Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 31

Greges cultivarietatum (cultivar groups)

Brought back from the archive The concept of group (distinct from subspecies) is official in botany, and Vicipaedia has a few articles (and categories) that need regularizing to accommodate it. An example of the prescribed pattern is given and parenthetically explained in Wikipedia thus:

Brassica oleracea Capitata Group (the group of cultivars including all typical cabbages)

(Cabbages are "headed" plants of Brassica oleracea, while kales, the "headless" ones, are of the Acephala Group.) The officially required form involves italics for the genus & species, the word Group (translated into any language) roman & capitalized, the name of the group roman & capitalized, and word order flexible (Group + Name ~ Name + Group).

A curiosity for Vicipaedia here is that the gender of the name of the group must agree with the gender of the genus & species, while the Latin word grex ('group') is masculine, thus giving us

Brassica oleracea Grex Capitata

not

Brassica oleracea Grex Capitatus

Is the difference of genders a problem? Perhaps the neatest way to finesse it would be to put grex in the ablative, with the assumed meaning of 'by group' or 'with regard to group(ing)':

Brassica oleracea Grege Capitata

But maybe that's unnecessary. (The official standards, or at least their version in English, don't say.) What to do?

In any case (literally?), the formula for taxoboxes apparently needs to have a new taxonomic line for grex, just below the line for species or subspecies. Maybe some kind programmer would like to add it in? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:25, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

The command line "trinomial" works, as you see in Brassica oleracea var. capitata, one of the articles in question. Maybe a new line for "grex" would then be superfluous?—except that "Brassica oleracea Grex Capitata" isn't exactly a trinomial. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:31, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

Genus gregis non mutatur, cf. Alchemilla gr. alpina et Rubus gr. fruticosus. — De capsis nescio, var. et gr. paene idem est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:09, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

Eheu, Internationalis Nominum Plantarum Cultarum Codex notiones cultigenarum, cultivarietatum, gregum (botanicorum), et varietatum rite et subtiliter distinguit ac regulas scribendi nobis praescribit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:51, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

I hope someone will explain the grex == group issue to the ISHS itself. It's a bit of a surprise that they'd break the ability to name things in Latin in this way, they should offer a solution surely. JimKillock (disputatio) 21:22, 1 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

In general, if an official body uses Latin and fixes names, we accept their names and work with their usage. What better authority could we have? Thank the Gods that official bodies do use Latin, demonstrating to an admiring world that Latin is flourishing.

I don't think this is a problem. The Code aims for acceptable Latin and I don't doubt it also aims to make names as simple as possible for non-Latinists to understand. We do this already with species: an adjective in the name of the species agrees in gender with its genus name, not with the word "species", and we don't put "species" in the ablative to make that work. Ergo the species name is nominalized (just like the many species names that already are nouns) and stands in apposition to the word "species". Similarly with "grex" and "varietas": the adjectives (which are often species names in older and alternative classifications) agree with their grammatical context when the word "grex" has not been added. "Grex" is added, the adjective becomes nominalized and stands in apposition to "grex". That's magic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

I could be completely misunderstanding the situation here, but I think the confusion is about their use of English (with no Latin equivalent). The schema is here (PDF) and the relevant parts appear to be Article 22: Names of Groups page 35 Article 23: Names of grexes page 37. On my very cursory understanding, a "Group" is not a "Grex", that is something else, and a "Group" has no official Latin term given. Thus a "Group" cannot be called a "grex" (this would be very confusing) however no guidance is given to what a "Group" ought to be called in Latin. The assumption is that "Group" or another local language word be used.

We could of course make something up ourselves, but that is also not great. I think best would be to ask for official guidance, and make some suggestions if we wish? JimKillock (disputatio) 16:17, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could have Grupus. But why should it be capitalized, when subsp. and var. are not? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:32, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Group (or any Latin word for it) should be considered an insertion that syntactically stands apart from the name. We have the familiar example of Daucus carota subsp. sativus—not sativa to agree with subspecies (and carota there looks feminine, but would appear to be an indeclinable noun, so the accusative would be Daucum carota, not Daucum carotam). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:40, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

"Carota" (substantivum origine Graecum) e lingua Latina culinaria antiqua mutuatur. Secundum fontes lexicographicos ad primam declinationem femininam -a -ae pertinet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:17, 26 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Maps and Latin names

Hi there, I noticed that the new maps are showing rather less Latin than they might, given that a lot of the Latin names we use are linked by Wikidata IDs to OpenStreetMap onbjects so could be easily applied to Wikimedia maps. I've raised a Phabricator ticket to see whether this is something that would need to be built, or a bug. I also note that Maptiler.com does this already (applies wikidata names to OSM places via Wikidata IDs that have been added to them). JimKillock (disputatio) 23:15, 9 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Which are the "new maps"? Can you link to an example?

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but there is a timelag, potentially endless, between the move of a Vicipaedia geographical page to a verified placename (which normally happens as soon as the name is corrected and sourced) and the change of the Latin label at Wikidata (which is not done by bots, and depends purely on whether anyone decides to update it). The Wikidata label could go on showing an incorrect or ungrammatical or vandalized name for a long time. Anyone taking information from Wikidata should not rely on the Latin label, but on the Vicipaedia pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 10 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

By new, I mean post 2017 maps which are now based on Open Street Map ;) For instance, Villa Sancti Albani has a map linked from the Wikidata panel on the right. This shows "St Albans" while the Wikidata item has "Fanum Sancti Albani". Contrast Maptiler which shows "Fanum Sancti Albani", derived from Wikidata. Zoom out and you will see "Londinium", that name is recorded on OSM directly I presume. The Wikidata item for St Albans does need updating (and could be vandalised), I don't think the page name can be easily used tho, as that could include other information, such as the county or country for disambiguation purposes. Also, many if not all of the names on OSM have been tagged with the Wikidata ID, so linking the Wikidata language name across all languages to the OSM map object or place is trivial to automate, whereas extracting them from page names would not be easy to do at all (it would be a case of Latin exceptionalism at least - I don't think they would be keen). So I think we are stuck with Wikidata language names as a source. JimKillock (disputatio) 12:03, 10 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond till now. I think, then, that it requires someone with the time and enthusiasm to update Wikidata Latin labels for place names. I sometimes do it, when I happen to move a page and can see no justification for the existing label to continue in place; but I sometimes leave it, because, after all, others may decide otherwise about the best pagename, and editing Wikidata labels takes time. I did once try to edit a placename on OSN directly, but found the process so unbearably slow that I never managed to complete it. Some other Vicipaedians do edit Wikidata; others won't touch it.

So, if OSN placenames depend on Wikidata labels, to me that's just one more reason never to trust an online map. They are useful but deceptive. However, someone else may well want to work on this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 21 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Quod supra dicitur Latine vertere possum si necesse sit. Rem principalem hic compendiose enuntio: si quis, Vicidatorum amator, sigilla Latina (Latin labels) paginarum topographicarum apud Vicidata renovare vel corrigere vel e novo inserere velit, optime erit, quia Formae Urbium Apertae (Open Street Maps) nomina Latina locorum e sigillis Vicidatorum deprehendunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 22 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Overnight

O magistrates, in your somnolence, I've made bold to repair the three pages damaged by someone overnight. What are you going to do with that party's IP address? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:44, 21 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your wakefulness: you did what was necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 21 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Iacobo gratias renovatas agens, Latine dicere debeo: omnibus nobis aequa manu, non magistratibus tantum, vandalismis deletis paginas ad statum angelicum (!) restituere oportet. "Revertere" vel "Abrogare" facile est. Nihil deperditur: historia manet; etiamsi aliquid utile per errorem delemus, ei qui sequuntur errorem corrigere possunt. Denuo si idem IP multos vandalismos efficit, obstruere necesse erit (id quod magistratus soli perficere possunt). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 22 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Salvete Iacobe et Andrea,
gratias tibi, Iacobe, vigilantiae tuae. Mihi quoque, dolendum, paginae non Latine scriptae ac molestiae stultitiis proponderatae perturbant. Tamen moderamen facile vel indisposite delendi et obstruendi potius diligenter adhibere volo, ne dimicationes importunae emanent. Pariter, rear, nos inventoribus paginarum non Latine scriptarum sub Vicipaediae regulas constanter redigere debere. Praeterea tandem tuam veniam tarditudinis mei a te opto, quia mi officia multa, pandemia causa, sunt. Gratias, Iacobe, iterum tibi vigilantiae tuae magis ago. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 10:26, 22 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Latin Wikivoyage

Idk if you are aware of this, but Latin Wikivoyage exists in the incubator, and it hasn’t got any contributions recently. You can see the test project at [1], and the proposal at [2]. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (disputatio) 14:39, 25 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

According to the tabled statistics, the English version has more than fifty-three times as many users as the next most frequently used version and may therefore be the only version worth paying attention to. Meanwhile, certain of Vicipaedia's Latin articles translated from Esperanto already have a Baedeker-like feel to them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:01, 25 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

I sent this post here in order to invite people to contribute to Wikivoyage Latin because it hasn’t got any contributions in months. I would like to edit it myself but I currently don’t know latin so I will have to learn first, so I thought that I sent about it here some people might start contributing now. I’m just worried that if it doesn’t get any edits for a very long time they might consider deleting the test project. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (disputatio) 19:11, 25 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

I contributed the majority of edits on that project: several others helped. I think we did it as a bold experiment, which failed: no active community developed. The fact that Wikivoyages in all languages (even English) get low visitor ratings didn't help. Hence we recommended closure, maybe two years ago now. I'm surprised it still exists!

All that having been said, if others now wanted to re-start it, I have absolutely no objection. But it takes several active, enthusiastic and linguistically competent users to get a wiki project going. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 26 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

I agree on the community issue. I think Latin Wikivoyage could have a purpose, but it would need to consider what Latin readers are likely to want from a travel guide. I think that's fairly obvious: if it could concentrate on guides related to antiquity, the Reformation, or anything else that had a particular reason to be written in Latin then there is a niche available. But it does start from the question, who'd write it? And now isn't the right time to ask, as nobody is going anywhere. JimKillock (disputatio)

Well, your last brief sentence could be wrong. I am having a lot of fun just now writing about the history of foods that I can't go to a restaurant and taste, and can't travel and taste. I'm developing my imagination and reviving kitchen Latin (all from reliable sources of course). Others, surely, are writing about travel destinations that they can only imagine. And perhaps there are people who read these pages and imagine the holidays they will one day have and the foods they will one day taste.

Ne desperes! Ego (per exemplum) his diebus historiam scribo alimentorum, quae gustare non possum neque ad popinam profectus neque peregrinationes suscipiens. E fontibus fidei dignis "imaginationes libidinum" (Pl. NH) gastronomicarum evolvo Latinitatemque culinariam restituo. Certe sunt que de locis peregrinationum eodem modo scribunt; fortasse sunt qui de his rebus legentes imaginationes suas tam gastronomicas quam geographicas evolvant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 30 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Tituli operum impressorum

Usor sine nomine apud IP 77.164.133.132 monet: "The title of his main work ends with "historiae", if ever there will be an article on the work, it won't end with "historia" because that's not the title." But is that so? The title of this volume is Aquatilium animalium historiae, liber primus, cum eorumdem formis, aere excusis (vide imaginem), 'Of the story of aquatic animals, the first book, with their likenesses, engraved in copper.' If the title of the work (not just this volume) were truly Aquatilium animalium historiae, then the title as printed on the title page of this volume would begin Aquatilium animalium historiarum, ¿no? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 27 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Eureka!!! "His great work, entitled Aquatilium Animalium Historia" (Bushnan 1853: 23). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:02, 27 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Bibliographia

 *Bushnan, J. S. 1853. Ichhthyology: Fishes: Particularly their structure and economical uses. In The Naturalist's Library, ed. William Jardine Equite, vol. 135. Edimburgi: W. H. Lizars; et Londinii: Henry G. Bohn. Editio interretialis.

De hac re vide Disputatio:Hippolytus Salvianus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 30 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

3

Aplauso por los trabajadores de la salud
& Clap for our Carers
& Applaudissements aux fenêtres pendant la pandémie de Covid-19--18:30, 5 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Latein nur europäisch und nicht weltweit?

Ich wundere mich schon lange, dass bei der Suche nach anderen Sprachen in der linksseitigen Leiste jeder Seite Latein nicht unter "Weltweit" sondern nur unter "Europa" aufgeführt wird. Abgesehen davon, dass die Eingruppierung unter "Weltweit" zutreffend wäre, wäre es für Latein-Sucher praktisch, weil sie dann nicht nach unten scrollen müssen. Könnte man das korrigieren? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 08:02, 7 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Bei mir sehe ich in der linken Spalte unter der Überschrift "In anderen Sprachen" eine Auflistung von gefühlt ca. 200 Sprachen, von Abchasisch bis Zulu, aber nicht die Differenzierung von "Weltweit" und "Europa". --Dioskorides (disputatio) 18:10, 7 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Du sprichst aus, was auch ich schon lange denke. Danke!--Bavarese (disputatio) 18:24, 7 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Id quod dicitis verum est, sed ego (si id vobis utile sit) has classes linguarum "internationalium" et "Europaearum" nunquam video quia statui omnes linguas, ordine alphabetico, ad marginem sinistram paginarum videre. E quibus statim "Latina" inter (e.g.) "Kurdî" et "Lietuvių" reperire soleo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:01, 7 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Ob man die Gesamtliste der Sprachen oder die gruppierte Liste sieht, hängt von der individuellen Benutzereinstellung unter Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ganz unten bei "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you." ab.

Dass die lateinische Sprache nur unter "Europa" und nicht auch unter "Weltweit" steht, können wir nicht selbst hier auf la.wikipedia korrigieren. Technisch wird das von den Einträgen unter https://github.com/wikimedia/language-data/tree/master/data gesteuert, die z. B. meta:User:Amire80 ändern kann. Bevor wir an ihn herantreten, sollten wir uns vielleicht einen kurzen Begründungsabsatz mit ein paar guten allgemein anerkannten Belegen überlegen, warum die lateinische Sprache (so wie die derzeit unter "Weltweit" genannten Sprachen) nicht nur unter "Europa", sondern auch unter "Weltweit" angeführt werden sollte. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 00:16, 8 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

---

Whether you see the exhaustive list of languages or the grouped list depends on your user settings, see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering near the bottom: "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you."

We cannot ourselves add the Latin language to the "Worldwide" group here on la.wikipedia. The language groupings are administered here: https://github.com/wikimedia/language-data/tree/master/data . meta:User:Amire80 is one of the users who can adapt this data. Before we approach him and request the change, it might be wise do compile a short explanation (using generally accepted, credible sources) why we believe that the Latin language ought to be listed among "Worldwide" in addition to "Europe". Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:16, 8 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

In universitatibus Americae utriusque et Iaponiae lingua Latina docetur; nomenclatura biologica et medica in toto orbe terrarum valet; nescio, quos fontes fidei dignos de hac re adducere possimus, sed non Europaea tantum est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:29, 14 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Hoc tempore Nicolai Ostler Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin (2007) perlego. Hic liber fortasse fons utilis de talibus rebus erit. Insuper citationes de usu scientifico et internationali in pagina nostra "Vicipaedia:Fontes nominum Latinorum" reperire possumus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 14 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Endlich kann ich in der Lateintaverne auch einmal auf deutsch schreiben. Also: Gleich, als die Rubrik "weltweit" bei den Sprachen auftauchte, dachte ich, daß da auch Latein hingehört. Auf jeden Fall! Zudem gilt Esperanto als das "Latein der Demokratie" (z.B. bei Émile Boirac)- und das ist ja auch dort aufgelistet! Latein ist auch Kirchensprache, und die Katholische Kirche ist international seit Beginn... [Mi ĝojas ke intertempe eblas ankaŭ ĉe la diskutrondo de la latinlingva Vikipedio verki ion en la Internacia Lingvo. Jen opinio mia: Tuj kiam la rubriko "mondskale" ene de la lingva listo aperis mi pensis ke tie nepre estu ankaŭ nia latina, ĉiuokaze! Krome nomiĝis Esperanto la "Latino de la demokratio" (ekz. far Émile Boirac) - kaj la zamenhofa idiomo memkompreneble troviĝas jam dekomence tie! Ekster tio estas la latina la lingvo de la Eklezio: la katolikismo jam ĉiam estis internacia...] (Giorno2 (disputatio) 15:42, 14 Martii 2021 (UTC))

Sheep?

Why, over at Meta, did Vicipaedia recently—in the computation done on 6 March 2021—lose points for (allegedly) not having this article? In previous months, Meta recognized no such problem. Indeed, the article existed and still exists. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:18, 13 Martii 2021 (UTC)

It's a change in Wikidata. Everything is always, always, always driven by Wikidata. I noticed this a few days ago but haven't had time to fix it. The easy way would be to make a redirect from "ovis" to Ovis aries and link the redirect page to the "sheep" Wikidata item; this isn't really right because redirects aren't supposed to have Wikidata links of their own. The right way would be to have a second page, except for the fact that that makes no sense at all. If there's a general preference for "easy but wrong" or for "right but content-free," say so. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:58, 13 Martii 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that the easy way would work in the long run. Other editors on Wikidata might decide a second time that our page, with its (surprise! surprise!) Latin name, would go better with the Latin-named pages on the very few wikis that have a separate "species" article on this subject.

Quick, and somewhere in between right and wrong, would be to rename our page "Ovis" (currently a redirect) and then link it once more to the pages it was linked with before. See my ancient comment of 2007 on the article talk page -- I thought then, and I still think, that "Ovis" is a good name. That would still leave us free to adopt the right way that Anne describes and have a separate "species" article, and a separate "Ovis (genus)" article too, if we ever thought it necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 13 Martii 2021 (UTC)

OK, so it's a new & specific manifestation of an old & general problem, in which scientific taxonomy has repurposed a classical Latin noun, perhaps leaving us with, as Andrew suggests, the need to distinguish in separate articles the ancient understanding (e.g., Ovis, the common name, with no italics) from the modern one (e.g., Ovis, the genus, with its italics). And it involves not just plants & animals: classical fungus was any old mushroom, distinct from all the forms collected as fungi, and virus was slime, poison, and a bitter taste, distinct from virus biologicum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:36, 13 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We've seen this problem before, most recently I think with penguins, and I dare say we'll see it again. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:34, 13 Martii 2021 (UTC)

In Vicidatis Ovem arietem sic religare, ut in myriadem intravisset, temptaveram, sed Vicidatorum incolis hoc non placuit; ergo maiorem partem articuli ad Ovem transtuli. Non optimus exitus est, siquis mutaverit, non negabo. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:12, 20 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Latina omnia iterum vincet?

Commentarius qui fortasse legendus est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:58, 13 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Linguam Latinam nimis complicatam esse constat. Proh dolor! (Ceterum: Zamenhof ipse in adulescentia de usu moderno linguarum Latinae et Graecae cogitabat ...) Itaque mea opinione praeferendus usus linguae Esperanticae, tam in parlamento Europaeo quam in ecclesiasticis, cf: Udalricus Matthias de partibus Esperantici in ecclesia agendis (Giorno2 (disputatio) 16:14, 14 Martii 2021 (UTC))

Magistris Latinitatis, ut ego nunc video, imprimis nihil alius finis proponendus est quam qui assequantur ut saltem Latinitatem Latine doceant. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 09:05, 25 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Ignosce, Martine Noster, non intellego sententiam a te scriptam. Si vis, eam verbis aliis fac iteres. Gratias tibi. (Giorno2 (disputatio) 20:24, 27 Martii 2021 (UTC))

Bene, rescribam. Primo et ante omnia id assequendum est, ut magistri, qui Latinam linguam docent, linguam etiam active calleant. Ut usum activum assequamur, alio methodo docendi opus est. Absurdum enim est, mea sentenetia, sine hominibus, qui Latine loqui possunt, Latinam linguam in institutionibus Unionis Europaeae introducere.--Martinus Vester (disputatio) 10:42, 28 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Recte dicis! Eruditione Latina reformata et horis scholasticis Latinitatis vivae introductis tamen permultae quaestiones manebunt, proh dolor! Quare? Liceat narrare de me: Olim magno gaudio audiveram linguam officialem in Hungaria usque annum 1867 fuisse linguam Latinam (alternativa Theodisca spreta). Multis annis post specimina concreta istius Latinitatis legere volui, inveni et temptavi: res vix intelligibiles mihi Hungarici idiomatis non perito. Ecce incommodum magnum quod Latinam linguam insuper perturbat, momentum sermonis patrii moderni Latinitatem veram falsans atque vitians. Etiam tales minae, etsi interdum sunt, multo minores in Esperantica lingua esse videntur, crede mihi! -- Ceterum inveni commentarios legendos hos, ubi agitur etiam de partibus a sermone Ciceronis in Hungaria actis: ex foliis Austriacis "Der Standard", 26.2.2020. E quibus: Schon die lokalen Verwaltungsbeamten verfügten häufig nur über spärliche Lateinkenntnisse und die sozial schlechter gestellte Landbevölkerung sprach – trotz hartnäckiger Bemühungen – kein Latein. Entsprechend war "Landessprache" im 18. Jahrhundert nicht gleichbedeutend mit einer allgemein im Reich oder Staat gesprochenen Sprache.-- Liber Udalrici Matthias supra citatus de Esperantico neutrali pro ecclesiasticis rebus universalibus etiam Hungarice prostat. Lingua Esperantica est Latinum vere democraticum, quod omnes homines facile ediscere possunt. (Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:36, 28 Martii 2021 (UTC))̴̴

Tibi partim assentior, partim dissentio. Bene vides Latinitatem Regni Hungariae fuisse quodam pacto corruptam; quia non ex classica, sed ex mediaevali Latinitate, et quidem ecclesiastica evolvebatur. Verisimile est, ut opinor, si Latinum in Unione introduxissent, itidem corrupta esset. Attamen Latinitatem officialem a Latinitate eruditiorum Hungarorum Latine scribentium separandam esse censeo: etenim Antonius Bonfinius, Ianus Pannonius, Matthias Bélius, Georgius Pray, Stephanus Schönvisner ceterique in stilo scribendi procul dubio Latinitati humanisticae se accomodabant. Quod vero ad Esperanticam pertinet linguam, inclino, ut omnia argumenta accipiam de natura democratica, facilitate necnon utilitate eiusdem linguae nonnisi unum: argumentum scilicet ad phraseologiam spectans. Sit phraseologia Latinitatis sive manca sive corrupta: semper tamen reverti possumus ad Romanorum auctoritatem, ad statum linguae quondam viventis, si in difficultatem expressionis incurrimus. Esperantica autem lingua omnino caret phrasibus authenticis, quia lingua artificiosa est. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 18:35, 28 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Gratias pro nominibus quos non novi. Quoad linguas "artificiosas": et Hebraica moderna, et Indonesiae sermo unificatus et Turcica lingua annis 1920 exeuntibus reinventa artificiosae erant. Esperantica lingua quoque in principio artificiosa omnino erat. Sed interdum - iam ex anno 1887!!- emolumentum habuit ut omnes linguae "naturales". Auctoritati sunt esperantistis glossarium PIV, Academia Esperantica, Candidi Wennergren grammatica hic, libri Esperantice pacti, poesis et ars dramatica, interpretationes optimae (e.g. Sanctarum Scripturarum), Vicipaediam (ubi utilia servantur, minus bona abiciuntur, ut in omni lingua!). Quotidianus usus vivus in conventiculis internationalibus scientias linguisticas auget: ubi similia in Latinis?? Forsitan non credis sed verum est: sermonum peregrinorum quos scio tantummodo Esperantice authentice sensus meos exprimere possum. Quoad venerationem tuaam linguae Latinae classicae: et ecclesiastica et mediaevalis latinitates elegantes esse possunt. Condicio sine qua non: omnis Latinitas intelligibilis esse debet. Tunc communicatio socialis feliciter progreditur. (Giorno2 (disputatio) 19:35, 28 Martii 2021 (UTC))

Gratias pro adnotatione, ex qua multum didici. Paginas adnexas perlegam! In Hungaria Esperantica lingua perquam popularis est, in qua lingua permulti examen adeunt. Academia Scientiarum Hungarica illam linguam vivam agnoscit, universitates Hungaricae examen linguae Esperanticum accipiunt.

Quum de phraseologia loquar, indico imprimis eas expressiones phrasematicas, quae omnibus linguis nationalibus inter sese differunt, neque ex quadam lingua in aliam reddi possunt. ut Theodiscis illustrem exemplis, verbi gratia: in Betracht ziehen, außer Acht lassen, zur Verfügung stehen, vor Augen halten, im Auge behalten, zur Kenntnis nehmen et millia millium talium phrasematum quae in Latinam, Anglicam, Gallicam, Italianam, Hispanicam linguam als Spiegelübersetzung vertere nequis et vice versa. Si haec phrasemata in Esperanticam linguam receperis, a Germanis ea intelligentur; sed quid intelligent homines ex aliis nationibus oriundi? Eandem quaestionem affero quod ad alias linguas artificiosas spectat, ut ad linguam Volapük, Ido, Esperanticam II, Latinam sine flexione, Interlinguam et nescioquot sermones: omnibus criteriis formalibus (phonologicis, morphologlicis, syntacticis) probantur, attamen cum de factoribus contextualibus agatur, eligant oportet quandam linguam vivam naturalem, cuius phrasemata in ipsum sermonem artificiosum, hic Esperanticum recipiuntur. Certe potes phrasemata Germanica in Esperanticum convertere, sed extranei nihil comprehendent. Latinae grammaticae difficultatem sane in dubium revocare nequeo; praeterea suam habet phraseologiam hereditate possessam (e.g. procul dubio, in dubium revocare etc. etc.).--Martinus Vester (disputatio) 18:42, 29 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Primo dicere necesse est linguam Esperanticam sermonem constructum unicum esse cum (relative) felici successu. Ne misceamus rem absurdam Volapük cum idiomate Zamenhofiano! Quod ad phraseologiam attinet: Ludovicus Lazarus Zamenhof ex initio proposuit non convertere sed lingua nova ipsa cogitare. Exempla quae tu de Theodisco dedisti sine dubio etiam vice versa fieri possunt: Si expressionem Esperantice fictam vix in linguas "naturales" transferre possumus. Revera contingit, ut lingua constructa novam ideam exprimere clare possimus cui linguis "naturalibus" vox deest. Esperanticum etiam instructioni Latinae valde auxiliari possit. Auxilio grammaticae Esperanticae e.g. participia Latina multo velocius discipulos docere possumus. Insuper permulta verba Latina in Esperantico VIVUNT et cotidie in toto orbe (interretiali) ADHIBENTUR. Itaque omnis latinista Esperanticum discat - quia Esperanticum automatice Latina promovet. (Giorno2 (disputatio) 15:43, 30 Martii 2021 (UTC))

Argumenta tua accipio. Lingua Esperantica aptior esse videtur ad communicandum. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 12:01, 2 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Auxilium cum lingua Graeca

Salvete omnes, last year I helped transcribe and / or consolidate 800 pages worth of transcriptions of Erasmus' Colloquia familiaria on Latin Wikisource.

The source is here and as you can see there are (in blue) a number of pages where there is a "difficulty"; that being short passages of Greek which are sometimes rendered as transliterations, and sometimes just left as uncorrected, mangled text from the scans.

There is not a huge amount of Greek, but it's enough unfortunately to make it an untidy ebook and of course isn't a finished transcription.

If anyone has a bit of time to take a look and add the correct Greek (in greek, as per the text), I would be tremendously grateful! JimKillock (disputatio) 12:53, 15 Martii 2021 (UTC)

A supplementary question. How does one correct the title page? It has the word "8UCCINCTA" which wants to be changed to "SUCCINCTA". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 15 Martii 2021 (UTC)

All pages are within the "source" document; and they can be found from the small number links on the left, (vi in this case). You can then edit the page while checking the source document. JimKillock (disputatio)

I see now. I suppose that was an OCR error: I've corrected it now. I see the trick about the little numbers on the left, thank you. When I've found a typo on a Wikisource page in another language, I believe it was easier than that to get in and correct it. But maybe I was just being stupid today. Has been known. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 16 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew :) They all use the same system to link to pages, but a lot of the Latin Wikisource isn't linked to source documents (so is directly editable on the page, in situ, just as Wikipedia is) as the text has been copy pasted from other sources (which is a bit questionable as a practice, as it doesn't add very much value). JimKillock (disputatio) 11:57, 16 Martii 2021 (UTC)

I did the Syriac and Hebrew on p. 432 and the Greek on p. 824. Let me know if it looks right! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:18, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Etiam in tribus paginis Hebraica inserenda manent: 1, 2, 3, nequeo has corrigere. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:40, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC) — Emendata iam sunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:04, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Multas gratias vobis @Demetrius Talpa:, @Lesgles: for your help with this! We're starting a second pass of the document so pages are now starting to be marked 'complete'. :) JimKillock (disputatio) 12:03, 26 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Visual Novels

Salvēte! Tīrō sum in hāc rē et, nisi fallor, haec est pāgina quā plērumque statuuntur vocābula ad rēs novās dēscrībendās. (Sciō macra litteramque j in ipsīs pāginīs nōn convenīre, modo hīc ita scrībam)

Quōmodo liceat "Visual Novels" vocāre? "Fābula vīsibilis" mihi vidētur, sed nōn licet vocābula fingere, neque cēnseō esse fontem ūllam honestam, quā tālia nōmina inveniam.

Quid arbitrāminī?

Anglicum visible Latinitate aetatis aureae est aspectabilis. Anglicum novel = "mythistoria." Ergo: "Mythistoria aspectabilis"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Āh, nec cōgitāvī dē cōnstantiā pāginārum inter sē. Grātiās!

Bonam esse aestīmō vōcem, ad summam. At nōnnihil dubitō, quod "Visual Novels" nōn praecīsē longa sunt (etsī multa tam longa sunt quam Biblia). Anglice tamen nōnnumquam "short novel" dīcitur prō fābulīs minōribus, itaque id haud contrōversum esse cēnseō, tantum mentiōnem facere voluī.

Liceatne nunc pāginam fingere? Cum lēgī fingere verba illicitum esse, colligere nōn potuī modum aptum eārum decenter ōrdiendārum. Cui sunt tālia cōnfirmanda?

Formula {{Convertimus}} uti potes; sic:

Mythistoria aspectabilis est...

Notae

etc. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:16, 21 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Hec nostris manibus dat vobis premia Christus

hallo, versuche das zu übersetzen. Mein Vorschlag wäre: "Durch unsere Hände schenkt Christus diese Krone". Der Text ist hierher: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/NoodkistPendantenBrusselseOriginelenGondulfus01.jpg. Bin mir aber nicht sicher. Oder "Gewinn"? Müsste das dann nicht "praemia" heißen? Schreibfehler? Aus dem Zusammenhang und der Darstellung würde ich eben "Krone" sagen. Was haltet Ihr von dem Vorschlag? mfg+danke Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 10:50, 20 Martii 2021 (UTC)

... oder "Preis" Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 10:52, 20 Martii 2021 (UTC)

In ritu christiano verbum praemii non raro ad praemia aeterna referebat. "Praemia" = n./pl./acc.

=> ec (=ex) nostris manibus (aus unseren Händen) dat (gibt, überreicht, schenkt) vobis (Euch) pra(e)mia (Lohn, praemia=prēmia; addo: "aeterna") X (Christus)

Mihi apparet, ut superius angeli duo ("es nostris manimus") ad inferius hominem fidelem ("vobis") de praemiis aeternis (loco supremo) dicant. Videtur, ut homo ea praemia directe videre non possit ... Andreas Raether (disputatio) 11:59, 20 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Cum Andrea de praemiis consentio (scriptores mediaevales e pro ae scribere solent). De primo verbo incertior sum. In libris Google varias reperio interpretationes huius inscriptionis: "HEC/HAEC" vel "ECCE" vel "I EC" (?). Peritus palaeographiae non sum, sed egomet video HEC (cum ligatura H et E?), itaque HEC NOSTRIS MANIBUS DAT VOBIS PRAEMIA Χ⳨ sit "Durch unsere Hände schenkt Christus diese Löhne". Lesgles (disputatio) 17:22, 20 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Gratias tibi. Wisi enim ad minim nuntius. Vielen lieben dank für die schnellen Rückmeldungen. Der Link ist sehr hilfreich. Danke. Kannte ich nicht. "Löhne" ist also "richtiger", gemeint ist die Krone. mfg+danke Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 17:52, 20 Martii 2021 (UTC)

superstite tandem etiam ipsi marito uxore

Dear colleagues, for an article that I'm currently writing on Hieronymus Bock (for the Dutch Wikipedia), I encountered a reference to the following sentence: "Ex eâ filios 5 et totidem filias suscepit, qui liberi omnes, filio uno et filiâ exceptis, suo obitu parentum mortem praeverterunt, superstite tandem etiam ipsi marito uxore." (see Freher, P. (1688). Theatrum virorum eruditione clarorum: 1235; right column, third indention). The first part I was able to translate as "With her he had 5 sons and just as many daughters, all of whom, except for a son and a daughter, preceded in their passing away as children the death of their parents," The problem is the last part: "superstite tandem etiam ipsi marito uxore." I guess 'superstite uxore' is an ablativus absolutus. Am I right to translate this (with some previous help of a Dutch colleague) as: "with the wife eventually also outliving her husband."? The thing is that I encounter different statements in various sources as to whom of the two, Bock or his spouse, died first. Translating this one correctly could help a lot. Thanks in advance. 77.164.133.132 23:01, 26 Martii 2021 (UTC)

The Latin is a little bit puzzling at first sight: if some authors have understood it differently, one can sympathise. But "ipsi marito" is to be taken as a phrase; it can only be dative; hence, as you quite rightly say, "superstite uxore" is an ablative absolute, and it was the wife who survived her husband. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 27 Martii 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: thank you very much. If you ever need a translation of some Dutch text, feel free to contact me on my Dutch TP, and I will gladly reciprocate the service. 77.164.133.132 18:21, 27 Martii 2021 (UTC)

De poemate Amanda Gorman

Poema recitatum ab Amanda Gorman cum inauguratio Iosephi Biden esset, dignum videtur ut in latinum convertatur ; exempli gratia :

Si vitam aequiperaturi sumus aevo nostro

Tum non in ensibus nitetur victoria

Sed in singulis vinculis a nobis effectis

Hic adest terebratio in nemore pacta

Collis quem ascendimus

Si modo audemus

[If we’re to live up to our own time

Then victory won’t lie in the blade

But in all the bridges we’ve made

That is the promised glade

The hill we climb

If only we dare]

Nonne ita censetis ? (ego capax id facere non sum)

In singulis vinculis = in every shackle/bondage (aliter non possum intelligere). Bridge = pons, cur non? In all the bridges = in omnibus pontibus.

Terebratio in nemore = drilling in grove? perforation in grove? Mirabile est. Glade = pratum, pratum in nemore, in silva.

In versibus 4-6 nec in Anglica nec in Latina versione constructionem syntacticam intelligere possum, sed fortasse auctrix ipsa sic volebat. Et de primo versu (vitam aequiperaturi') disputatio possibilis est, sed non tam necessaria, ut de vinculis et de terebratione. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:52, 4 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Conatus meus (liberius, certissime erroribus):

Essemus - si nostris facti

Praemia nec ferris

Omnia et pontīs [pontibus]

Ecce futura

Collem ascensuri

Si modo ausi - essemus

Andreas Raether (disputatio) 20:56, 6 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Asa, Albertus Magnus

Hello folks, could anybody help me translating into French or any modern language the following quote from Albertus Magnus for the French article fr:Ase fétide ? I understand the main points, but fail in providing a proper, complete translation :

• Asa duarum est specierum, foetida videlicet et odorifera, non fortem habens odorem. Est autem ignea herba, sed foetida est calidior; propter quod etiam est sicca in natura. Disrumpit autem ventositates ex resolutione sua, et cum hoc est inflativa, quia calor eius humores convertit in vapores, et resolvit sanguinem congelatum in ventre; et quando ministratur in cibariis, facit bonum colorem, et abscidit verrucas, quae sunt sicut clavi. In epilepsia vero habet operationem pyoniae. Cum autem dissolvitur in aqua et fit ex ea gargarismus, clarificat vocem statim. Nocet autem stomacho et hepati. In coitu autem fortitudinem praebet, et provocat menstrua et urinam, et confert solutionis ventris antiquae et frigidae . Posita etiam supra morsum canis rabidi et aliorum venenosorum, aut bibita, confert multum.

Thanks a lot ! --Tricholome (disputatio) 11:48, 7 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Bonjour Tricholome, Excuse-moi, j'irai plus vite si je traduis en anglais, alors: Asa is of two kinds, the fetid and the aromatic (lacking the strong smell). It is a herb of [the element] fire, but the fetid is hotter because it is also dry in nature. It dislodges windinesses through its dissolving, yet it is inflative [flatulent], because its heat turns humours into vapours, and it dissolves blood that is congealed in the stomach; and when it is given in cooked foods, it gives a good colour [to the face or skin], and brings off warts that are like nails. In epilepsy it has the effect of paeony [i.e. it is anticonvulsant]. When it is dissolved in water and a gargle is made from it, it immediately clears the voice. It is harmful to the stomach and liver. In sexual intercourse it gives strength, it provokes menstruation and urination, and resolves an ancient [!] and frigid stomach. If placed on the bite of a rabid dog or other poisonous creatures, or if drunk [by one who has been bitten], it gives great benefit.

The French article is very interesting. I myself have written about asafoetida, but I did not know until now about the nomenclature problem. As you already know, most Wikipedias deal with this subject under the title Ferula assa-foetida. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 7 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Multas gratias, Andrew Dalby ! I added your translation (translated back to French) in the article. For the rest, I'll write to you on my page. --Tricholome (disputatio) 20:38, 7 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Conversio Francogallico-Latina

Hello everybody. I am so sorry to don't use latin, but I just wanted to ask the question if you know a webside to translate few therms from french to latin. I can translate from latin in french, but not from french to latin. For example, Gaffio can't help me to make the translation from french. Thank you Aigurland (disputatio) 09:02, 8 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Roman numerals

Hi, I know I posted here previously after I stumbled across Latin Wikivoyage in Incubator, so I asked if anyone is interested in contributing to it but looks like no one is. This post is not related. I’m an editor in Middle English Wikipedia. In Middle English Wikipedia we have decided to use Roman Numerals in our articles and are currently in the process of replacing existing Arabic Numerals with Roman ones. Roman Numerals were used by the Romans and this Wikipedia is in Latin, the language of the Romans (correct me if I’m wrong and you are writing in Church Latin), so I find it interesting that you chose to use Arabic numerals. I agree that Arabic Numerals are easier, but I think that when we write in ancient languages we should stay as close as possible to how people in the past wrote (sometimes it’s impossible but here it’s possible). I just thought that after we made that decision in Middle English Wikipedia it would be appropriate to inform the community of Latin Wikipedia so that you can discuss weather or not to implement a similar. I don’t think I will participate in the discussion of wether or not it should be implemented in Latin Wikipedia because I’m not an editor in this wiki. Btw, feel free to help converting numbers to Roman numerals in Middle English Wikipedia. If you plan to copy paste from a converter, put attention on the lines above the letters that represent multiplication by 1,000. You can copy letters with lines above from this page. If you want to ping me at Middle English Wikipedia, remember to type Wp/enm/Ping and not just Ping. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (disputatio) 20:24, 9 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for telling us about the Middle English Wikipedia decision. The argument about ancient languages doesn't apply to Latin without nuance, because Latin isn't an ancient language only: it was a medieval and Renaissance lingua franca of Europe and it is a modern international special language of science and religion. Writers of Latin began to use Arabic numerals roughly 550 years ago and that fashion was almost universal with Latin writers by about 450 years ago. Roman numerals are still used, of course, especially in book titles and rubrics, also in stone and bronze inscriptions, and they remain an alternative way of writing ordinal numerals: we often use them here, in text, especially in naming centuries.

I wasn't around when our decision was taken, more than 15 years ago now, but I strongly favour Arabic numerals for us. It's the standard in tens of thousands of PD Latin sources all over the Web. [See for example Hofmannus, Lexicon Universale, 1698, which is the largest printed Latin encyclopaedia.] NB: people who write Latin aren't always fluent with Latin numerals and often make mistakes in long numbers -- watch out for this, because such mistakes can be difficult to correct! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 10 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

And not only do writers make mistakes in writing large numbers: readers are often weak in speaking them. (While reading in Latin, I sometimes find myself thinking large numbers in my native language.) Which is why some of us prefer to write numbers out in words, rather than numerals. (You might consider doing so in Middle English.) Similarly, we spell out names that ancient Romans would have abbreviated, so we render L. SVLL. (seen on coins) as Lucius Cornelius Sulla and TI. IVL. CAESAR as Tiberius Iulius Caesar, and if we had occasion to do so, would render M. TVLLIVS M. F. M. N. M. PR. COR. CICERO (seen in inscriptions) as Marcus Tullius Marci filius Marci nepos Marci pronepos Cornelia tribu Cicero. Yes, that's his name, spelled out in full! (He was effectively Marcus IV, son & grandson & great-grandson of men of the same personal name; in less formal circumstances, he'd have been just plain Marcus Tullius Cicero.) Also, as you see, we use modern typography, with upper- & lower-case letters, not to mention italics and boldface. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:12, 10 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Let me echo everything that Andrew has said. Unlike Old English and Middle English, Latin never truly died. Like any living language, it evolved over time, in grammar & vocabulary, resulting in medieval expressions that would have had Cicero howling with laughter (or despair). Since the Renaissance, however, the pedagogical & public standard has been the norms of the golden age of roughly the first century BCE and the first century CE. Of course new words are sometimes invented to accommodate new technologies & concepts, but instead, old words occasionally receive new metaphorical senses; for example, bullets shot from guns—unknown to the ancients—are glandes, the classical word for acorns, and many people utterly ignorant of Latin have heard of the glans penis, the acorn of the penis. For numbers lower than a hundred, some of us prefer to help readers out by using words instead of numerals (whether arabic or roman), with certain exceptions, as for measurements, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style; and you might consider doing that in the Middle English wikipedia. Btw, what you're calling Church Latin is just plain Latin, unless you're referring to the pronunciation (not the syntax) used now at Rome, which differs in several ways from the pronunciation typical of the golden age, which has been reliably reconstructed on well-established linguistic principles and is taught in secular academies. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:34, 10 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Care Iacobe Amate! Unde scimus Latinitatem mediaevalem/ecclesiasticam Ciceroni risum movere? Multa ecclesiastica Latina elegantissime pacta habemus. Sine monachis christianis diligentissime manuscripta facientibus multa classica - inter quae multa Ciceroniana! - non tradita essent! Num traditio Sanscritae praeferenda, ubi in cursu temporum lingua magis magisque (artificiose) complicata facta est? Ceterum etiam Moyses lingua Hebraica moderna gauderet. Quoad pronuntiatum: mihi sic dictus pronuntiatus scientificus restitutus horrori maximo est. Praefero naturalem ecclesiasticam versionem Italicae similem. Ex hoc facile intelligitur me non esse hominem scientificum sed idiotam. Commodum democraticum Vicipaediae nostrae maximum: hic etiam idiotas commentationes facere licet. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 16:40, 10 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Etiam addam, ut multa opera classica mathematicae hodiernae Latine scripta sunt (ut haec Gaussiana apud Vicifontem), quos libros numeris Romanis transscribere impossibile est (e.g. $10x^{2}+5y$ esset $Xx^{II}+Vy$); litterae x, i, v, m, c in algebra et physica aliud significant. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:14, 10 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Lingua Latina non tantum a Romanis adhibita est neque solum ab Ecclesia Romana. Aetate enim recentioris Latinitatis homines plerumque litterati Latine opera in lucem ederunt, quae interdum stilum auctorum classicorum imitabantur, tamen non metuerunt ne novitates quoque expressionis linguae reciperent. Hanc quoque viam nos sequimur. Non intelligo cur Latinitas Romanis posterior reprehendenda sit. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 08:52, 12 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Statistica de numero operum Latine unquam conscriptorum

Omnibus spd. Id velim interrogare, utrum statisticam interretialem habeamus de numero operum Latine unquam (usque ad saeculum 18um/19um in Europa) conscriptorum cum libris aliis linguis scriptis comparantem. Magnopere mihi intersunt res ad numeros revocatae. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 14:18, 12 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Formula math

Quis formulas "{{math|''}} et "{{mvar|}}" emendabit ut recte in commentario de biquaterniis legantur? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 17 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Feci quod potui. Tchougreeff 11:47, 10 Maius 2021 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, Tchougreeff! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:37, 10 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Google question

Which is the true correlate of the desired article in the Myrias list: "Google" or "Google (machina quaesitoria)"? Both are marked with the Myrias formula, but that can't be right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:41, 18 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Ambae in indice myriadis adsunt, et corporatio et machina quaesitoria. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:58, 18 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Ah, OK, recte mones—but it seems a bit like overkill. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:05, 18 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Est fortasse institutio omnis mundi potentissima ... Cum Iacobo nihilominus consentio: confectio duarum paginarum, de societate mercatoria et de machina quaesitoria, venationem bis captam redolet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 18 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

But at least this state of affairs enabled us to gain three new points over at Meta today: two points for Lesgles's creation of "Google (machina quaesitoria)" and one point when I added enough material to push (the preexisting) "Google" above the 8K line. Both articles, too, will raise the median length of Vicipaedia's articles, which yesterday stood at 2,831 octeti. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:11, 18 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Macte, Iacobe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 18 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Epigraphia ad ostium sacro in caemeterium

da mir schon so oft hier so gut geholfen wurde, versuche ich es noch einmal. Habe ein Bild gemacht: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kruzifix_am_Eingang_des_Friedhofs_Kornelim%C3%BCnster_Aachen_1.Mai._2021_(1).jpg

Oben am Bildstock ist eine Inschrift. Leider kann ich nichts erkennen oder lesen. Ich bin noch nicht einmal in der Lage zu sagen, ob es Deutsch oder Latein ist.

Eine bessere Auflösung ist hier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kruzifix_am_Eingang_des_Friedhofs_Kornelim%C3%BCnster_Aachen_1.Mai._2021_(4).jpg

Der Bildstock ist wohl von 1703 (1763?). Was unten steht, kann ich leider auch nicht erkennen.

danke + gruß

P.S. ..... ist die Überschrift syntaktisch richtig? :) Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 16:59, 2 Maii 2021 (UTC)

"...Antritt" (Ende der ersten Zeile) / "des" (Beginn der Sekunde)

Mihi videtur Theodisce scriptum esse. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:26, 4 Maii 2021 (UTC)

"...deß Zeit" am Anfang der zweiten Zeile"? Und wenn's Deutsch ist, am Ende ein Adjektiv auf "-ig"? Sigur (disputatio) 14:23, 29 Maii 2021 (UTC)

What does it take

What does it take these days to arouse the magistrates from their slumber? Not even the confestim delere formula does the job. More than thirteen hours have elapsed, and against "Encyclopaedia" they're still ignoring the sordid surprise of "Encyclopædia." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:26, 5 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Ignosce mihi! Proximis septimanis saepe moechabar apud pelicem in Vicipaedia Esperantica quae seductorie a me petivit ut ibi commentarios quam plurimos conficerem. Valde contritus spondeo ac polliceor me reversurum esse ad uxorem seniorem Latinam! Giorno2 (disputatio) 15:18, 5 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Mihi etiam! His diebus non apud Esperanticos, sed sub chirurgis Niortii in urbe morabar. Domum nuper reditus litteras Latinas rursus suscipiam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 5 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Tibi, Iacobe, gratias vigilantiae tuae. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:08, 5 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment at meta

Hi there. This is third comment I’m leaving here with the first being one informing about the existence of a test wiki Latin Wikivoyage at incubator, and the second one being one informing about a new policy in Middle English Wikipedia that we decided to use Romans numerals. Despite the fact that I haven’t replied in the second one I took your comments into consideration and with some large numbers I write Arabic numerals in brackets. However, this is about something else.
I submitted a request for comment at Meta which can be found here. I requested that they start allowing Wikipedias in ancient languages. I won’t list all the arguments you can see them in the request for comment. I know that Latin isn’t a dead language it’s still alive but LangCom may still reject new wikis in Latin due to it being an ancient language. Even if not, I figured that people interested in Latin might be interested in other ancient languages as well so that’s why I left this comment here. If you support this initiative please write this with a few arguments in the discussion section of the request. It will be truly appreciated. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (disputatio) 11:41, 25 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this information and link. I have added a comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:28, 25 Maii 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (disputatio) 17:29, 25 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Request for your feedback on improving the Content Translation tool for Latin Wikipedia

Hello Latin Wikipedians!

Apologies as this message is not in your native language, Please help translate to your language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to your community, the Latin Wikipedia, about the Content translation tool. We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 were translated using the Content Translation tool; 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. The deletion rate and the tool's low usage signals a problem or deficiencies that might be peculiar to Latin Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia. Also, it is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

So we, the WMF Language team will like to get answers from members of your community on the following questions: • What deficiencies do articles created with the Content translation tool have that makes them not of good quality? • What makes it challenging to use the tool to create content in your Wikipedia. • How can this tool be improved to make it more user-friendly and efficient to add good quality content in your language Wikipedia?

We believe that the answers to the above questions are good ways to get insight into improving the tool for your community and others. Please, feel free to provide us feedback in this thread, or you can also email us your feedback using the title of this message as your subject.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your participation.

UOzurumba (WMF) (disputatio) 10:43, 26 Maii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF Language team.

Yes, it was a good idea to contact us. Machine-translated "Latin" articles have been appearing here for many years, and they always have to be deleted unless someone is prepared to rewrite them, because, sadly, no machine has yet learned to write real Latin.

We would have been happy to report some of the most persistent faults to those who create such tools, but no one until now has made contact, so we did not know where to report! Congratulations, you're the first.

Article creators, in general, dump a machine-translated page here, don't explain their reasons for wanting a Latin page on that subject, and don't come back. (This may often be because they don't know any Latin: if they did, they would know that what the machine has produced for them is not Latin.) This is a really big issue, don't ignore it. Smaller wikis have to be concerned about quality: see en:Scots Wikipedia#Controversy. Each article in bad "Latin" that readers can't understand makes Vicipaedia worse -- unless someone can take the time to rewrite it. We are all busy people, but if someone asks, one of the frequent Vicipaedia editors will often help to improve a new article.

I do not know what proportion of machine-translated articles currently come to us via the content translation tool: it is of course also possible to paste a Google translation into a Vicipaedia page without using any tool. Google-translated "Latin" is easily recognisable, and always needs to be deleted, but I don't know whether the content translation tool uses Google Translate or some other sources of "Latin". For this reason, I suggest that you post a sample translation of an article, maybe to your talk page. Tell us what language you started from. If you do that, I or someone else will certainly help you to see some of the things that are going wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

As a rule, machine translations don't have a clue. Perhaps an example will help. I just obtained this via Google Translate:

I put a book on the table

Posuit et mensam in libro

The Latin actually means "And he put the table in the book," or "He put even the table in the book." (He must be a novelist!) Here we have an intrusive et ("and" or "even"). Where did it come from? The machine has found the right words for "put" and "book" and "table," but it mangles the syntax that interconnects them. It doesn't know that "I put" and "He/She/It put" aren't the same thing. Now look what happens when we change the tense:

I shall have put the book on the table

Posuit me et librum in mensa

This means "He put me and the book on the table." Aiieeeee!!! Another one:

Her father was fishing

Her pater fuit optatissimo piscabantur

The Latin actually means "[Unknown word] father has been, they were fishing for the most welcome." Where the "most welcome" (or "most wished for" or "most desired") came from is a mystery, and we should be astonished that the program doesn't know such a common English word as her. Kudos, though, for recognizing that the verb 'to fish' is deponent in Latin (active in meaning but passive in form)! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:56, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Since Google Translate claims to know Samoan, I tried translating the first sentence of Genesis into Latin.

Na faia e le Atua le lagi ma le lalolagi i le amataga

In principio fecit deus caelum et terram, ut

Up to the comma, this means "in the beginning God made the sky and the earth," and hey, that's pretty good! The program even knows that the prepositional phrase goes at the beginning in Latin, whereas it goes at the end in Samoan. (However, the Vulgate uses creavit for this fecit.) But what's that ut doing in the Latin? It's a conjunction that often means "how" and "so that," and it's utter nonsense here. Where could it have come from?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:24, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Another example - this english Wiki text: "The BBC World Service is an international broadcaster owned and operated by the BBC."

"Digital translation": BBC Service est in mundo an international broadcaster appropriatae et operabatur per BBC " Prima vista translation would take a lot of time, as this incomprehensibile is not a real latin sentence, 40% not converted - retranslated (good will) in english would yield something like that: "BBC Service is in a world an international broadcaster of a fitted - that even was operated by BBC."

An analog manual translation attempt: BBC World Service (Corporationis Emissariae Britannicae ministerium mundiale) est emissor radiophonicus internationalis Corporatione Emissaria Britannca habitus actusque. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:26, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in, Iacobe and Andrea. These are good examples, and they explain why "Latin" text of this terrible quality has to be deleted.

The New Testament (among Iacobus's examples) is a unique case: it is a literal translation from Greek, and the Samoan and English versions are also literal translations from Greek. Both the Greek and the Latin are in a very simple style. Google Translate can evidently manage this register of Latin, to some extent, but it is not the appropriate register for an encyclopedia.

Ah, maybe Google Translate, among its infinite corpora, was clever enough to find a "crib" as we would have called it at school -- a Latin New Testament. Public Domain, luckily. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Eine Randbemerkung dazu: Daß maschinelle Lateinübersetzungen kaum gelingen, ist für uns hier bei der lateinischen Wikipedia auch ein Vorteil. Wir wissen, daß wir nicht ersetzt werden können und können uns täglich sicher sein: "exegi monumentum aere perennius!" Das kann man bei modernen Sprachen nicht sagen, da ist der Computer oft eindrucksvoll leistungsstark beim Übersetzen. Sagenhaft gut zum Beispiel ist das Übersetzungsprogramm von englischsprachigen Wikipediaseiten für Esperanto; es liefert oft bessere Übersetzungen als so mancher von Menschenhand gefertigte Artikel! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 19:54, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

The examples given by Jacobus admit at least some understanding. Often the result is similar to lorem ipsum, i.e. outwardly resembles Latin, but cannot be understood in any way. — I would use machine translation if the results required moderate editing, but this tool just doesn't work. Latin Wikipedia has enough articles translated from other languages (see template Attributio on the talk pages), but these are human-made translations. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:54, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)

Here is the new gift of machine translation — Kichkalnya. Hopeless. Maybe it's better to turn it off altogether? Or at least put a warning "If you are not sure that you can fix the result, do not use". Or better: PLEASE, do not use". Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:31, 28 Maii 2021 (UTC)