Disputatio:Interrete

Translatio into lingua Anglisciam:

The net of the town connects the whole world. They are slaves, where the strings of dates is located. The wire-clients accept from the slave. The leaders of the great electronics transport dates.

I suspect that by "servi" the original author meant "servers" --Iustinus 00:44 nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Optiones traductionis

Scietis, "Internet" non verbum Latinum est. Ecce modi creandi verbum Latinum quid significet "Internet":

Possumus...

• Mutueri de Anglica Internet (indecl.)
• Modificare verbum Anglicum ut eum declinare possimus Interneta, -ae (in russica hoc facent.)
• Mutueri de Graeca In lingua Graeca moderna scribent Διαδικτυο, tunc in Latina erit Diadictyo, -onis
• Calceum facere "Interreta", aut bene "rete urbis"

Quis vobis placet? --Faustus 23:22 dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

So rete urbis is meant to mean "internet"??? How exactly does one come up with rete urbis for that? In any case, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the most commonly used neo-Latin term for "internet" is interrete -is n. --Iustinus 14:50 dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oy, I get it. It's an error for rete orbis... which is still a bad translation. Trust me, for "internet" we want interrete, for "world wide web" we want tela totius terrae ("www" = ttt) --Iustinus 06:00 dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe in yer Translator's Guide you should mention something along the lines of how Latin has been in use before and outside of Vicipaedia, and we don't need to be reinventing the wheel for neo-Latin terms. —Myces Tiberinus 02:56 dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Bene, Iustine, scribebimus "interrete". Nesciebam hoc verbum esse tam popularis; in animo volvebam si debemus de Graeca mutueri.--Faustus 22:09 dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

(NB. Nonne debemus dicere "tela totae terrae"?)

Immo, sunt nonnulla adiectiva quasi pronominalia quae paene sicut bonus -a -um inclinantur, nisi quod genitivum sit -ius et dativum sit -i, qualia sunt totus, unus, solus etc. Diadictyo, quod verbum nobis doces, mihi placet, sed numquam alibi audiveram. Fortasse licebit in articulo mentionem huius vocis facere. --152.163.100.70 02:37 dec 25, 2004 (UTC) (Iustinus)

Errores

Hoc tempore res magnopere errat quia "Interrete" unum cum TTT facere temptat. Re vera, TTT pars modo Interretis est. Interrete enim nullo modo Genevae inventum est. Tim Berners-Lee creavit TTT dum apud CERN laborabat, sed Interrete eo tempore iam diu notum erat. Interrete Americae inventum est, abhinc multis annis. Opportet mutare historiam, nec scribere modo de TTT. Lectores linguae Anglicae, conferte en:Internet et en:World Wide Web. 69.12.135.166 06:38, 2 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Nexus

www.v7ndotcomelursrebmem-summitmedia.com: Quid hic nexus sibi vult?--Iovis Fulmen 18:11, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

"Quod in interrete in mundo non est."

Anglice: 'What's on the internet isn't in the world'. Quid est huius sententiae fons? Sententiam temporarie celabo. IacobusAmor 04:19, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Never mind: Rafael has beaten me to the punch! IacobusAmor 04:20, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

"Interrete" Latine quidem non est vocabulum et suadeo ne huius verbi utilitatem capiatis...

Si Ciceronem e mortuis evocare possemus et vocabulum quod nostris in linguis "interrete" dicitur ei proponeremus, valde mirans fortasse intellegeret quendam inter duo retia locum. Dolendum est quod illo vocabulo uti non decet cum Latine sibi velit rem omnino aliam quam nostris in linguis. Quidni utamur "rete" ve "rete omnium gentium" etc. Modo ergo nolite adhibere "interrete" CUM PRO DOLOR SIBI REM ALIAM VELIT LATINE QUAM NOSTRIS IN LINGUIS!! Quaestio non est utrum adhibendum sit an non: vocabulum LATINE sibi vult ALIAM REM quam nostris in linguis. Adhibens ergo "interrete" videris potius ipsam linguam Latinam mutare quod nefas est: Et Latina lingua (sicut aliae omnes) novit leges.

Artaynte (disputatio) 16:40, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of your understanding of formation of 'internet'/'interrete' that causes you to object. It is, in fact, the structure between individual networks. A network is (generally) a local construct, internetworking is what you need to do to connect networks together, and the Internet is the largest internetwork—hence the name.

Re the below, there's a few inter-[noun] words in Lewis & Short meaning something between [noun]s — interrex, intercilium, intervallum, etc. Looking through the list it does seem that the much more usual formation adds -ium (e.g. interturrium, intertignium, interscapilium, interscalmium...) so *interretium might be preferable grammatically, if we can find an authority for it — but Latin is not a playground, as you say, and we have rules against making up words. (Also, I'm fairly sure 'interrete' is far more common outside Wikipedia as well.) —Mucius Tever (disputatio) 14:52, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure everybody understands it, I'll just for once write this down in English: It is not a question of if the word exists or not, for as the Ancients said, we can and should always add new words to our languages, including Latin. The word simply just means something else IN LATIN. If you put "inter-" in front of a noun, IN LATIN it would make no sence whatsoever (something like the above, the same goes for "internationalis" and God knows what other words people have been coming up with). I am not trying to be mean or w/e, I am just trying to make people conscious of something which I do not think everybody has understood here on the Latin Wikipedia:

Latin is NOT a playground. Latin HAS its rules. NO, you can't just change the meaning of the language, just to accomodate yourself (and others).

If you still do not understand, try reading some "Latin" written in different parts of Europe during the tenth century. We can not allow some sort of new Middle Ages to occur after all the work the Humanists did! Now, I won't tell you to only use the words Cicero used (Like some retards will tell you...). You do not e.g. have to say "omnia quae nec vidi nec aliis corporis partibus cerni possunt" instead of "invisibilis" Artaynte (disputatio) 17:26, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Probe dicis, amice, sed apud Cassell's, 'invisible' = caecus, vel "render by phrase with posse and cernere"; praeterea 'to be invisible' = sub oculos non cadere vel non comparere. 'Visible' vicissim non est visibilis, sed aspectabilis, conspicuus, manifestus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:54, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

(Renaissance. Same goes for "ens" and all the other words which have been added throughout the centuries). The only thing I am trying to say is this (and I am not making this up or something, just stating the obvious which centuries ago has been proven and showed to us by the Humanists): If you want to use a word, please, just make sure the word makes sence IN LATIN. (I.e. not in Mongolian, Occitanian, Basque, English or wtf ever. Just try applying the same logic to your own language if you want to get a grasp of true retardedness). If you are not sure, just look it up. If you still aren't sure, just dont write it or try to formulate it in other words!

Again, just stating the more than obvious. I have come across several articles on Vicipaedia which I simply could not read, which is absolutely ridiculous and reminds me of the exact same thing Laurentius Valla warned about centuries ago. For the last time: I am just stating the obvious, I am but an amateur, I do not study the language at university nor do I claim to be an expert or whatsoever. The only thing I know is this: I can read Pro Archia without any problems, but can't read (swearword) articles on Vicipaedia. Artaynte (disputatio) 17:26, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of most of this. We use the word "interrete" because it is found in at least one source for modern Latin that we consider reliable: see the footnote. If you're proposing that Vicipaedia should use a different term, the most helpful step would be to cite modern Latin text or a modern Latin dictionary in which that proposed term is used. (I say "modern Latin" because the concept is very recent and no term will be found in earlier texts.)

It's better, whichever language you choose to use in discussion on Vicipaedia, to avoid the uppercase sentences, the bold text and the implied swearwords. Andrew Dalby 17:41, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

The "f" in "wtf" wasn't implied, nor were the two uses of 'retard,' though that's not technically a swearword :-) Mattie (disputatio) 18:04, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel like spending much time on this as changing peoples' mind over the internet is almost impossible. I do however find this a rather important issue as I was not capable of reading most of the articles put up without having to think twice about what was written, simply because the articles did not feel as Latin to me. And YES, I do find that slightly disturbing. The relevance you did not seem to be sure of is that I feel that the exact same thing as during the Middle Ages is happening: People simply start adapting Latin according to their own mindset, without even trying to do the contrary. Now this word we are talking about (which I did not think I'd ever be doing, but here I am), "inter-rete" is just a minor example of this adaptatation. Again: I'll applaud any new words as long as they make sense in the language you are claiming to be writing in. Now if you are claming to be writing in "modern Latin" (whatever that is supposed to mean), please redirect me to the latest books which were written in that language. I am affraid that if you however claim to be writing in Latin, the word "inter-rete" simply just does not make that much sense ("something between nets", maybe a football field or something similar?). You ask for my sources? LOL. How about Cicero, Vergilius, Ovidius, Petrarca, Valla, Picus, Barlaeus (etc.) put together? How come you seem to care more about a random Swedish man who happened to write a dictionary somewhere in his wooden hut? Now you ask for alternatives (which I thought I had written down twice in the above, but hey, who am I? xD): Rete/retialis and rete omnium gentium. There you go, a nice alternative everybody should be capable of understanding (given the context) without bowing the language to your own will, which enough editors on the Latin Wikipedia have done before us. The bad language you might have encountered, could have been a product of the frustrating feeling that all the Humanists' work has been for nothing... Which I am sure anybody who actually cares about Latin would find a rather saddening thought. I won't add any more time to this, just make sure you at least think about it. Nor will I correct the horrible Latin that I might encounter out there (for now). I prefer writing above correcting. Valete Artaynte (disputatio) 18:38, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

No, you misread me. I didn't ask for alternatives, I asked for a citation of "modern Latin text or a modern Latin dictionary in which [your] proposed term is used". Andrew Dalby 18:54, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Artyante, feel free to use the quaerere box to look for and replace peculiarly formed and/or used words, like adoptare (asciscere, adsumere, accipere, recipere), centralis (medius), derivatur (deducitur), disportus (ars athletica), impossibilis (non fieri potest), incepit (coepit), includere (comprehendere, complecti, continere, adnumerare, adscribere), independens (liber), independentia (libertas), meridionalis (meridianus), modernus (hodiernus), mundialis (orbis terrarum), nationalis (civitatis, regni, reipublicae, &c.), officialis (publicus), phaenomenon (res, [philosophia Kantiana excepta]), praeferentia (praepositio), revolutio (res novae, reipublicae conversio ~ commutatio), statalis (civitatis), and so on. Some technical terms, like theoria (ratio, doctrina, ars, scientia), are probably here to stay, but maybe something better could be done for other newfangled creations, like exclusive, progressivus, professionalis, relative, and responsalis. And for extra fun, sentences that use those words may tease you with other stylistic problems nearby! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:29, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Artyante, video te Daniam invenisse. Pro aliis commentariis -5 ("maxime corrigenda") notatis, vide hanc paginam. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:50, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the use of neolatin terms is at all objectionable when it comes to naming substantives and modern notions accurately, so things like mundialis, phaenomenon, nationalis, and theoria are necessary because they carry specialized meanings not inherent in the purely ancient term that is a close synonmym: neither a phenomenon or an ens is simply a res, a natio is not the same as a civitas, and in fact many nationes have more than one civitas and vice versa, the mundus includes more than just the orbis terrarum, and more than just the physical planet tellus (terra) too, a theoria is a specialized kind of ratio, distinguished from a methodus, a hypothesis, etc., which are also rationis genera. On the other hand, even the romans observed that one could be a libertus and enjoy libertas and even civitas without being totally independent, for example when they were a cliens, sponsa, or filius. Moreover what is wrong with borrowing interrete and internationalis from other languages to convey modern ideas? All languages do it.

But rather than get stuck on such terms and whether one personally doesn't like that it can't be found it in one's very selective ancient-only dictionary, why don't we please focus on having proper latin grammar and intelligible sentences in our articles. I have in mind not only pages like Dania but also monsters such as Conventio Consociationis Nationum contra Corruptionem, Grex Promotorius Consociationis Nationum, and Devolutio durabilis. The quality of these pages is increasingly and disturbingly typical in being atrocious with respect to grammar and diction, and this has nothing to do with allowing modern words or typos that creep in due to edits: the words are simply misused by every standard. The fact that the articles are so bad means that the people who fix it essentially have to start over and right a new page ab initio. For every incredibly good long article, there seem to be about 30 stubs created with latinity similar to the above. --66.171.178.34 08:22, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Very good points. This month it's fun to lengthen some articles from the Categoria:1000 paginae list; from 31 August onwards, I'm with you, O censor sine nomine! Andrew Dalby 08:35, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)