Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Interrete" differant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Mycēs (disputatio | conlationes)
Linea 94: Linea 94:


::Vale. [[Usor:Artaynte|Artaynte]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Artaynte|disputatio]]) 22:45, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Vale. [[Usor:Artaynte|Artaynte]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Artaynte|disputatio]]) 22:45, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

:"''an NUNC (non initio) homines hoc modo intellegant hoc nomen (idest intellegant "internet" = "spatium inter retia")''" — Ita intellegunt ''cum intellegunt''... sed homines plerumque non verbis utuntur intellegentes quid etymologice significant. Profecto, non verbis utuntur intellegentes quid ut termini technici significant, sed encyclopaedia sumus — nequimus igitur nomine uti indicans "world wide web" quia hoc tantum singula est pars interretis. (Praeterea, nunquam "international net" intellexi in verbo "internet", etiam antequam de internetworks audii.)
:"''neque ipse, pro mea virili parte, invenire potui apud veteres scriptores probatos ullum verbum Latinum ita conformatum, quod sibi vellet "spatium (vel res) inter MULTAS res".''" — Certe "intermundia" quod protulisti non spatia inter ''duos'' mundos significat, sed spatia inter innumerabiles mundos Epicuri? —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mycēs|disputatio]]) 02:08, 12 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Emendatio ex 02:08, 12 Augusti 2012

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)[reply]

Nexus

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

"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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) Recte mones Amice ac quaeso ignoscas propter errorem. Fortasse furore quodam affectus illa scripsi ;)... Artaynte (disputatio) 18:26, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Artyante, video te Daniam invenisse. Pro aliis commentariis -5 ("maxime corrigenda") notatis, vide hanc paginam. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:50, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Omino quisquis sis tecum consentio quod ad adhibenda vocabula convenit nec umquam dixi nobis oportere quasi morbo Ciceronianismi affecti agere quibusdam lexiconibus adhibitis. Non contra, meam difficultatem attegisti de vocabulis illis propriis cum "inter-". Id plane consentio quod debemus aliarum linguarum vocabula liberaliter adhibere sicut omnibus in linguis fit, non autem si hoc sibi velit nos ipsam Latinam mutare linguam debere ac illis vocabulis prorsus illud fit! Id est: Ipsa lingua Latina mutatur ad nostras flexa cum (et hoc iam pridem abhinc explicare conatus sum...) "inter-" Latine non tamquam "inter-" Anglice adhiberi possit. "Inter-" Latine ante verbum proprium (pro dolor) significat quandam rem physice interpositam. Ergo interrete (Sicut omnia alia verba Latina velut interiectus, intermenstruum/-lunium, interlocutio, intermundia, intermuralis, internodium, internuntius/-a, interordinium, interpellatio, interpolatio, interpres, interpunctum, interregnum, interrogatio, interritus, interrex, etc. (haec verba propria omnia ex lexicone at pergere potuissem)) sibi vult spatium quoddam inter duo retia, non igitur nexum quendam quod per retia fit sicut nostris in linguis. Tantummodo integro temporis spatio hac in pagina ergo hoc dicere conor: Si admittaremus illud verbum nosmet ipsi mutaremus ipsam linguam Latinam nec equidem hoc faciendum esse censeo. Ergo proposui verba "rete/retialis" et "rete omnium gentium" (quod plane etiam nostrismet ex linguis venit velut "the web", "la red", "het net" "netted" "the world wide web" (ergo omnium gentium...), cuius mentionem rei autem non faciendum statuisti) adhibenda. Numquam me increpantem quasi furciferes impedientem videbitis quominus adhibeatis vocabula nova, sed cum haec id est linguam mutatam percipiam semper vos omnes pro virili mea parte conabor certiores hac de re facere. Quaeso, saltem intelexisse autumate :(... Artaynte (disputatio) 15:47, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sicut interrex est rex inter reges, interrete re vera ex origine est rete inter retia (retia computatralia militaria Americana non omnium gentium ), nexus quidem inter retia quo primum ttt formatur.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duo sunt hic consideranda: primum an NUNC (non initio) homines hoc modo intellegant hoc nomen (idest intellegant "internet" = "spatium inter retia"); dein usus vere Latinus, iuxta quem "interrex" est "rex inter duos reges"; "intercilium" est "spatium inter duo cilia"; "interlunium" est "spatium inter duas lunas novas"; "internodium" est "spatium inter duos nodos"; "internuntius" est "nuntius inter duos homines aut duos hominum greges"; "intermundium" est "spatium inter duos mundos", (Haec ad Mucium Teverem. De Andrew Dalby, fere nihil bonum dicere possum cum ea quae atullit, id est "You misread me blabla, I asked for a citation of "modern Latin text or a modern Latin dictionary in which [your] proposed term is used." OMNINO sensu carent et OMNINO absurda sunt, prorsus "Mediaevalia" sicut conatus sum explicare) cet. Mihi quidem videtur:

1. Homines, qui nunc sunt fere omnes, cum dicunt "internet" intellegere "rete omnium gentium" ("international net", "worldwide web"), non "rete inter retia", neque "spatium inter retia";

2. Si etiam velimus intellegere "spatium inter retia", certe non ita vocem interpretamur, quasi significet "rete (vel spatium) inter DUO retia"; neque ipse, pro mea virili parte, invenire potui apud veteres scriptores probatos ullum verbum Latinum ita conformatum, quod sibi vellet "spatium (vel res) inter MULTAS res". Consequens est nos "interrete" non tam bene neque secundum usum vere Latinum dicere posse.

This is absolutely ridiculous, is there nobody out there who actually wrote a useful book or something, or a university teacher who actually knows what he/she is talking about? I feel like a complete retard surrounded by... people... as I seem to be the only person who simply acknowledges a couple of facts. That's all I am asking for; We speak and write Latin, because it's LATIN. It seems like that first step already is too hard to understand (for some people). Artaynte (disputatio) 17:41, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artaynte, there are in fact lots of us here who are university teachers, who have written books (on Latin grammar, in particular), who read neo-Latin, who teach neo-Latin, who have published scholarly works on neo-Latin, who belong to the world-wide community of users of neo-Latin. We are familiar not only with the general principles of nominal composition in Latin, but also with the conventions of scholarly discourse. We don't go in for flaming in this Vicipaedia. We do pay attention to the general sources, such as the ones on our Lexica Neolatina list; we don't invent words. We take pains to write Latin that is not only grammatically correct but graceful, and we correct errors as we find them; at the same time, we aim to be welcoming to relative beginners at Latin. Perhaps you should look at some of the recent discussions in the Taberna about grammar and idiom: you will observe that we care deeply about the language.
Interrete is an acceptable formation; if Cicero had needed to talk inter-linked networks, whether of computers, of diplomats, or of spiderwebs, he would have understood this word for the concept. "The Internet" is so called because it is a network of networks -- some of us remember having to route email manually from Bitnet to Arpanet, before there was a true Internet and long before there was a World-Wide Web. Moreover, interrete is widely used by extra-Vicipaedian Latinists -- it would be perverse of us to attempt to use another term. As an expert Latinist, I don't think there's much to argue about here, and if I were to argue about it with my peers I would not stand for shouting and swearing in the course of the discussion. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:35, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you. As I couldn't possibly expect you to read the following(you surely have something better to do) I just ask you to prove my arguments wrong: That "inter-" in the Latin language only and always signifies a thing between two other things (as I actually think to just have proven that, but nobody else really seems to care). By doing so you would make me very happy and close this whole discussion (which would mean that I can start actually writing some articles). I do not by the way approve of the way English has some sort of monopoly on the Latin Wikipedia, but hey, there comes a time for everything I guess... x).
Salva sis Mahoney magistrix, Abelem me voca quaeso. Primum si forte quaedam obsceniora in meis scriptis invenisti ob hanc rem veniam peto quippe qui iuvenis et ergo nonnumquam citius efflictimve excitatus indignatione quodam compulsus. Ignoscas igitur. Cum te "an expert Latinist" rata es, miror quod non Latine scripseris et immo aliquantilum offendor cum videris me non dignum magistralis tuae Latinitatis putare... Sed bwah, satis de his nugis.
Quod autem ad causam nostram attingit nihil novi praebuisti nisi iudicationis florilegium cum ne curare quidem videris de argumentis quae ipse ad illam iudicanda attuli. Plane ac nulla quidem explicatione nullisque argumentis allatis respondisti haec: "If Cicero had needed to talk inter-linked networks, whether of computers, of diplomats, or of spiderwebs, he would have understood this word for the concept."
Ut credo (et spero) iam sat perspicue (quaeso, supra omnia vide exempla) patebat ex meis scriptis quod prorsus illud nego cum ipsissima vocabula Latina contrarium videantur approbare (Quod Cicero interrete illo sensu intellegeret). Si ergo exemplis allatis quodam lumine argumenta mea (quae quasi opaca praeteristi) collustrare poteris aliis exempli gratia verbis Latinis quae per "inter" initium habent aut sermone quodam ex quo patebit sententiam tuam Anglicam quam ut equidem credo identidem bonis probatisque argumentis infirmavi atque derui, veniam peto propter hanc quaestionem. Praeterea quaedam autumavisti priscis de temporibus retis quae quoque (nisi fallor) iam recusavi cum hodierni loquentes non ad illa tempora referunt. Ipsa vocabula Anglice "network of networks" (sicut Anglica in Vicipaedia "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks ") usurpavisti! En! Prorsus illud bona Latinitate per "interrete" dici non potest (Iterum, supra vide: Arguo quod Latine SEMPER de re INTER DUAS RES agatur)! Si ergo mea argumenta quae nisi fallor diligenter et quadam nempe cum cura iam saties proposui refellere velis, quaeso ut uno vel exemplo contrarium de verbo "interrete" probes. Hoc quod tibi ut spero cum tam perita sis linguae nillius difficultatis erit. Nempe igitur per interrete SPATIUM inter DUO modo retia significatur, quod Anglice "the internet" non sibi vult, et quod per vocabulum "rete" autem Latine significari potest? Hoc depelle docta ac finem faciam. Nisi contra poteris mea, tua competentia, argumenta potius affirmare videris.
Pro dolor etiam quaedam argumenta auctoritatis cernuntur inter logos tuos quae (quam caritatis studiosa...) fere minans mihi visa es vi quadam me dudum hisce de rebus reprehenso imponere velle. Libenter nomina illorum scriptorum accipiam ut de eorum Latinitate deliberem. Argumenta auctoritatis apud me autem non multi quidem ponderis erunt dum nemo Latine mecum decertat quod ut spero intellegis.
Gratias ago propter consilium tuum sed tabernam bis terve lustrans plerumque interim Anglice conscriptam sive quadam Latinitate quam vix adsecutus sum, non maximi momenti censui: Re ipsa paulo commotus sum quod omnes (et magistri sive linguae periti!) videmini Anglice scribere atque ne curare quidem aut de hominibus aliis ex civitatibus aut de Latina lingua. Contra a te gaudens omnes tua sententia callide perscrutas quaestiones Latine conscriptas accipiam! (Can I haz articlez?)
Vale. Artaynte (disputatio) 22:45, 11 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"an NUNC (non initio) homines hoc modo intellegant hoc nomen (idest intellegant "internet" = "spatium inter retia")" — Ita intellegunt cum intellegunt... sed homines plerumque non verbis utuntur intellegentes quid etymologice significant. Profecto, non verbis utuntur intellegentes quid ut termini technici significant, sed encyclopaedia sumus — nequimus igitur nomine uti indicans "world wide web" quia hoc tantum singula est pars interretis. (Praeterea, nunquam "international net" intellexi in verbo "internet", etiam antequam de internetworks audii.)
"neque ipse, pro mea virili parte, invenire potui apud veteres scriptores probatos ullum verbum Latinum ita conformatum, quod sibi vellet "spatium (vel res) inter MULTAS res"." — Certe "intermundia" quod protulisti non spatia inter duos mundos significat, sed spatia inter innumerabiles mundos Epicuri? —Mucius Tever (disputatio) 02:08, 12 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]