at all). It's just playing with words, in my view, to confuse the categories and put humans in the same one as vultures.

Do we eat cows that happen to have died? Rightly or wrongly, no, we don't. We only eat cows that have been killed to eat. Do vultures eat cows that have died? Yes, they do.

Although my "morticinis vescentes" might be the most precise available expression in pure Latin, it's nice to see that, once more in this case, the Greeks had a word for it. Andrew Dalby 17:03, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Laudavere aut laudaverunt?

Cum paginas de terris ab amico nostro ignoto (qui vix in disputationis pagina sua responderet, itaque huc directe scribo) legi, vidi eum quodam elemento grammatico fortasse controverso uti, nominatim:

• ... terrae Coronae regni Bohemiae sub dominio Habsburgensium anno 1526 cecidere ... (ex Cechia)
• ... Moderni auctores e Bohemo–Moravico territorio qui aliis linguis (v.g. Theodisce) scripsere ... (ex Cechia)
• ... Primi Europaei coloni Novam Zelandiam in provincias divisere. ... (ex Nova Zelandia)

Sine dubio finale istud in sermone vulgari optimum esset, sed semper credebam encyclopaediae ceciderunt, scripserunt, diviserunt aptius esse. Quid censetis? --Gabriel Svoboda 16:33, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Bene inventum et melius dictum, Gabriel. Terminationes illae versibus sunt aptissimae. --Ioscius^∞ 16:56, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Ita. Ceciderunt est forma normalis; cecidere poeticae et archaicae Latinitatis. --Neander 18:20, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Utraque forma recta est. --Martinus567 18:32, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Utra recta, sed illud melior ad prosam scribendam. --Ioscius^∞ 18:36, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

erya

Scitne quis Sinicum colens ubi invenire possim versionem Anglicam (vel Latinam ;]) dictionarii ac thesauri Sinici erya? Nunc est nexus fractus (ergo citatio quidem falsa) in commentatione nostra de cannabi. --Ioscius^∞ 20:05, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Apud en:Erya dicitur "Owing to its laconic lexicographical style, the Erya is the only Chinese classic that has not been fully translated into English." Sed, vidisti [20], ubi convenienter potes habere lookups characterum sub textu Sinense? —Mucius Tever 20:40, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very useful site!--Rafaelgarcia 14:05, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's great. Thanks. --Ioscius^∞ 14:10, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

read lock?!

Scisne tu UV vel quis quare hoc factum sit, me inspicere commentationes hodie nunnullas volente?

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(inquisitio SQL celata)

from within function "User::clearNotification". Database returned error "1223: Can't execute the query because you have a conflicting read lock (10.0.6.21)".

Confusio mihi maxima... --Ioscius^∞ 12:56, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Nescio. --UV 23:37, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I got the same error once yesterday. IacobusAmor 23:49, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

ubi pagina?

hesterno die scripsi paginam pertinentem ad Senecae Epistulas morales. Eam servavi nec invenio. Fortasse prius opus est recensione quam pagina legi potest? vobis gratias.

Salve! Commentatio quam incepisti hic est: Epistulae morales ad Lucilium.

Nonne conventum aperire vis apud nos? Vide Vicipaedia:Invitatio. Vale! --UV 08:28, 2 Martii 2010 (UTC)

quod feci, salve! etiam amplificavi paginam "de civitate dei". numquam putassem quod tanta delectatione scribendi fruerer. vale!

Macte!----Jondel 12:28, 2 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Borrar mi cuenta (castellano)

Siento que mi nivel de latín no sea bueno, pero he decidido marcharme de wikipedia y ayudar más adelante. ¿Podría algún administrador borrar mi cuenta. Muchas gracias. --Alexmg666 18:05, 3 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Hola, Alex. Yo borré tu página del usuario, pero no sé como se borran las cuentas. --Ioscius^∞ 18:32, 3 Martii 2010 (UTC)

¿Querrías que borro tu discusión también? --Ioscius^∞ 18:35, 3 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Formula:Infobox Single

Would one of our generous programmers like to set up a Latin version of the English-language infobox for single (musical) recordings? Thousands of songs are begging to use it. I've given translation hints in the code of This_Too_Shall_Pass_(carmen). ¶ I'm taking the Latin word for English 'single' here to be singulum, -i, the neuter noun carmen being understood. IacobusAmor 15:04, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a try, but there are probably better ways to do it. . . I used your translation hints for the parameters; format (forma?), certification and producer (editor?) are still untranslated and commented out. Feel free to change the names of the parameters and to improve the infobox! --Aylin 21:40, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)

An excellent start! Now a related article, Of the Blue Colour of the Sky, invites the creation of new formulas, of which the first is closely related to this one: Formula:Infobox album, Formula:Album ratings, Formula:Album ratings prose, Formula:Google books. Thanks! IacobusAmor 15:16, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Here's the second one: Formula:Album, Formula:Album ratings looks complicated to me, because it needs a lot of other formulae to work. . . --Aylin 17:28, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

+Formula:Libri Googles --Aylin 18:46, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

What I now know

So someone comes back weeks after the discussion had ended and reimposes the preposterous Fluxio electrica. Why could that be? Well, I have Ioscius's word that you have been talking about me in private, and the only consensus you've reached is that you must hate me.

For the record, it's true (and probably natural enough) that Vicipaedia magistratus exchange emails about current problems. It's true that the name of Pantocrator has figured in these. The only consensus reached (so far as I recall) was that a warning should be given about uncivil tone. Andrew Dalby

You and I have talked in private, too. I was very generous with offers to help answer any questions you had, and forthright with my requests that you keep your tone a little more civil. My contact dates to two days before my question on your talk post asking whether you got my mail. I don't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't hate you.

Ioscius has betrayed me, I know that for sure, and I'm sure he's going to try to get me kicked off the internet after this. I was composing a reply to his silly warning on my talk page but that's no longer relevant. Perhaps that 'anonymous' user (and supposedly 'highly respected' though I have no way of knowing with someone that always changes IPs) that I allegely insulted (of course he started it!) is the instigator here.

Oh come off it. Betrayed is a big word and the internet is a big place. I don't want you kicked off of anything.

You can tell a user's history by clicking "conlationes usoris" on his talk page.

Although we must stay polite, I agree with Pantocrator that we can't be specially protective of users who write from anonymous IPs. They take the risk that we will make false assumptions about their identities and skills. They can avoid the risk by logging in or by manually signing a username. Andrew Dalby

And I have to add that one or two of the IPs were very pointed and not too polite in their comments. The debate descended well below our usual level. Andrew Dalby

But what I can see is that your decision against my proposed words isn't based on any consistent principle except opposing me. We have to render 'electric flux' as fluxus electricus because of modern languages (despite flying in the face of all the arguments I laid out, and that you never rebutted) and anellus based on a back-formation from Romance but we can't use transmissio for transmission despite there being no good Latin equivalent, not can we have anything better than momentum virium for torque. Why is it that we must borrow from modern languages in the first two cases, but must not in the latter two? Nothing except your principle of getting rid of me.

You've never given a reason for wanting to rely on modern languages for formation other than personal feeling. "I object strongly", "I prefer" things of the sort. No one said we can't use transmissio just that there was no reason to prefer it other than your aesthetic tastes which is certainly a consistent theme. I confess insufficient knowledge of the physics question to contribute.

We must not coin words (no original research: no ringum). We must express what we can in existing Latin words (anellus exists). Where we have no acceptable Latin word, we use a foreign word (so, if anulus and anellus didn't exist, it might have to be ring; but that's hypothetical, because they do exist). Those have to be the principles we work to (and not the ad hominem principle you suggested above!) Andrew Dalby

I think I'm going to give up on learning Latin. No one worth talking to reads it anyway. Pantocrator 23:14, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Well I hate to think a little debate and a couple of request about a more civil modus operandi has pushed you away from an interest of yours. Often the people most worth talking to are the ones who entirely disagree with you, as I confess I often have. I have also often stated, in public and private with you and with others, that you obviously know a great deal about a broad range of topics, and that you have made some good points.

The curious thing is that you profess to have a great authority of the Latin language, simultaneously professing very little knowledge of it. How can someone who neither reads nor writes (let alone speaks) imagine to possess an instinct for coining words in a language. I've said before that I don't coin words in languages that aren't my native tongue, but that's not entirely true. I make them up, I just don't write them in an encyclopedia. This has been stressed many times by myself, by Mucius, and by Neander (that I remember), that, as an encyclopedia, we must not coin words, but use words from published ones. We've discussed before as well the difference between translating and coining, and translation questions usually lead to fruitful results. Your tendency is to prefer coining, would you disagree? Then, in coining, you argue with people who know a considerable amount more about Latin than you do (and have as I said above, made some good points here and there).

Here's an example of where coining intuition gets you wrong:

Roma is a feminine noun. It has to be: it agrees with urbs and it's a goddess. So naturally when coining this noun in Slavic, it's going to be feminine (remember wanting to conserve the gender of ring in German?) right? Well, no... it's Rim masculine in most. In Manx it's Yn Raue, however you pronounce that. But it didn't happen in Slavic despite compelling linguistic and cultural reasons exchanged in relatively close cultural proximity.

This one is up your alley, though: blue jeans were a pretty awesome modern American inventionpopularization, right? So they've got to sound like jeans in every language? Well it's true, they do for the most part. But there are the humorous exceptions based on cowboy and Texas. Of course we stick out like a sore thumb with bracae lintea caerulea and I would certainly support a move to bracae Genuenses and they could be referred to as Genuenses after the lemma or something. If you look within the sources, you'd find there is a lot to work with like this. Maybe the reason you don't is that you're more interested in science and math than in Latin and the modern dictionaries you consult don't address that specific area of vocabulary too thoroughly. An understandable complaint, but instead of forcing it, why not try to write about some other stuff?

There's an old saying: "if three people tell you you're drunk, no matter how drunk you feel, you should go lie down." If you really want to learn Latin, you might want to man up a little bit, quit the "woe is me", check your tone, and try learning from the people who know a lot more about Latin than you do, as you see us do all the time between ourselves. I ask Andrew and Iustinus all the time for help, and I look back in wonder learning from Neander Iacobus and Fabullus' corrections to my puerile mistakes. I've said to you in private, and I'll say again, just about anyone here will be more than happy to help you with anything they know how, if you approach the situation politely and beforehand. Going in guns blazing and then arguing your way out is just plain ineffective.

Despite your the complaint here, you have still used the word our in a post exactly one minute before this post, suggesting you might have been working on both posts simultaneously. I sure hope you meant it and that you can dust yourself off and try again. You might be surprised what you can learn.

--Ioscius^∞ 00:47, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I would move bracae linteae caeruleae (ugh!) myself, but it seems that people will revert anything I do. As for the other post, I had composed it several days before. Pantocrator 23:35, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Quo usque tandem abutere, Pantocrator, patientia nostra?. Do you really think it was a silly warning to remind you that you should not be rude at people and that there are better ways to ask things? I haven't followed any of the discussions on the new words you proposed, as they are largely not my topic of expertise, but it is all about civility: be nice, polite, reasonable and stick to the rules rather than question every one of them. --Xaverius 23:58, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last speaker (as they used to say in the Senate).

I only have half a dog in this fight (OK, OK, maybe it isn't a fight). Long debate over terminology bores me. Our colleague Rolandus (seldom visiting us at present) said that Vicipaedia would be a really good encyclopaedia in fifty years (or words to that effect). Fifty years ahead, will it seem sensible to the millions of readers of Vicipaedia that those old pioneers spent days trying to choose between fluxus and fluxio? Let's write some more pages, however brief and unskilled at first, however much others will edit them. That's what wikis are for, and that's the way to learn. That's how I learn, anyway. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Quamdiu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Longior disputatio inutilis est. Ut credo et ut lego, Pantocrator iam ab Vicipaedia deseruit.--Xaverius 11:11, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like the debates about terminology. I wrote a little about it on my blog, but in general I like hearing about the thought-processes involved in selecting the right term. But that's just me: Andrew has the right to be bored :) --Robert.Baruch 16:25, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Feathers may be ruffling in response to statements like the one above that says "someone" has reimposed something "preposterous," even though the someone in question knows the subject thoroughly, has taught it at the college level for years, and has read books on it in Latin—and therefore is extremely unlikely to be proposing something "preposterous" on it. ¶ I think discussions about terminology can be fun, but they're often a diversion. Sometimes when I use a term that's not in Cassell's or not otherwise common, I mark it with the {{dubsig}} command. Transmissio wouldn't have seemed improbable to me, so if I'd used the word in an article, I might have written transmissio^? or hidden a query inside a <!-- . . . --> section in the code. IacobusAmor 18:50, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I found the discussion about "fluxus" versus "fluxio" both interesting and fruitful. Like in good discussions in general, both principal participants contributed substance, and hopefully came out with more knowledge than they had when it started. (It goes without saying that I learnt a lot from the contributions of both sides.) The only thing that marred it a bit were statements not recognising that the other participant did not understand or were consciously misconstrue the main arguments, like in the following quotes:

"Are you being deliberately obtuse?"

"I can only assume you are being deliberately evasive."

"If my arguments have been changing it is only because I am trying to get a point across that apparently you are unable to grasp, whereas it is entirely evident to me."

I didn't like these personal remarks, not just since they IMHO were both unprovoced and quite wrong, but also since they were made by the more experienced editor, and would tend to convey a false idea about the kind of standard of language we find acceptable. (The user making these remarks was incidently logged out in a couple of instances, but their identity was rather clear from the context and the IP contributions.)

— As for the subject, like in several other issues, I found Pantocrator's arguments more persuasive in the long run. As far as I could judge, they were more concerned with the terms in actual use (now and all the time since the concept in question, electric current, was developed), while the other party more argued about the terminology which would be better from the modern theories of physics point of view. (Incidently, Pantocreator immediately and repeatedly showed that (s)he clearly understood the theoretical issue, but found it irrelevant in view of actual usage, per VP:NF. This is one reason I found the personal remarks supra quite inadequate.)

Now, from exterior support point of view, I think the discussion was fairly undecided. It ended on February 17. On March 4, the article in question was moved; IMHO to an acceptable name (retaining but qualifying the fluxus), although it would be good to show that this "onus" occurs in actual usage. However, the text of the article was also rewritten in the "fluxio" direction, and a new article was added with the old article name, but describing a different concept (electric flux). I do understand that this surprised Pantocrator; I do not at all think it merited the ideas about personal persecution.

The main problem with the changes, as I perceive it, is, that if the term Fluxus electricus in the actual literature has been used in a one-to-one correspondence with the concept electric current (and Pantocreator seemingly did substantiate this claim), then we may well qualify it by the more precise attribute onoris electrici in order to disambiguate or to make the physics concept more clear, but we cannot employ the plain and unadorned title fluxus electricus for a different concept. Indeed, then fluxus electricus ought to redirect to fluxus oneris electrici.

— One final thing I would like to have clarified, is whether or not such editorial issues were discussed elsewhere than in the article talk page between 17/2 and 4/3. That the editing style of the user Pantocrator was discussed by administrators, I unhappily find quite reasonable, for different reasons. This is something Pantocreator (and all us others) will have to live with. On the other hand, consensi about the editing issues should only be formed by public discussions, and I hope and expect that this case was no exception. Georgius B 21:48, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally giving a third-party view of this issue. I would have no problem with fluxus electrici being a discretive between fluxus oneris electrici and fluxus campi electrici (and maybe other things, if they come up). Pantocrator 23:35, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be late in commenting but Rafael has said it below anyway -- no, we don't discuss editorial issues by email. Consensuses (English plural OK?) on all matters to do with editing and improving the encyclopedia are reached right here and on article talk pages, there's nothing beyond. That's what I love about Wikipedia: you can see the working parts, not just the clock face. I wouldn't want it any different. [signed, Andrew Dalby, who can't find the tilde on this keyboard]

I am not aware that editorial changes recently made were discussed anywhere but here. I don't think every term in this encyclopedia deserves a unending discussion. Plenty of examples have been given of attested physics terms for modern concepts that are simply wrong and should be avoided when speaking precisely in a scientific context about a concept. In particular, I think it is rational to go along with an expert's opinion on a particular term simply because that person knows more than you.

To answer your question about the pages in question above, I am a physicist and as a physicist I can assure you that electric flow and electric current are separate concepts, requiring different terms, epecially in a modern context: I gave plenty of examples of why fluxio is an appropriate term to use. PC's argument to the contrary is very weak consisting of only pointing out an attested use of the term, which I find unconvincing.

Flow and flux mean the same thing in english; one is just more scientific sounding. Moreover, there are many kinds of electric flow, of electric charge of electric field, the displacement current, etc... and the most important of these is the one referred to in english as "electric flux", all the others being an effect which this one causes. The flow of electric charge is an outward manifestation of electric flux in a wire, and for most people it may not be important to distinguish the two, but for a physicist it is.

The arrangement of the pages as I have set them out is best in my opinion as a physicist and based on my knowledge of latin. The term flow of electric charge fluxus oneris electrici is not controverted as a page title, as the participants all acknowledge it describes the basic phenonmenon. The content of the page describes the difference between a current and a flow. Without these distinctions it would be impossible to describe a whole host of physics concepts adequately with clarity. (The present page as well as the original only suggests fluxio electrica as a possible translation for current, which it is demonstrably based on the attested examples I found.)

I apologize if my tone has ever descended to the uncivil. If it has, it has only in reaction to the prodigious filling of the encyclopedia with gibberish, which I view as just another form of vandalism. If someone knows he knows no latin, he could simply suggest changes to lemmas rather than completely marring up perfectly good latin text.

As to the other comments above, they are not deserving of further discussion.--Rafaelgarcia 01:58, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

The comments about incivility were from another discussion and not related to you. Nevertheless, your referring to my contributions as a form of vandalism is clearly inappropriate, as I am trying to constructively improve the encyclopedia. I know that my Latin is limited and for that reason have not attempted to rewrite any long articles; nonetheless discussions of terminology are perfectly understandable to me.

The 'unending discussion' seems to have been started by you; I didn't expect to have to defend my clear arguments. I have not only one citation for fluxus electricus, but several - and none for fluxio electrica. It is simply not true that 'electric flux' is the most important kind of 'electric flow', but I do not wish to repeat again all my arguments from the other page.

I am not ignorant of the physics involved; but I maintain that physics concepts do not determine language use. We still say 'sunrise' though we know it is the Earth that moves; we still speak of gravity as a force though Einstein told us that the best conception is as curvature of space. Pantocrator 02:53, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unfair. I think your efforts have all been well-intentioned.

Fluxio electrica per se is not attested but fluxio is in the sense of current. Perhaps you latin does not yet extend to confidently predict what results when joining two words together, but I assure you the phrase works. On the other hand, I explained before fluxus electricus is utterly ambiguous and at best a discretiva.

You admit that simple attestation is not sufficient if the term is unsuitable in a modern context right? Physics terminology in Romance languages comes from latin: how many use electric flow for current? How many use it for electric flux? Ask yourself why and you may come to understand why I object so strongly. In short you are simply wrong on this point.--Rafaelgarcia 04:04, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do know what happend if you join a noun and adjective together, in any language. Fluxio in a physics context means fluxion (derivative), period. You have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

Some terms are unsuitable, like using vis to mean energy or acceleration, but fluxus meaning current is no such thing; it is a most natural translation. And once again you assert that usage in the Romance languages (which are, after all, only barbarous forms of Latin) should determine our usage in proper Latin. Pantocrator 23:35, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)

An example that you do not know what you are talking about. Derivative in latin is Derivativum. Fluxion is fluxio, which means either rate of flow literally or derivative with respect to time in mathematics.--Rafaelgarcia 00:17, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to provide any cite for fluxio meaning specifically 'rate of flow'. You have not been able to.

I trust Isaac Newton here. Also, the use of derivativum as the regular term for derivative is modern; the infinitesimal school originally talked only in terms of differentialia (differentials) and dy/dx was regularly called 'differential coefficient' in English. Pantocrator 01:17, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that I stand agast. Please read the passages of Newton that you yourself have refered to concerning fluxio. Please read it in latin.--Rafaelgarcia 01:27, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through it. How you can assert that celeritas must mean 'rate of flow' is beyond me; in physics, it normally means speed/velocity. Pantocrator 01:42, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Newton said about Fluxions: "35. Therefore considering that quantities, which increase in equal times, and by increasing are generated, become greater or less according to the greater or less velocity with which they increase and are generated; I sought a method of determining quantities from the velocities of the motions or increments with which they are generated; and calling these velocities of the motions or increments Fluxions, and the generated quantities Fluents, I fell by degrees upon the Method of Fluxions, which I have made use of here in the Quadrature of Curves in the years 1665 and 1666." (translation by John Stewart), in A History of the Conceptions of Limits and Fluxions in Great Britain (Florian Cajori), 1919, p.21. --Robert.Baruch 14:53, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I call a truce, and I'll cease my Ciceronian speech. I do not know about fluxus or fluxio or electricity, nor did I read those disputationes, and I consciously kept away from them. I do not know who began the rudeness there, and this thread was not meant to discuss it, but I've seen other comments and edits of yours. Pantocrator, you made good comments on some things, and good contributions (especially on the consistency of chemical elements and the sort). However, we just wanted to remind you to be polite and mind your language when raising an argument. That is all. You seem to elude this issue which is the one and only reason for your warning. If you understand and accept it, then there shall be no more problems, I guess. If not, we would be arguing ad absurdum without reaching any solution.--Xaverius 13:17, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."--Ayn Rand--Rafaelgarcia 18:40, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Quaestio, quae Vicipaediam utendum pertinet

Quomodo notas facere ad emendandum possum, ut in disputationibus notas emendationis siti sint? Gratias ,cui me auxilium agere potest, ago permaximas!--Martinus567 17:48, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Forsan scire vis quomodo signum dubii (?) imponere? Quod signum, cum impositum sit, est etiam nexus ad paginam disputationis illius rei. Hoc signum fere est ^?, et ad imponendum imprimere debes {{dubsig}}. At si hoc non est quod quaeris, iterum pete libere!--Poecus 21:29, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Non modo, sed gratias nuntio ago. Si emendavi quamdam rem, idest textum mutato, volo notas facere, ut creator sciat, qua de causa rem eius mutaverem. Hoc solet esse, si intro eg. [21], video notas. quomodo hoc agere possum?--Martinus567 13:34, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Dicis notas quae sunt in Historia cuiusdam paginae, post indicationem temporis emendationis? Si has imponere vis, inscribe notam in Summarium, id est capsula quam invenire potes in pagina recensionis, super servare hanc rem--Poecus 14:30, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Poece, gratias ago permaximas, hoc erat meum problema. Vale--Martinus567 17:20, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

ignosce mihi vocativo, pot. Poecu! --Martinus567 19:11, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Noli veniam petere, amice: etenim ipse ego finxi nomen Poecus, nec quidem posco ut statim id omnes agnoscant. Tamen, primus tu nominis rectam flectionem curavisti, igitur gratulor atque gaudeo. Cura ut valeas!--Poecus 20:33, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Formula "Commune Austriae"

Situm Lentiae amplificavi formulam, quam ex situ Salisburgi duplicavi, addens: Non omnia hac in formula mihi placent, sed nescio, ubi hanc formulam inveniam et quomodo mutem. Imprimis sunt duae res mutandae: Spissitudo (indicat 2 loco 1970) et terra foederalis (quae notione civitatis - ut in formula Austria - supplenda est).--Utilo 13:57, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Vide Formula:Commune Austriae (Germanice) --Alex1011 15:17, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have fixed the spissitudo. . . --Aylin 15:27, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

magnas gratias ago!--Utilo 17:14, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Formulam Commune Austriae (Germanice) amplificavi (Gemeinderat), ut membra consilii sive distributionem sedium addere possem, sed in situ Lentiae tantum prima pars lineae apparet. Quid falsi feci?--Utilo 01:16, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Distributio sedium nunc apparet: [22] [23]

Ich versuche es mal auf Deutsch zu erklären, ich habe

{{#if: {{{Gemeinderat}}}|Membra consilii|}}: || {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}

zu

{{#if: {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}|Membra consilii|}}: || {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}

geändert, da {{#if: {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}|Membra consilii|}} bewirkt, dass die Zeile "Membri consilii" in der Infobox nur dann angezeigt wird, wenn in einem Artikel "Mitglieder des Gemeinderates=" ausgefüllt ist, sonst entfällt die gesamte Zeile. Bei deiner Version wurde zwar der linke Teil der Zeile in Lentia angezeigt, weil dort "Gemeinderat=" ausgefüllt war, der rechte Teil der Zeile jedoch nicht, da für den Inhalt, der dort hätte angezeigt werden sollen, "Mitglieder des Gemeinderates=" zuständig gewesen wäre. --Aylin 12:11, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Danke, ich glaube, ich hab' es verstanden!--Utilo 13:22, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

On Anonymous

Are we OK with using anonymus, -a, -um for anonymous (adj or subst)? I've seen it in several articles. On that subject, what would work for anonymously (I am writing anonymously) and anonymity (I am obtaining anonymity)? I've been using sine nomine for anonymously. Similar questions for pseudonym, pseudonymity, pseudonymous, pseudonymously. --Robert.Baruch 01:24, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Update: Good ol' Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis has anonymity as voluntas nominis reticendi, or propositum libri (scripti) sine nomine vulgandi; propositum nomen non profiendi. Also, falsum/artificialis nomen; falso/artificiali nomine editus for pseudonym, and falsi nominis assumptio; artificialis nominis usurpatio for pseudonymity. --Robert.Baruch 01:33, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

This anonymus isn't in Cassell's, so it's apparently not classical; its (Greek) elements should have been intelligible as 'nameless', and that's sine nomine, but the English word anonymous often means something more like 'name unknown'—which isn't the same thing. Many anonymous authors most certainly do have names. IacobusAmor 13:04, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Quomodo dicitur Alien latine?

Creo paginas seriei Halo sed mythistoria haec seriei habet "Aliens" (Creaturae non Terrae). Quomodo dicitur hae res? Si non intellegavisti sententiam meam, dico "Aliens" esse creaturae in aliis planetiis oriuntur. 208.103.66.69 03:03, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Fortasse Alienus, -i (Anglice: alien one, foreigner)? Fortasse plus definite: Extraterrenus, -i (Anglice: beyond-earthly one)? --Robert.Baruch 03:26, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Ita in pagina Halo (series) scripsi Alienorum quia olim vidi hunc verbum... Sed nescivi si latinitatis erat. 208.103.66.69 03:36, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Latine pura, secundum Cassell's, nomen substantivum Anglicum 'alien' est peregrinus, advena, et alienigena, et nomen Latinum alienus est 'a stranger'. Primus nominis adiectivi alieni sensus est 'that which belongs or relates to another'; ergo, alienum, -i, 'another man's property'. IacobusAmor 13:19, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Extratelluricus aut extraterrestris bona verba sunt (ut credo), sed "alienus" simpliciter est "peregrinus".--Xaverius 13:20, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

If you're seeking a classical Latin term for alien, extraneus would be a candidate. By the way, please, don't inflect "Xbox" (&c) as "Xbogis" &c. Product names are best treated as indeclinables. --Neander 13:50, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Ne fingamus, melius puto esse extraneus, ut substantivum. Sed extraneus tantum significat 'extraneous, strange, foreign', et verbum substantivum hoc potest obscurum esse. Fortasse oportet addere adiectivum, scilicet extraneus sidereus?--Poecus 14:41, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Credo 'alienigena' vel 'extratelluricus' optima esse. Alienigena alias significationes potest significare sed 'Extratelluricus'... Nescio si latinitatis est. Non quaero verbum rerum classicarum, si sunt verba moderna aut medioaevi quae ligari possunt... Nescio... Nescio... Sed definitate credo 'Alienigena' vel 'Extratelluricus' esse candidatae optimae nostrae. Astronavium 16:38, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

In ipso vocabulo Anglico alien per se nihil est quod ad extraterrestrialitatem vel sim. pertineat. Quae umbra significationis e contextu (id est: a fabula) concluditur. Sine dubio etiam alienigena vel extraneus eandem significationem contextualem accipiat, si altero utro vocabulo in fabulá describendá utaris. (Sed "extratelluricus" magis interpretiva est quam "alien".) --Neander 17:13, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Breviter, dicis me 'alienigena' vel 'extraneus' verba meliora esse quam 'alienus'? Si est, possum mutare haec verba in paginis. (Foedus Alienigenarum nominatur Covenant???) Astronavium 17:27, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Forsitan alienigena optima electio sit. Si recte memini, de vocabulo "covenant" alicubi aliquando disputavimus. "Foedus alienigenarum" mihi quidem satis placet, sed sunt etiam alia vocabula, quae 'covenant' significant, sicut conventio, pactio, pactum. --Neander 18:00, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

bene. Mutavi hae verba in paginis. Astronavium 19:20, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Astrobatalarium

Alia res, in pagina, parte Mythistoria Ipsa scripsi "astrobatalariam" quae est 'Astronavis bellica'. Hoc modo scripsi quia dicitur Astronavis ac Batalaria subaquanea. Batalaria est navis bellica... Cogito 'Astrobatalaria' melior esse quam 'Navis Bellica' sed verbum novum est. Scio legem 'Noli Fingere' sed est sententia novissima. Quid cogitas? 208.103.66.69 03:36, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Habemus fontem huius nominis arcani, batalariae? IacobusAmor 13:13, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

batalaria et alibi.--24.107.235.195 14:06, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Suntne problemata si creo paginam 'Astrobatalaria'? Astronavium 16:50, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Credo melius esse astronavis bellica ut non fingatur; sed sensus eius mihi clarus fuerit.--130.215.96.89 18:29, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Nova categoria technologiis humanis spatii cosmici

Creavi paginam Statio spatialis atque Satelles artificialis et sunt paginae de Astronavibus atque Astronautis sed non est categoria pro his rebus praeter . Quid cogitatis? 208.103.66.69 05:12, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Spatialis and artificialis seem not be classical terms. 'Artificial' is artificiosus. IacobusAmor 13:06, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Though I basically agree with you, we have for best or worst Intellegentia artificialis. --Neander 14:38, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

That is the fault of me, a person of doubtful Latinity. Please change it if it must be changed. --Robert.Baruch 15:49, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Artificialis classicum non est neque haec sententia rerum mundi classici est. Utimur verba neoclassica atque moderna, quia non artificialis?. Mihi opinor nonnullae res difficillimae sunt explicari si utimur sola verba classica. Pro revento ad rem tituli.... Habetisne sententiam huius novae categoriae? Categoria Res Artificiales Spatialis? potest esse? Astronavium 16:47, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Olim ut te credebam artificialis melius fuisset sed hodie post quam plus legissem credo Iacobum et Neandrem recte dicere. Latine melius Intelligentia artificiosa: quia artificiosus est adiectivum saepius adhibitum opponendi causa adiectivum naturalis. --130.215.96.89 16:12, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Eheu... Bene. Mihi placet artificiosus tam quam artificialis. Astronavium 19:56, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Conventiculum II

Adhuc sumus septem. --Alex1011 21:07, 13 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Revisio vobis petitur

Vobis peto revisionem sequentis rei: Primera fila. Gratias vobis ago. --El Mexicano 10:19, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Tres parvula emendavi. (Ceterum Latinitas plena pompae est) :) --Martinus567 16:12, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Aradia / Aradinum

Could someone, please, move "Aradia" to "Aradinum" (which is the testified latin name)? Thank you--Utilo 15:28, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have given an attestation, but Aradia is also attested, and it seems unclear which version is commoner. By all means add another source or two ... Andrew Dalby 17:04, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)

There was no source cited, so I looked up the "Repertorium" - but I don't know, which name is commoner. The Hungarian Wikipedia has "Aradinum", but without source.--Utilo 17:15, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)

It often happens like this: someone finds a source, and then someone else looks for another! I have no objection to moving the page if the name "Aradinum" is preferable. In fact, you can move it yourself, using the "Movere" tab at the top of the page. Andrew Dalby 18:10, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I've just made a redirection from "Aradinum" to "Aradia" ... (at least till the thing is clear)--Utilo 18:30, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am very glad you are making some new pages for cities in Transylvania. Andrew Dalby 19:51, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Aradinum est nomen rectum, si nomen Latinum videmus: Vide: Budapest -> Budapestinum; Szeged -> Szegedinum (antiquum nomen: Partiscum), Sopron -> Soproninum (nomen antiquum: Scarbantia) Te recte dicere puto.

A quick look into google provides a lot of supporting hits for „Aradinum“: The Hungarian Wikipedia: [24], Familienbuch – Sellesch – Sippenbuch: [25], Allgemeiner Ortsregister [26], Das Königreich Ungarn: ein topographisch-historisch-statistisches Rundgemälde, 1833 [27], Repertorium locorum obiectorumque, 1808 [28]--Utilo 23:00, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I`ve just move Aradia to Aradinum--Utilo 23:22, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Fine. The name seems well-supported. Andrew Dalby 13:18, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

domus elixaturae

Does by chance someone know a Latin word equivalent to German "Sudhaus" - not for brewing beer (which would be a brewhouse / braxatorium), but for extracting salt by heat. "Sud" seems to be derived from "Sieden", which ist elixare / elixatura.--Utilo 16:00, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)

what about "domus (sive aedificum) salis elixandi" vel "domus salis coquendi"?--Utilo 21:35, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think those would work. I don't know any mot juste. Andrew Dalby 13:19, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Praenomina hominum

Standard forms of Christian names used to exist in English until recently and ought to exist in Latin. I have found that there are many exceptions around here, most of which are probably not justified and ought to be corrected.

I have written an index of standard Latin names, which should be used in the absence of an authoritative Latin citation. In this list I endeavored to give all names I know that have a standard Latin form, have been used in modern Western Europe, and that have a vernacular form not identical to the Latin. The vernacular equivalents are not given and should not be needed (although if someone wanted to add some, that's fine). Note that I did NOT copy from any of the list of 'Latin names' around the Web, which are infested with dubious forms and typos.

I would of course welcome anyone else's contributions, but I know enough of this place to know that there is zero chance of me getting any help. Pantocrator 17:11, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I thought we talked about canning the "woe is me" attitude? With that "I know enough of this place to know that there is zero chance of me getting any help" you really shouldn't act surprised when people don't want to help you. You should however be grateful that people still in fact do help you quite regularly despite your sulky angsty rhetoric.--Ioscius ^∞ 09:54, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Note to both: this is looking too personal for the Taberna. Andrew Dalby 12:32, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

It looks a handy list, and pretty accurate (no doubt there are some other names that could be added). I added a couple I thought of (Aegidius = Giles, Remigius = Rémy) and changed u > v in one or two places: I wouldn't have done this on one of your userspace pages without your invitation above! Andrew Dalby 17:22, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

'Giles' is different enough that it probably needs to be mentioned, as I did with 'Denis'. I am going to start moving nonstandard forms, unless there is a citation of that Latin form. Pantocrator 01:23, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

A reminder: As I noted below, it is a bit hard to find the actually approved or suggested editing guidelines. I did incidently find the following list: Usor:Gualterius de Reptilibus/Index nominum Latine redditorum, which indeed once was "approved" (i.e., I found it by means of a link from Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis). The "Index nominum..." also refer to a list, Index praenominum, which is pretty similar to the "praenomina latina" supra, I think. IMHO, these lists also should be consulted. (Sometimes, the major trouble might be, not the absence of good guides, but the ignorance of where and how to use them.)

Thanks. I've added to my list those names from there that seem to definitely meet my guidelines. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Also: Usor:Hellerick/Translatio praenominum Russicorum. --Gabriel Svoboda 07:42, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

A major point: How do we make editors aware of the lists (whether the old ones and/or the new one, or merged variants)? Georgius B 01:55, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

My list vs. the other one

I would object to any solution incorporating that list whole as I would to the same with any list found on the Internet: each entry has not been verified, and they need not be consistent with each other. Further the list may have (does have) more variants than necessary, including surnames, obsolete names, and short forms (nicknames).

My list has only one entry for each Latin name for the purpose of standardisation and maintainability. It is not intended to ever be a complete list of the names we should Latinise, but only to cover those with a single standard form for (possibly) multiple vernacular variants. It is free of typos and forms of dubious provenance. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I checked histories and talk sides briefly.

The Praenomen list seems to be a common wikipedian effort; amended by various people over a couple of years. It is not just "any list found on the Internet"; it's the way we do things in wikis.

On the other hand, the Index nominum Latine redditorum seems to be much more the work of one person, and is criticised for this at its talk page. Actually, the page seemingly was moved last December as a consequence of the criticism; but the reference to it from the guidelines was kept. That may have been an oversight.

I recommend asking Andrew Dalby about this. He was involved with these lists, both in editing and in moving (and has already involved himself a bit with yours); probably he should be an adequate judge, or at least be able to explain the stati of the various lists.

(He also will complain over my plural of "status", I fear:-). If he continues with that, I may have to change a few bad habits of mine.) Georgius B 03:28, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that other list yet, sorry. Yes, it looks quite similar to mine (and I added a few more from it). Yes, that list we should be able to work with - none of the moves I've made so far contradict it (except the obvious error Taddeus for Thaddaeus). Pantocrator 04:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I'm done moving for tonight. Please don't revert any without good reason. I deliberately did not move any with a citation of the non-standard form, though I think that probably many of those should be moved as well - modernising the spelling of names can be done in any language, and so I don't think it unreasonable to 'fix' non-standard mediaeval spellings of names just as we would fix the spelling of any common word. And what about her? One would almost have to call that coin an error. Pantocrator 04:40, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Since you have demonstrated in the past to have poor judgment in such matters you really should always check with others before you engage in such wholesale moving. In particular, "modernizing" the spelling of names is inappropriate, because the modernized version would be a *different* name from the original.

If you want to mention what the modern name is, then ", qui etiam hodie XX dici potest," would be a possible phrase to add with the suggested modernization being XX. To do otherwise is to be making things up rather than living up to the standards of an encyclopedia.

With any name you should first try some days to find the original spelling that they preferred (which in fact tells you the sound) of their actual latin name.--24.107.235.195 13:14, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

That is excellent advice, but, luckily, nearly all the moves made this morning appear to me to have been OK. I just moved Mirabeau back, however (to the tune of 'Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine, et nos amours ... I don't remember any more) because the French -é is likely to -- and in this case definitely does -- represent a Latin -ātus. Honoré could not derive from "Honorius": the stress is on the wrong syllable. Andrew Dalby 13:22, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Two sets of names are in play here: one involves people who use or used Latin, and one involves people who don't or didn't. Vicipaedia has to respect whatever names the members of the former set applied to themselves, but may freely deploy standardized Latin forms for the names of members of the latter set. IacobusAmor 13:33, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Points of dispute

Eleanor - what's the standard Latinisation here? I haven't added it to my list, even though it is common, because I have seen several different forms. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

The name was, according to the historical record, invented by the father of Eleanor of Aquitaine. The Latin form used at that time was Alienora. But our problem always is that later people with the same name have adopted variant Latinisations! Andrew Dalby 09:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Oscar - Do we really have to Latinise this Anscharius? It has the form Oscar in all the modern languages, after all. Similarly the Latinisation of Kevin seems dubious to me.

I'll add these to my list if we have agreement on them. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I've a memory of having seen the form Oscarus used for one or the other of the Swedish 19'th century kings Oscar. I'll check the church inscription next time I pass it. Anyhow, this is of course rather modern, but probably would cause much less confusion than naming them Anscharius. Besides, I know of other cases where cognate names are rendered differently depending on how ancient they are: The French kings "Louis" are named Ludvig in Swedish history books, except the first and ancient king called Klotvig. Even if differentiating Anscharius from Oscarus should turn out to be in best accordance with "least confusion", I'm not completely happy about this; we should at least give cross-references to the cognates, if we use both forms, I think. Georgius B 03:01, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

On Swedish coins they seem to have dropped Latin in 1792. Linnaeus would have turned in his grave. Andrew Dalby 12:59, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Doublets: (I hoped there could be a single form for each name, but ...):

Matthaeus/Matthias - It appears these forms both have a long history, but the Bible has the former which is the preference of our page and my list. Therefore, I moved Matt Damon (the only ambiguous case we have) from Matthias to Matthaeus. Pantocrator 04:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

They are two distinct names, from two different disciples.

I think that's all we can do. You are right that both forms have a long history. Andrew Dalby 12:53, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Victor/Victorius - I believe Victorius is the original and Victor just a worn-down form that may have been re-imported into Latin. I would not be opposed, therefore, to using Victorius for all modern figures (are there any unambiguously requiring Victor)? Pantocrator 04:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

It might be interesting to know the thought-processes that lie behind your belief. What are the reasons you believe that? IacobusAmor 12:35, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather believe that victor is the older form (even as a name). As a by-name, it should be at least as old as the oldest Roman conquests... and my small dictionary doesn't even contain the adjective "victorius" in Latin. It renders the Englisf "victorius" with "superior", but continues by marking that the (noun) forms victor (m) and victrix (f) may be used, to translate Eng. "victorius" into Latin. However, let's see what the true experts say.

Good night. Georgius B 07:16, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

As to Victor, there is an early medieval author en:Victor Vitensis: his is a real (late) Latin name, so it passes the usual test. As to Victorius, it is attested in Latin on the coins of recent Italian monarchs (see Disputatio:Victorius Emmanuel II (rex Italiae)).

By normal linguistic changes, "Victor -orem" would give Vittore in Italian, while "Victorius -um" would give Vittorio. It seems both Italian names exist. Andrew Dalby 12:53, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, at least twenty-four French communes are named for Saint Victor, and several saints of this name seem to have existed. IacobusAmor 13:23, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Coemgenus is well attested. --Ioscius ^∞ 09:26, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

To find standard Latin forms I suggest (also) to use the various versions of the „Martyrologium Romanum“. Anscharius (episcopus Bremensis) e.g. you’ll find on the 3rd of February in the Martyrologium Romanum - edition 1597 [29]. and in the edition of 1749 (lat-engl) [30]. Unfortunately there is no Oscar, because the name was popularized in Europe only in the 18th century by the works of the Scottish poet James Macpherson.--Utilo 11:42, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Praecepti nominum paginarum

After some discussions lately, I feel the lack of a la-sister of en:WP:AT, a policy for page namings. In vain, I sought for it by means of the English sister's iwlinks; and then wrote some remarks. However, after a rather long search, I found out that there indeed is a fairly well-hidden proclaimed Latin sister, namely Vicipaedia:Titulus, which for some reason was only unilaterally linked. I now have fixed the link from en:WP:AT.
The VP:Titulus page does not address the general principles I'm searching for. Thus, I move my comments to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Titulus. I hope that anyone who like me feels the need for more clear guidelines - or who have the opposit opinion - view the VPpage and its talk page. Georgius B 17:51, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, oddly enough, I just said elsewhere that we needed a Latin version of en:WP:NOR. I think you're quite right that we need our own version of this title guideline as well. Andrew Dalby 10:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be surprising if attorneys weren't behind such statements as the reminder that the policy covers

unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions"—

the point being that this is the surest way possible to quash POV-based arguments: even if someone insists that a passage doesn't represent a POV, the lack of publication elsewhere can serve as proof that it does. IacobusAmor 13:43, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)