Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor

• Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2006
• Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2007

stipula

This was a misunderstanding. I do not want to ban pages which have no interwiki links. --Rolandus 21:50, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Biographical stubs

Fine! I didn't realise you had edited Dumeril. I agree with your points ... but I'm not a serial writer of biographical stubs. I'll leave further discussion on this to you and Hendricus (and maybe Massimo??)

I've copied the discussion to Disputatio usoris:Hendricus, since he raised the issue. Andrew Dalby 18:17, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to conservator. If you think curator is a better bet, let's go for it. Andrew Dalby 20:35, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Stephanus Colbert: I Am America (And So Can You)

I Am America (And So Can You) is indeed the title of the book in English.

And he thinks that's clever? IacobusAmor 00:35, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Universitas Athenaea Manilensis

Hi! I would just like to verify the translation of the name of this article: Universitas Athenaea Manilensis. The official (and preferred) name of this university is Ateneo de Manila University and the name is taken to be English (The name is made up of the Spanish name "Ateneo de Manila" appended with the English word "University".). Ateneo (Spanish) here would translate to Athenaeum (in Latin? or is it English?), but the university prefers not to use this translation.

I ask a question about this since I found a picture of a diploma given out be the university, along with a translation from the Translation Service Centre of Australia. The diploma is written in Latin:

http://www.bautistafamily.com/cgi-bin/lognthrow.cgi?pagekey=a-diploma

The first line in the diploma goes "Athenaei Manilani Curatores..." (The translation goes "As administrators of the Manila Athenaeum (Ateneo de Manila)"...).

So I'd just like to see if the translation of "Ateneo de Manila University" into "Universitas Athenaea Manilensis" is correct. I hope you can help in this matter. Thanks! 122.53.107.13 11:49, 26 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Littera K

Jacob, sorry if I came out judgmental on K vs C. I think, at the root of this there is a question of perspective. It seems to me that you regard Latin as a language that has continued to develop throughout the Middle Ages and is still continuing to do so. In my view, on the other hand, Latin has been 'dead', i.e. fixated as a code, ever since it stopped being spoken as a mother tongue. One reason for this would be that later Latin writers still aspired to copy the classical model rather than embracing the changes (or decadence, as most of them would probably have viewed it themselves) undergone by medieval Latin style and vocabulary. Another reason is rather cultural - having been educated in the spirit that writing Latin means using 'attested' Ciceronian patterns and trying to make oneself understood to an hypothetical ancient audience, even when dealing with modern issues. Which of these two perspectives to adopt, might ultimately be a matter of convention rather than one that can be argued logically.--Ceylon 19:49, 26 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but Ceylon, emotionally I'm on your side! It's just that we have so many things in the modern world that don't fit into the Ciceronian vocabulary that one despairs of ever being able to follow the ancient code precisely. And of course we know absolutely that Latin changed in many important respects between the third century BCE and the third century CE, during which time it was being spoken by native speakers—so change has been with us always. ¶ With regard to C vs. K: we can't deny the ambiguity of C: in Ciceronian Latin it's /k/, in Indonesian it's /č/, in Fijian it's /đ/, and (if I remember rightly) in some Slavic languages it's /ts/; whereas K is pretty much /k/ everywhere. ¶ I think an encyclopedia should avoid ambiguity wherever it can, even (sometimes) at the expense of stylistic purity. That's why we can go along with arabic numerals instead of roman ones, and dates in the form of "26 Ianuarii 2008," though it must horrify Cicero's ghost. And it's why I have no problem with headings that are bare nominatives (e.g., "Vita") instead of the elegant practice of using prepositional phrases (e.g., "De vita sua"). The point of a reference work is to convey information, and to do so cleanly—which usually means without unnecessary verbiage. IacobusAmor 20:08, 26 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

De Catalaunia/Catalonia

Xaverius Iacobe s.p.d. Apud Daiam mutavisti Catalaunice meum pro Catalane. Utri Catalaunicus et Catalanus sunt in manuscriptis Medii Aevi, ita puto Catalaunicum quoque recte esse. Etiam puto Catalauniam non Cataloniam nomen verum esse. Sed est solum sententia mea.--Xaverius 16:37, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Commentarium dixit linguae nomen esse Catalana, ergo ratiocinatus sum nomen adiectivum esse Catalanicus, -a, -um (non Catalaunicus, -a, -um). Debentne congruere nomina substantivum et adiectivum? Fortasse optimum adverbium ex Catalana est Catalane! IacobusAmor 17:30, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Recte dices. Ego concedo. Nunc si vis et potes, vide hoc textum ex Instituto cervantes:

La historia de Cataluña (cat. Catalunya), como la de los demás territorios hispánicos, se puede rastrear bastante bien a partir de los nombres de sus lugares. Sin embargo, no en todos los casos tenemos solución o explicación clara para ellos; los nombres más antiguos todavía se nos resisten y resulta complejo disipar las dudas sobre su origen. Sin ir más lejos, el mismo corónimo catalán, documentado desde 1114 como Cathalonia, plantea muchos problemas y, aunque se han aportado diversas propuestas etimológicas, ninguna se ha podido probar con seguridad. De entre las posibles interpretaciones, la más aceptada es la que hace derivar Cataluña de Lacetania, nombre de la región que ocupaba el antiguo pueblo prerromano de los lacetani (aproximadamente entre Cervera, Igualada, Manresa y el Vallés), a través de una introducción de tipo culto. El desarrollo del corónimo sería parecido al siguiente: Lacetania > Catelania (con metátesis de las consonantes) > Catalonia (adaptación análoga a otros nombres como Vasconia, Pannonia, Brittonia…) > Cataluña. Otras explicaciones, que generalmente parten del gentilicio catalán, parecen menos probables y presentan igualmente grandes dificultades fonéticas: así, se ha señalado que catalani o catalans podrían proceder de castellani o castellanos ‘habitantes de castillos’, por la abundancia de las fortalezas en este territorio; o que desde montecatanus, derivado culto de Montcada, se pudo formar un *montecatalanus, que, reducido a catalanus, se extendería luego por toda la región. Atrás ha quedado el hipotético nombre de *Gotholandia ‘tierra de godos’, supuestamente impuesto por los francos desde el otro lado de los Pirineos.

Texto lecto, video manuscripta Medii Aevii qua legit fortasse non optimum fons erant--Xaverius 17:42, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

De dubitationibus tuis

• divissio = I made a mistake: it's divisio, -nis
• amplctebatur = See in Words.

Gratias tibi ago ex opera mea inspiciendo. (Thx 4 checkin' my work.)--Le K-li 02:39, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

2 stipulae

Thanks :-) --Rolandus 14:38, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Xth (and) biggest" non est "Xth-biggest

At Disputatio:Cuba#"Xth (and) biggest" non est "Xth-biggest" you didn't have the time to provide the idiomatic Latin... I'm presuming you will have when you are reading this message. (I tried to write "second oldest" as "secunda veterrima" at Factio Independentiae Portus Divitis but the eagle eyes of Rafael caught me out.) Harrissimo 01:14, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC).

First: I seem to recall that it's rightly hyphenated (second-oldest); otherwise it refers to the second of those that are oldest, and how then would we know which one is the second one, since they're all in the same set ("oldest")?—which isn't what you want it to mean, and is in itself a clue that it's an English idiom, rather than a concept that bears word-for-word translation into other languages. Second, I don't think I got a final ruling from the classics professor I'd consulted, but my instinct is to translate not the words, but the idea: second-oldest = 'second in age'; second-biggest = 'second in magnitude'; and so on. Does that take us to the bare ablative (aetate secundus, magnitudine secundus)? IacobusAmor 12:09, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the list

Iacobus, thanks for adding to my list Usor:Rolandus/List of articles all languages should have (from simple) (which is - and should be - just a copy from simple:; but I will recycle the information, you already provided there; your work will not be lost), however, I found a method which detects most cases automatically: Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages. Until now I had to add only 6 special cases manually and it detected that we might already have (at least) 709 of 1114 "important" articles and it guesses, that there are 405 articles we might not have. This is a guess. (Btw, can we say "city" is "urbs"? At the moment we have "urbs" which has an interwiki link to "town".) The list Usor:Rolandus/List of articles all languages should have (from simple) follows another idea, this REDIRECT-idea. If you want to provide proposed translations for pages we do not have, you better use Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnes Vicipaediae habeant which is maintained by Iustinus. At the moment my list Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages cannot be used for proposed translations, it just describes, what we have. The manual translations there are just to help the system with detecting what we already have.

• If you think that we already have an article, which is listed "red" (= non existant) on Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages, please tell me and I will correct the mechanism.
• If you want to provide a proposed translation for a page we do not have, better use Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnes Vicipaediae habeant, however, this is Iustinus' list.

Sorry, if this sounds complicated. The reason is, that I try to get the best results with minimal work. I have given this explanation, too: Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus#The_new_list. Until now, I do not have a solution for providing a list, which is sorted by the size of the "important" stipulae but I will continue thinking ... --Rolandus 07:05, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

If I may butt in :) If the list of 1114 contains both "city" and "town", it is culture-specific: some languages, such as French, don't make the distinction, and some (like Latin, American English and British English, to take three examples) would have very different definitions for the two terms. But this doesn't help Rolandus, who is trying to match up Vicipaedia to the list ... Andrew Dalby 10:06, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

If it "detects most cases automatically," something isn't working, because virtually every red link that I checked in Usor:Rolandus/List of articles all languages should have (from simple) should have been blue. ¶ Yes, urbs corresponds with 'city' and 'town', but 'town' is more usually municipium. IacobusAmor 12:42, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

This is the page with the guesses: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages. --Rolandus 18:44, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Now my script uses the entries from page Usor:Rolandus/Translations to provide translations in the first column of Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages. The changes take effect when I run the script the next time. --Rolandus 09:52, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Puellula

Hi IacobusAmor,

I am slowly (as far as my time permits) filling in text to accompany the tables.
In some cases, when the rule is pretty clear and undisputed, I have not added every example I could find but only so many as might serve to illustrate the rule. This is the case with 1st and 2nd declension nouns and adjectives ending in -er, -era, -erum, which have either -erulus/a/um or -ellus/a/um. Since puera is only found in archaic texts I have not added the pair puera - puella, though it would be an example. I have, however, added puer - puellus/puerulus.
Only in those cases where the rule is not clear or a matter of dispute ( -ulus > -ellus/-illus and 3rd declension words whose stem ends in -t or -d which have either -ulus/a/um or -iculus/a/um) have I added everything I could find in order to extract a pattern or rule from the data.
Best wishes, --Fabullus 13:33, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Why not include all known examples? That could be a service to humanity! IacobusAmor 14:54, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I notice, in editing Melpo Merlier, you changed "double quotes" to 'single ones'. Single quotes is my own habit when writing, but my impression has been that in Vicipaedia (and Wikipedia) single quotes aren't used, or very little, so when writing here I always use double quotes. Should I change, do you think? Andrew Dalby 12:37, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)

The academic standard over here is that double quotes are used for reproductions of previously uttered material (i.e., "quotations"), but single quotes are used for glosses of terms in foreign languages. Complicating the matter is that all punctuation always goes to the left of double quotes, but to the right of single ones. Further complicating the matter is that since time immemorial, typesetters have set periods & commas in the font that's immediately to their left (roman, italics, bold, whatever), whereas people who don't have a clue about the tradition of typesetting, but can use a keyboard, often (and I daresay usually) set punctuation in the font immediately to the right. As Monk's themesong reminds us, "It's a jungle out there." IacobusAmor 12:45, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your explanations (fructibus, notus doctusque etc.)

I always like your precise corrections which allow me to ameliorate my Latin. I wish you happy Easter--Massimo Macconi 12:28, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Glad to oblige. You might improve your skills faster if you challenged yourself more by writing articles other than bio-stipulas. I've tried to write about a variety of topics, and in the process have learned a lot of new words & patterns. IacobusAmor 20:41, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Aratrum

Thanks for Aratrum but I do not know what you mean with your message concerning the "other" page. The best page for new pages is Usor:Rolandus/Existing pages. If I realize that something has changed I'll run my script locally and upload the updated list of the 1000 pages. --Rolandus 19:41, 4 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I landed on that page (the one where I posted a notice about Aratrum) because your own link had sent me there. That's all I know! IacobusAmor 23:54, 4 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it. First I wanted to write: "Tell me there", where "me" = (link to my userpage) and "there" = (link to my talk page), however, I found a better solution. ;-) --Rolandus 06:27, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Word order and Japanese

Grataias ago for your corrections on res Ferdinand Marcos. I can't help but mention that Japanese (I'm living in Japan again) is an aid in understanding Latin. They put the declinitive markers at the back of the object word(I forest see= watashi wa hayashi WO mimasu ), thus if you thinking this way, makes it easy to form the declensions (change the WO to an accusative declension suffix). Also , sorry but it feels better to use the Japanese word order eg. Subject Object verb(transitive) instead of in English , subject verb object. cheers.--Jondel 00:45, 11 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

List2

Iacobus, I am quite sure that we are below 250 now ... see Usor:Rolandus/List2. Thanks for your help. Now, I'll try to provide the article sizes. --Rolandus 12:00, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

"Ah aims to please." Yes, knowing the article sizes will help us expand appropriately. Is the total in octeti the number that we should be looking at? IacobusAmor 13:35, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It seems that he simply counts the characters (= 1 Byte = 1 octet), hovever, he considers excluding the section with the interwikilinks. The octeti will be a good guess for the value he is using. --Rolandus 14:24, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to seeing the numbers (in which your formula will exclude interwiki links). A check of the sizes of some randomly found texts suggests that we shouldn't have much trouble boosting a lot of articles above the 10,000-octetus level. IacobusAmor 14:51, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus#List_of_1000_pages

I have answered on my talk page. --Rolandus 19:20, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rolande. I'll be busy with other things till maybe the middle of next week, but it's a good topic to pursue, so let's come back to it when we can. IacobusAmor 20:37, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Rank 44

See Vicipaedia:Taberna#Rank_44 :-) --Rolandus 08:19, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

de pagina belisarii

Salve IacobusAmor, Belisarius sum. Tibi gratulaturus sum cum paginam belisarii corrigas. Ad maiora! --Belisarius-Βελισάριος 14:10, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Sizes

Usor:Rolandus/Sizes is a first try. It measures the octets. To be done: The interwiki links and the comments should be ignored. --Rolandus 17:52, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

That's really useful, Rolande. Gratias! Obviously, since we get big points for going over 30,000, people with time & opportunity should work to expand these immediately: 30828 Argentina (the Mediawiki people must not be counting it, because they show that we have twelve articles of 30,000 or more, and this is the thirteenth in your ranking; maybe its interwiki links are coming into play in your calculation but not theirs), 28676 Afgania, 28100 Aethiopia, 27910 Neptunus (planeta), 27614 Relativitas generalis, 26703 Aegyptus. I myself shall be hard-pressed for time until the semester ends, in a few weeks. IacobusAmor 18:03, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

In the updated version I tried to guess the comments + interwiki links but this has to be fine tuned. --Rolandus 18:52, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Now if people would get busy, we could raise our score. IacobusAmor 03:14, 22 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Why redlinks?

Thanks for adding the Legge item to summus Pontifex. But why the five redlinks? Are you sure that we need separate articles on each of those five titles, Summus Pontifex (Roma antiqua), Summus Pontifex (imperator), Summus Pontifex (Iudaeus), Summus Pontifex (papa) and Summus Pontifex (Legge)? The third and fifth, maybe; but the first and second seem to me to be covered by Pontifex and the fourth by Papa. Andrew Dalby 12:18, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC) ... And, now that I look, surely Ananias was the Jewish high priest: so item no. 5 is the same as item no. 3, isn't it? Andrew Dalby 12:39, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I was putting this discretiva page into the ideal style of discretiva pages; the pertinent link is on the left, not least because the term being disambiguated often comes in various spellings, and the leftmost part of the line is the best place to show that. In Papa (discretiva), for example, putting the variants on the left readily highlights them: Papa, Pápa, Pāpa, PAPA, Pa-Pa, Papae, Papar, and probably other terms. I think this is how en: handles disambiguation. ¶ My approach in general, here & elsewhere, is that one day, when Vicipaedia has 5,000,000 articles, each of these summi pontifices will certainly have its own article, and everything we do now should ease growth later. (That's why I continue to deplore the style of doing bio-stipulas with all the birth-and-death data in parentheses at the start, from where it'll eventually have to be extracted to be put below, causing no end of wasted busywork.) And no, a personage in a play is most certainly not a historial person. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is not Iulius Caesar, and each deserves a separate article. Legge's Ananias is not the same as the ancient Jewish high priest. You get the idea. Must run. Really busy for the next week. IacobusAmor 13:13, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying there shouldn't be an article for Legge's Ananias. Maybe there should, one day, but your link wasn't to that. It was to Summus Pontifex (Legge), i.e. to a title once given by Legge to one of his characters in one of his books. If we have an article for all such words in all books, five million is a tiny fraction of the total number of articles that would be required. Andrew Dalby 14:36, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

My larger point (aside from particulars like Legge) is that you've changed the style from the standard one, seen, for example, in Venus, to a more-confused-looking one. IacobusAmor 01:59, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it did look confused. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that your solution introduced a different kind of confusion. Look at it now and see if you like it any better.

I think our discretiva pages usually work OK, although there's a fair bit of variation among them. I don't feel sure whether we ought to standardize them more ... after all, the problems they deal with are not always precisely similar.

A rule I usually try to follow when creating a discretiva page (but I made it up for myself, it has no authority) is to give, if possible, precisely one blue link on each line. Thus, in the current state of Summus Pontifex, because the Jewish high priest is a redlink, there is instead a blue link to Religio Iudaica. If this can be done, then for each line the user has somewhere to go. The redlink remains as an indication that we need an article on the Jewish high priest. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Category change

I just found myself correcting Categoria:Buddhismus to Categoria:Religio Buddhistica on a series of pages, and then realised I was undoing something you had begun and, I guess, not had time to finish. Sorry about that. Luckily, if you want to change a category name, there's now a way to do it easily and completely. You go to Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests and give the old name you want to delete and the new name you want to substitute. UV's bot will then do the job. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The name of the category wasn't the result of extensive deliberation—but the suffix -ismus should be awfully handy for all sorts of things. Would we rather call Fabianism the Motus Fabianus or just plain Fabianismus? Would we really rather speak of Episcopalianism ("the general form of doctrine, worship and structure based on the tradition of the Church of England") as Generalis Anglicana Doctrinae, Cultus, et Conformationis Forma Episcopaliana rather than just plain Episcopalianismus? I don't see why Religio Buddhistica is apter than Buddhismus, especially because not all Buddhist practice is religious. IacobusAmor 16:32, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't comment on the above -- my answer is, yes, I agree with you that Buddhismus is a neater term, I only made the change to ensure that the articles were not lost, and could once more be found by way of a category page. I always do this if I come across a red category and don't immediately see sufficient reason to create the missing category.

This then merges with the point you made at that song page whose name I can't remember ... I have heard of a rule-of-thumb that it's better not to create a category until it is likely to have at least a few members. The reason, I guess, is that people do search through the category pages, and if there are masses of such pages containing just one entry they will find the search frustrating or useless. So, although such very detailed categories may one day exist, I think one can go too far -- jumping the gun, as it were -- in creating them some years ahead of time. So, if a page is to be found by the category route at all (and it is thought to be best that our pages should be found, by all routes possible, and therefore read!) it is a good idea to put on it categories that actually exist. Which means that people, browsing through the category pages, can find them. Well, that's the logic I work with, anyway.

Having said all that, I wonder whether it would be a good idea even now to have a series of annual categories -- just slightly more general than the ones you were thinking of -- called Opera anni 2008 or something like that. They could then include books, artworks, buildings, songs, all the works of the human mind, that are to be dated to a particular year. Andrew Dalby 09:21, 16 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Sevsenco

Hi! There is a lot of page you can rename...Michael Gorbachev ---> Michael Gorbasev, Maria Sharapova ---> Maria Sarapova, Petrus Tchaikovski ---> Petrus Saikovski... However, I think it's not a good way to transliterate!! :) Btw, can you link me a page explaining how to transliterate from Russian, ne erram again?? Good work and sorry for my errors (and my English)! Osk 10:13, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

It's an experiment. An alternative, and perhaps a preferable one, is <Siefsienco>. According to the models you cite ("Gorbachev" et al.), you should originally have transliterated the name as <Shevshenko>. Using <sc> is horrible here because it makes everybody—except Italians & certain Roman Catholics—say [sk] where you want them to say [ʃ]. ¶ The models you cite may be taken from the traditional English method of transliteration, and there's no good reason that should prevail. Let's consider them tentative. ¶ For an example of [tʃ], see Socolata; you'll note that the German source wants to render the first phoneme like the German <sch> or the English & Romance <ch>; but again, there's no good reason why those systems should prevail. IacobusAmor 12:40, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting, maybe, that there has been discussion of transliterating names from Cyrillic script on the page Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis. Andrew Dalby 20:24, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody should prepare a table of transliteration from Cyrillic. ¶ In which we might have Sieftsienco or Sieftsienko (Anglice: Shevchenko, not an uncommon Slavic name), Gorbatsiov (Gorbachev), Siarapofa (Sharapova), Tsiaikofskii (Chaikovskii, Tschaikowskii, Tchaikovski), etc. IacobusAmor 20:39, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

The Regula is Ševčenko (or Sevcenko), Gorbačev (or Gorbacev), Šarapova (or Sarapova), Čajkovskij (or Cajkovskij) etc., in accordance with ISO. Until there is consensus on another rule, this is the one everybody should stick to.--Ceylon 21:00, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ceylon. ISO is used also in Italian wiki... (ISO <Gorbačëv>) Osk 21:57, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

<Ševčenko> is OK if we allow diacritics, but why do we allow diacritics? <Sevcenko> horribly mispronounces as [seukenko], so that's out. And <Gorbacev> mispronounces as [gorbakeu]. So Osk tells us that Gorby is ISO <Gorbačëv>, and Ceylon tells us he's ISO <Gorbačev>: which is he? <Čajkovskij> & <Cajkovskij> look strange, at least to English-speakers, in view of en:Tchaikovsky. IacobusAmor 23:07, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, so many of the sounds are missing in Latin, period. Unless you keep the diacritics or otherwise indicate it's supposed to be pronounced as foreign, they're all going to be horrible mispronunciations. It's probably better to leave things systematic with the rules, whatever they are, unless you have some kind of evidence that [seu'ken.ko] is somehow more horrible than, say, the pentasyllable [si.eut.si'en.ko], which the classical pronunciation would make of Sievtsienco ([j] is restricted in its environment—the Romans did not have it after consonants, except sometimes across morpheme barriers, as in abieci; normally it must be [i]). On a side note, if C is was actually that horrible a substitute for [tʃ] in Latin letters, it's a wonder so many languages thought to equate them, from English to Romanian; even Slavic languages like Russian have interchange from к to ч (плакать/плачу, etc.), so many people are used to relating /k/ to /tʃ/ (more, I'd wager, than relate /tsj/ to /tʃ/—at least in Europe). —Mucius Tever 02:44, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Re: "[j] is restricted in its environment—the Romans did not have it after consonants, except sometimes across morpheme barriers, as in abieci; normally it must be [i]."—It wouldn't be surprising if people in the midst of everyday life (as opposed to poets, reaching for metrical precision) pronounced, say, <ciere> as [kje:re], rather than [kĭe:re]. ¶ As for the conversion of the Cyrillic <ч>, that's the sound of [tʃ], and in at least one common case, Vicipaedia renders its Spanish & English analogue by an "s" (see Socolata). So there you have it: phonetic [tʃ] = Cyrillic <ч> = Latin "s." I'd still argue for <si> though, because fresh in one's ears is the Polynesian method; in Samoan, for example, English <choke> becomes <sioka>, and (for a voiced example) English <Joe> becomes <Siō>. IacobusAmor 03:20, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

And here's another problem with /ʃ/, the same #$%#$% phoneme: see our lemma for Aung San Suu Cii. Birmanice, the name is rightly ), which English renders as Aung San Suu Kyi; however, that last bit is pronounced, not like [kji], but rather like [ʃi:], for which Cii (Latine = [ki:] is (I assert) worse than Si or Sii would be. The original contributor spelled it Tsiis, but noster Andrew changed it to Cii, and so here we are with another mess. Perhaps "Kyi" was formerly Birmanice pronounced [kji], and that's what Andrew was approximating? IacobusAmor 03:54, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

"I will not be blamed!" (quote from some novel or other). The Burmese pronunciation is [tʃi:] rather than [ʃi:]; not that that's much help. With Burmese, as with Tibetan, pronunciation is a long way from spelling. The c (if I can think back to that decision through the mists of time) was intended to suggest the widespread post-classical Latin pronunciation [tʃ]; the letter c is sometimes handy for such a purpose, allowing us to reserve k and s for their well-known and unambiguous uses.

But there are no perfect answers. A year ago, when Aung San Suu Kyi was first named here, I was feeling my way with Vicipaedia and foreign scripts. I am now more confident than before that we should adhere as closely as we can to some independent standard. And for Cyrillic, luckily, that's not too problematic. Andrew Dalby 09:01, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Since I like to be accurate (or pedantic), let me add that the Burmese spelling of that last syllable, if transliterated IPA fashion, would come out as /kjañ/. Since the history of Burmese spelling goes back via medieval Mon to late-antique Pali, with compromises and clever adjustments at each stage, it would be hard to be certain whether in Burmese the kj or the añ were ever pronounced anything like the way they look. Andrew Dalby 09:11, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The Burmese pronunciation is [tʃi:] rather than [ʃi:]."—I've marched with hundreds of Burmese chanting her name, and they all say [ʃi:], not [tʃi:]. Maybe this variance reflects the difference between the literary language and the colloquial one—in which case Vicipaedia should probably recognize both variants. ¶ Re: " The c . . . was intended to suggest the widespread post-classical Latin pronunciation [tʃ]."—That's the kind of ambiguity I think we should avoid! In the classical pronunciation, c is always and ever [k], and that's how I'll pronounce it if that's how you write it. Avoiding that ambiguity is why we might prefer s there, and k in words with a genuine [k]-sound, like Tokio (compare Tocio), for which we shouldn't be surprised if attested sources of Tochio or Tochium can be found: our medieval & renaissance forebears were reluctant to use k, but they knew that ci would mislead their readers, so they inserted an otherwise gratuitous h. Likewise we have Pechinum for what might better have been spelled Pekinum (or Pekino or Pekin). If, as we're told upthread, we can freely deploy things so startling as modern ISO diacritics, we can surely deploy k & y, letters that have more than 2000 years of attestation in Latin. IacobusAmor 11:43, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

As to Aung San Suu Kyi, it seems that while en:wiki and my teachers are in agreement with me on the pronunciation, you have hundreds of native speakers in agreement with you; we must diagnose free variation in current Burmese, I guess ...

And I notice this on the en:wiki disputatio page: "Listening to a Burmese pronouncing her name, the final part sounds like IPA:[tkʰì] rather than IPA:[tʃì]." Further free variation??

It's possible—nay, even probable—that the pronunciation of a shouted or chanted word (as at a political rally) will differ from the pronunciation of a quietly & carefully spoken word. IacobusAmor 13:36, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

On the spelling, though, in my pedantic paragraph, I should have said krañ not kjañ as the literal equivalent of the Burmese spelling. Sorry about that.

As to c, we may possibly never agree, Iacobe! But it is worth reflecting why early Latin had three letters, c, k and q, for what is widely taken to be the same phoneme. My answer, for what it's worth, is that they represent three allophones, the q being the furthest back, and the c being the furthest forward -- i.e. the most palatalized of the three. So I would agree with you that "in the classical pronunciation c is" always and ever /k/, but not that it was always and ever [k]. Andrew Dalby 12:12, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. English has at least two of those: the /k/ of keep (in the front of the mouth) and the /k/ of cool (in the back). ¶ Also, note that Latin c in castra moved forward in the mouth to become English ch in -chester. IacobusAmor 16:29, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

[tʃ]: summarizing the opinions

How to transcribe in Latin the sound given as IPA [tʃ]?

c—Ceylon (secundum ISO et Regula)

c—Andrew Dalby ("to suggest the widespread post-classical Latin pronunciation," sed solum snte e et i?)--Ceylon 06:28, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)--Ceylon 06:28, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

č—Ceylon (secundum ISO et Regula) + Osk

ch—Vicipaedia (s.v. Chilia, Massachusetta)

s ante i—Vicipaedia (s.v. Sina)

s ante a, e, o, u—Vicipaedia (s.v. Socolata)

si ante a, e, o, u—?

tch—Vicipaedia (s.v. Petrus Tchaikovski)

ts ante i—Vicipaedia (s.v. Domus Tsingiana et Pronuntiatio Ecclesiastica: "ci pronuntiatur tsi") + IacobusAmor Ecclesia Catholica (Qingdao = Tsingtao: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dtsng.html)

tsh—Ecclesia Catholica (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dtshu.html)

tsi ante a, e, o, u—IacobusAmor

tz—Vicipaedia (s.v. Tzadia, Tzekia)

I'd prefer to keep s(i) for [ʃ], as in Sicagum, and according to the practice of the Ecclesia Catholica (e.g., Sinyang = Xinyang: --Ceylon 06:28, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dsiny.html). IacobusAmor 16:29, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I only come into this because you remembered my spelling of Aung San Suu Cii, a year ago, and I tried to recall my reasons for it! My current opinion, as I hinted above, has a different starting-point. I think we should find a good international standard for transliterating each language written in a non-Latin script, and adhere to it. Andrew Dalby 17:15, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

There's the complication that we should cite attested forms when they exist— but of course we don't have to cite them as the primary spellings if we develop rules whose consistent transliterations are at variance with them. IacobusAmor 17:32, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with you on that. Andrew Dalby 17:35, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

As for the use of ISO forms, I don't see why they couldn't profitably appear in parentheses, while the lemma remains as Ciceronian & nonnewfangled as possible, like this:

Demetrius Demetri filius Siostakovits (Russice: Дмитрий Дмитриевич Шостакович, Dmitrij Dmitrievič Šostakovič). IacobusAmor 17:40, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

One reason against doing that is that it gives the newfangled "nonnewfangled" form a sort of unmerited validity compared to the ISO form—the invented form gets the dignity of the lemma, while the standard but non-Latin form is getting the parenthetical aside. —Mucius Tever 21:11, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

The nonnewfangled form would indeed get that dignity, but whether it would be merited or not is what we're discussing. IacobusAmor 22:03, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Except to further the cause of the Encyclopedia That Adjusts Inconvenient Facts To Suit Itself, I'd really have to say no. Foreign words are foreign, and it's not our place to nativize them; let them look foreign (hopefully putting aside the mysterious allergy to diacritics while we're at it), or let them be nativized elsewhere. —Mucius Tever 00:39, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)

As if Vicipaedia didn't nativize foreign words left & right, almost everywhere. Perhaps you're arguing that, for example, our lemma Vladimirus Eliae filius Lenin should be changed to Владимир Ильич Ленин? After all, "foreign words are foreign." IacobusAmor 02:24, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to respell words in characters recognizable to those who use the language, and this is what the rule saying to use the ISO transliteration is about; where we cross the line is when we try to invent new forms corresponding to how we think the Romans (or, for whatever reason, the Polynesians) would have spelled the words if they had borrowed them from an illiterate culture. As for the rule nativizing forenames, I have been thinking lately that it is a little bit broad in its application; but, as my understanding is that it's not a custom original to Vicipaedia, I can't pretend to hinder it here—I would, though, probably invent a slightly different rule, if pressed, for non-Vicipaedia use. —20:50, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)

To whoever wrote that: as with all living languages, "the Polynesians" borrowed many of their words from other languages without the benefit of literacy: they heard people speaking, and took the spoken words into their own languages. English check became Samoan siaki; chalk became sioka, as did choke; champion became siamupini; cold chisel became kolosisi: so we know that English [ʧ] became Samoan [s]. Similarly, English shilling became sēleni and cashier became kēsia: so we know that spoken English [ʃ] = Samoan [s]. With voiced consonants, English giraffe became serafa; jack became siaki (and Jack became Siaki); germ became siama; jam became siamu; jug became sioki; Joe became Siō; cabbage became kapisi; college became kolisi: so we know that spoken English [ʤ], no matter how it was spelled ("ge," "gi," "j"), became Samoan [s], with a tendency to be plain [s] before high vowels, and [si] before mid & low vowels and when the original [ʤ] was at the end of a word (before mid & low vowels, [si] usually becomes [sj]). That's the way living languages borrow: from the sounds of the words as spoken: they alter foreign words to fit their own phonology. It's a matter of personal regret that I seem to be the only person here treating Latin as a living language, rather than a dead one. ¶ Examples from all the world's languages could probably be adduced in evidence. A language at hand, via the internet, is Japanese, and you see how it adapts foreign words to its own phonology: alpha = aruhua, acre = eekaa, cycle = saikuru, kilometer = kiromeetoru, franc = huran, bolt = borutu, volt = borutu. The living Latin language will do the same. ¶ That's not to say that literary borrowing doesn't also occur in living languages, but it's a different process, involving artificial construction or even the deliberate revival of dead forms. Missionaries forced English jubilee to become Samoan iupeli instead of its naturally expected form, *siupeli; and by going back to the original Hebrew, they forced cherub to become kerupi instead of *selupi; likewise chariot became kariota instead of *selioti. Thanks to fastuous meddling, modern Samoan takes a nonnegligible number of words directly from ancient Hebrew and Koiné Greek (e.g., words for the concepts of "concubine," "eagle," "fox," "gold, "mustard," "snow," "wolf"). The natural process of borrowing is usually less obscurantist. IacobusAmor 13:25, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that; hit an extra tilde and thus my name didn't make it through. Anyway. There is more than one way that living languages borrow words—by sound, or by spelling. When borrowing by sound, some concessions may be made; it doesn't necessarily have to be an exact copy of the foreign word, and it doesn't necessarily have to be wedged into the borrower's phonology; for example, older Russian borrowed /f/ but not /θ/ in Greek words, though they originally had neither. When borrowing by spelling, concessions can be made as well, such as transliteration, or the shedding of diacritics. The rules for what kind of borrowing happens can be unpredictable: Japanese borrows from English by sound and ignores the spelling, but when it borrows Chinese words it takes the spelling and uses its own pronunciations. English tends to borrow both foreign sounds and spellings (so a French name, for example, will keep its silent final letter, and unusual sounds like /x/ or initial /ts/ may be retained among those who know how to pronounce them). A language that prefers to write phonetically might respell everything (like your Samoan example), or it might only respell some common nouns and leave others, and proper names, visually recognizable (as in Spanish or Italian, say). A borrowed spelling does not necessarily indicate an affected foreign pronunciation. At any rate, what the Vicipaedia should do should be based on what the Romans did, not arbitrarily what the Japanese or the English or the Samoans or the Spanish do. Pre-classically, of course, the Romans are known to have taken the Samoan solution; in those times the Greek φ, θ, χ, υ, and ζ made it through in borrowings as their nearest equivalents, p, t, c, u, and ss. But from the second century B.C. onward, including the classical period we hold up as a model to imitate, they'd already discarded that practice and taken to borrowing spellings: z was borrowed wholesale, sound and spelling; ph, th, ch, and y were written even though they were not, by many people, pronounced any different from p (later f), t, c, and u (later i). If the Romans were not squeamish about borrowing even entire letters from foreign alphabets to represent that language's foreign sounds, even if those sounds went unused, why should the much more moderate route of plain transliteration be rejected as too extreme? If the Romans had no qualms about inventing digraphs to represent alien phonetic units, why should that privilege be denied to those who borrowed the Romans' letters to write sounds not alien to them? —Mucius Tever 03:27, 23 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I think la.wiki should admit foreign names, so I agree with Mucius Tever (imvho latinising proper names is awful). Latins used Latin alphabet: that's why I think we should use the Latin alphabet (with diacritics) transliterating Russian (or Arabic, etc.) names. Osk 15:43, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Re: "latinising proper names is awful":—Latin has Latinized proper names since the recorded beginnings of the language. All languages adapt foreign words to their own phonologies. IacobusAmor 13:25, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was thinking today that socolata is a bad example for /tʃ/, without evidence that it is supposed to be an /s/ representing /tʃ/—it could just as easily be for the original Nahuatl x /ʃ/, which apparently the common /tʃ/ is an over-Hispanicization of; come to that, it may even come from a different indigenous language that did render it by [s], if there were any such. —Mucius Tever 20:50, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)

A small point off topic (sorry)- I've seen ch as a way of writing [tʃ], but then, how would [x] be written?--Xaverius 14:46, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by [x]? IacobusAmor 03:39, 24 Maii 2008 (UTC)

The [tʃ] (and all other phonemes) in proper names taken from languages which do not use the Latin alphabet should be rendered in different ways according to which transcription is standard for the language they belong to. This is what English does when writing Deng Xiaoping (where x is not 'ks') --Ceylon 06:28, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

In writing the name as Deng Xiaoping, we're ignoring diacritics that might indicate the tones, essential features of the words in the original language. This practice is common in English, where tonal marks are ordinarily omitted from names taken from Chinese, Navajo, Yoruba, and other tonal languages, and where the French café can be acceptably written as cafe, façade as facade, naïve as naive, résumé as resume, and rôle as role. Writing-systems can get along without diacritics. IacobusAmor 13:25, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

or Kyat (pronounced 'chat') or al-Qaeda (where q is not 'kw') - using standard transcriptions like these is becoming more common even with Russian names such as Čechov / Chekhov. Latin allows foreign last names unaltered, as in Vinstonis Churchill (not Siursill), which is no more or less problematic than allowing Čajkovskij (which, however strange for the English eye, is the standard transcription used by scholars worldwide). --Ceylon 06:28, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

That's a problematic use of the notion of standard. If English, the world's universal language (aside from Latin, of course!), were taken for a standard, then Tchaikovski might be regarded as the standard transcription. IacobusAmor 13:25, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Indeed—and the choice of ISO for transliteration was motivated not merely to have a standard (standards are many), but to have a relatively neutral standard not tied to some third language, and a standard that addressed many scripts (rather than consulting first one entity then another for rules when encountering different languages). —Mucius Tever 03:27, 23 Maii 2008 (UTC)

A good point, but reality is going to be messier. We've already seen that, for [ʧ], we've got attested Latin examples of "ch," "s," "tch," "ts," "tsh," and possibly "tz." Of these, the most frequently attested in the names of Roman Catholic dioceses may be "ts." IacobusAmor 03:39, 24 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Indeed—and the choice of ISO for transliteration was motivated not merely to have a transliteration (transliterations are many), but to have a relatively neutral standard offered specifically for international use (rather than consulting first one entity then another for forms when encountering different words, and producing forms de novo contra NOR when none can be found). Incidentally, I was thinking today that Sinae is a bad example for /tʃ/, without evidence that it is supposed to be a Roman /s/ representing an immediate foreign /tʃ/; disregarding the fact that the root Sin- is often considered to be from a separate source than the root Chin-, the word first came through Greek and before that, according to my dictionary, through Arabic, and it was the Arabs, or (if you reject that hypothesis) at least the Greeks, who turned the original sound ([tʃ]-like or not) into /s/, not the Romans, so I don't think it's a good idea to mark it as a Latin practice; they were just borrowing the Greek word. (Similarly, many Biblical names were Graecized before they were Latinized.) —Mucius Tever 06:53, 24 Maii 2008 (UTC)

If there were a genuinely Latin system of transcribing certain scripts (as English has for Russian, thus arriving at Tchaikovsky), this should be adopted. But I doubt such a system can be reconstructed for even the most common languages such as Russian, Chinese, or Arabic (much less for Samoan) - there will never be consensus on how to write dozens of strange phonemes, and even if there were one, it would have to be learned and followed by all Vicipaedia authors. This is why standard transcriptions are useful - because even if you are unfamiliar with say the Burmese system of using 'ky' for modern [tʃ], it is easy enough to check how the name is written in English. (Shouldn't this discussion be copied to Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis? --Ceylon 06:28, 22 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Re: "even if you are unfamiliar with say the Burmese system of using 'ky' for modern [tʃ], it is easy enough to check how the name is written in English":—It may be "easy enough," but people won't do it. They'll know that the Classical Latin consonant "k" is pronounced [k], and the Classical Latin vowel "y" is pronounced like the French "u," and so the Latinized Burmese name "Ky" is not going to be pronounced [ʧi] (except perhaps by people already familiar with Burmese culture). The Burmese name Ky and the Vietnamese name Ky, if they're written identically in Latin, are going to be pronounced identically. IacobusAmor 03:39, 24 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I was rather thinking about contributors to Vicipaedia, who can easily check in other wikipedias how to transliterate foreign names according to a widely accepted standard (rather than having to memorise concordances of peculiar Latin transliterations), than about readers. As far as readers are concerned, by your logic, they would be mispronouncing Kyat and Deng Xiaoping and al-Qaeda in the context of English or any other European language as well. In German, for instance, phoneme-grapheme equivalence is usually quite straightforward (as in Latin), but when you see a foreign name or loanword, everybody knows that they have to pronounce it according to the rules of its original language.--Ceylon 08:36, 24 Maii 2008 (UTC)

"Everybody"? You must never have heard Americans pronouncing the American names of non-American places: Beaufort (/ˈboʊfɚt/ "BO-furt"), North Carolina, but Beaufort (/ˈbjuːfɚt/ "BYEW-furt", South Carolina; Berlin ("BURR-l'n"), Ohio; Havana ("huh-VANN-uh") Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, North Dakota, and West Virginia; Montpelier (/mɒntˈpiːljɚ/ "mont-PEEL-y'r"), Vermont; New Madrid ("new MAD-rid"), Missouri; Versailles ("ver-SALES"), Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. People usually pronounce foreign spellings according to the phonology of their own language. ¶ Re: "by your logic, they would be mispronouncing Kyat and Deng Xiaoping and al-Qaeda in the context of English or any other European language as well.":—Thanks for pointing this out, because that's exactly what they do. For many Americans, al-Qaeda is "ahl-KAY-duh" (with the syllable "KAY" ruining all four of its original phonemes); for many Americans, especially military personnel who've served in the Middle East, Iraq is "eye-RACK." The man whose name used to be spelled Mao Tse-Tung was in America universally pronounced "mousey TONGUE," and of course Americans (and probably most Europeans) still pronounce Deng Xiaoping and the names of other famouse Chinese leaders without any sense of the original tones whatsoever. IacobusAmor 11:54, 24 Maii 2008 (UTC)

No doubt you are right, but this supports my analogy: If it is okay to use transliterations prone to mispronunciation in English, why is it not okay in Latin? (Since surely mispronunciations they are - whoever (Wade-Giles?) chose to transliterate Mao Tse-Tung (Pinyin: Zedong) this way, did not intend the last syllable to be pronounced /tang/ (but neither did he count on anyone getting the tone right).--Ceylon 08:08, 25 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know if this is a voting matter, but if it is I would like to express my support for the point of view defended by Mucius Tever and Ceylon: in the absence of a well-founded Latinised form of a name, we should conform to the ISO-norm. Moreover, if this produces a form that doesn't invite (by analogy) a certain declension, the form should be treated as indeclinable. Declension may then be provided by the addition of generic nouns ('de praeside Bush', 'in urbe Nouakchott', etc.) I also consent with Ceylon's suggestion that this discussion be moved to Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis. --Fabullus 11:52, 25 Maii 2008 (UTC)

De pandurio

Xaverius Iacobe s.p.d. Potes paginam pandurium delere? Ita Pandura Hispanica ad pandurium movebo (nunc pandurium ad panduram redirect (?)). Tum in pandura, paginam novam creabo de pandura Romanorum. Vide etiam paginam disputationis pandurae Hispanicae. Gratias ago!--Xaverius 19:00, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Eheu, non scio quomodo delere commentaria! IacobusAmor 19:10, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Tunc magistratu quaerebo?--Xaverius 19:22, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Commentarium iam delevi. --Amphitrite 19:29, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

gratias

Thanks a lot for your correction to {{Translatio hebdomadis}}! --UV 20:48, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Laurentius Arabiae

Thanks for editing Laurentius Arabiae. I see that there were a few sentences you couldn't figure out. Here's what I was trying to say:

Inusitate pellicula mulieres dicentes habet. {?} was supposed to say: Strangely, the film has no speaking women (i.e. no women with speaking parts) Apparently I forgot the non...does the sentence make sense if I just add that?

My teachers said that in Latin we should always think concretely. That means that we shouldn't make films have things: films are inanimate, incapable of doing any possessing; further, possessed women might be slaves! Put the focus on the women, perhaps as: Mirabile dictu, nemines in pellicula feminae dicunt. IacobusAmor 01:28, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen the plural nemines, and dicunt always has some kind of object, so what about: "... nullae in pellicula feminae loquuntur." --Fabullus 08:52, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I'd never seen the plural nemines either, so I looked the word up in Cassell's, but misread "nemo homo Pl., Cic." as 'plural, Cicero', when (by dawn's early light) one sees that it should be 'Plautus, Cicero'. As for the verb, I looked that up too, and Cassell's this morning is still saying that dico can be used without "some kind of object," and in fact "most commonly" without an object it means 'to say, speak, make a speech', with examples ut dixi, ut dictum est, ars dicendi, pro reo contra aliquem pro aliquo apud centum viros, all of them from Cicero, with the second one from J. Caesar besides. IacobusAmor 12:23, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of precision, dico can be intransitive, but in those cases it usually means to give a speech.--Ceylon 09:38, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

See remarks above. Even so, isn't that what actors (on stage, in a film) do? They give speeches? ¶ Would loquor be best then? Or is some third possibility better? IacobusAmor 12:23, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Loquor seems adequate. But you could also use something meaning to perform (implying a speaking role) such as prodeunt, producuntur, inducuntur, partes agunt.--Ceylon 14:30, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Primis inquadraturis vir birotam motorificam agit. Subito arietat {?} moriturque. was supposed to say: In the opening shots a man rides his motorcycle. Suddenly he crashes and dies. I found the word "arieto, -are, -avi, atus: to collide, to stumble/trip". Do you know of a better word?

Cassell's says arieto = only 'to butt like a ram'. There may not be a good Latin word for 'to crash', but the simple word occido, -cidere, -cidi, -casum 'to fall (down dead)' could cover the whole idea: Subito occidit. IacobusAmor 01:28, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

What about: collidi cum aliqua re, illidi in aliquid ? --Fabullus 08:52, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

The form in Cassell's is conlido. A reason that Subito occidit sounded possible to my ears was that I once (on Easter Island, of all places) heard the equivalent in Spanish: un caballero se cayó anoche, which, in context (you'd've had to have been there), meant 'A motorcyclist crashed and died last night', though it "literally" may seem to mean only 'A gentleman fell last night'. But of course Spanish isn't Latin. ¶ Note that Wikipedia's account doesn't use any form of the concept of crashing: "Lawrence was fatally injured in a motorcycle accident. . . . The accident occurred because of a dip in the road that obstructed his view of two boys on their bicycles; he swerved to avoid them, lost control and was thrown over the handlebars of his motorcycle. " IacobusAmor 12:23, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how I could translate those better? Everything else was okay? --Secundus Zephyrus 19:44, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the lemma

Incidentally, the lemma could be unidiomatic. In view of Scipio Africanus and other Latin worthies who had geographical cognomina (or agnomina), most particularly in this connection the Roman emperor Marcus Iulius Philippus, appellatus Philippus Arabs, wouldn't the title Laurentius Arabs (or Arabicus or Arabius or Arabus) be better for the film than Laurentius Arabiae? And then for the man himself, perhaps the entire lemma should be something like "Thomas Eduardus Lawrence, usitate T. E. Lawrence, nomine sibi ficto T. E. Shaw, appellatus Laurentius Arabs" ? IacobusAmor 12:40, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Not Arabs however, this would be an ethnic cognomen, which is not what we need here. Note that Scipio was called Africanus, not Afer, as the playwright Terentius was. Arabicus seems best, in view of such cognomina as Britannicus, Germanicus, Gothicus etc. --Fabullus 13:22, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Macte, Fabulle! Now I've gone & made a page for him, Thomas Eduardus Lawrence—but it's rough, and others may want to Latinize it further and augment it. IacobusAmor 13:47, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Sectiones paginarum

Hi Iacobus, I noticed that you like converting == Sections == into ==Sections==, but you should look at our rules that say the opposite: Vicipaedia:De recensendo#Sectio.--Rafaelgarcia 00:30, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that there's such a rule. It dates from prehistoric days (2003). Maybe we should change it. I also delete the second (and more) of multiple spaces. What was the rationale for inserting unnecessary & meaningless spaces? How did those spaces improve the behind-the-scenes workings of the code? IacobusAmor 00:40, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I don't know at all why there are useful but I noticed that everytime that UV runs his bot, he has it insert the extra spaces.--Rafaelgarcia 01:11, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the second (and more) of multiple spaces and deleting spaces at the end of paragraphs: I do that as well if I run across such spaces when editing an article.

== Section == versus ==Section==: These spaces do not at all affect how the rendered page looks like, this is just a matter of readability of wikicode. Other wikipedias seem to favour the version with spaces over the version without, and this is also what the MediaWiki software defaults to (try clicking on the "Level 2 headline" button above the editing box). We should find a consistent rule on this though. See also Disputatio Usoris:UV#Page format. --UV 13:05, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Since it affects only the code, and not the finished result, it presumable doesn't matter. To my eyes, ==Section== looks more "readable" than == Section ==, but we can be sure that others will promote the converse! IacobusAmor 13:17, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Word order

Usually, Iacobe, when you correct Latinitas in an article, I say to myself "how right he is!" But on one issue you surprise me. There are two examples at Publici Angliae comitatus. That very phrase is one, and the phrase "administrativae Angliae partes" is the other. It seems definitely unusual, to me, to use the word order ADJ + attached genitive + NOUN. Is there lots of support for this? I would have placed the ruling noun first, if anything, rather than last. Andrew Dalby 14:16, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Bradley's Arnold, p. 19: "When a noun is combined both with an adjective and a genitive, the usual order is this—Vēra animī magnitūdō. True greatness of mind." Note how neatly the three words interlock! I'd guess that if their senses interrelated differently, the pattern would differ; so, exempli gratia, 'the greatness of a true mind' would be magnitūdō animī vēri or animī vēri magnitūdō. IacobusAmor 16:41, 31 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Note that by Bradley's Arnold's standard, the most stylish Latin for United States of America is Foederatae Americae Civitates, in contrast with which the presently prevalent formula, Civitates Foederatae Americae sounds pedestrian. IacobusAmor 23:22, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

The pattern singled out by Bradley's Arnold tickles the synapses, but it's much too complicated for beginners, who must learn the basic tendencies: adjectives follow nouns, adverbs precede verbs, non immediately precedes whatever it negates, and so on. But here we have a variant in which grammatically less bound matter intrudes between tightly bound items, giving us an adjective or a demonstrative pronoun, then a genitive or a prepositional phrase or more, and finally a noun governed by the adjective. I happened upon excellent examples of this pattern today in Caesar's Gallic War:

Haec eodem tempore Caesari mandata referebantur = This at the same hour to Caesar message was brought back = At the same hour, this message was brought back to Caesar (1.37).

Hunc murus circumdatus arcem efficit = This the wall surrounded citadel effects = A surrounding wall effects this citadel (1.38).

What fun! IacobusAmor 23:38, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC). ¶ More:

crebri ad eum rumores adferebantur = frequent rumors were brought to him (2.1).

Caesar duas legiones in citeriore Gallia novas conscripsit = Caesar enrolled two new legions in Hither Gaul (2.1).

in communi Belgarum concilio = in the general council of the Belgae (2.4). IacobusAmor 10:31, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that in those examples that conform to Bradley's Arnold, like vera animi magnitudo and communi Belgarum concilio, there is no ambiguity to which noun the adjective belongs. Foederatae Americae Civitates and administrativae Angliae partes, on the other hand, are ambiguous and therefore should be avoided. From this point of view, I have no problems with Publici Angliae Comitatus. --Fabullus 10:51, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Any ambiguity in those two examples occurs only in the nominative, and the readings 'The States of a United America' and 'The parts of an administrative England' are highly unlikely. What worries me, rather, is that the first term involved in a hyperbaton is usually emphatic, or at least is a restrictive adjective, and Foederatae may not be functioning in either manner here, though I suppose the whole name could be standing in contrast with Foederatae Mexici Civitates. IacobusAmor 15:04, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

de Absolutivo

Salve Iacobe, could you take a quick look at absolutivus, and see if it makes sense? I was getting confused with the grammatical terminology in Latin.--Xaverius 12:02, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Technical terms in grammar are a special breed. I'm unsure about some of them, but I've (quickly) done what I could. Busy day. Have to run now. IacobusAmor 12:17, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Verbum cum obiecto directo = Verbum transitivum

Verbum sine obiecto directo = Verbum intransitivum

Ceterum, Xaveri, quid est "obiectum directum verbi agendi"? An "obiectum directum verbi transitivi" dicere velis?

--Fabullus 12:37, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Ita vero, Fabulle, transitivi sit! Gratias vobis ago--Xaverius 12:59, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Tao

Laudandum est re Tao! I wanted to translate it to Latin but you beat me to it. I like those philosophies like Buddhism. I'm into meditation. Cheers.--Jondel 00:10, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I've done additional ones for you. Feel free to amplify them! IacobusAmor 23:40, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the red links. Thanks. It takes forever time. I translate first to Interlingua then Latin.--Jondel 04:32, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Super-Besse

Actually all the other wikis have it at Super Besse, without hyphen, and I was following their lead. However, the official website has Super-Besse, so I agree with your move! Let's be different! Andrew Dalby 17:30, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at the schedule in the article en:2008 Tour de France, which indeed has the hyphen, as do the French, Italian, and Spanish versions of that article! (The Dutch & German ones don't, however.) IacobusAmor 17:40, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Translation help?

I was wondering whether you could translate "If the wheel of fortune does not turn in your favor, it's to be turned by one's own hand." I tried translating it myself (si Rota Fortunae apud te minus esse gratiosum rotabit, manu tua ipsa rotanda est) but it's probably wrong, so I'd like to see how you'd translate it? It would mean a lot. --BiT 12:46, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Martinus Weinek et Gaspar Capparoni

Good evening to you, i'm Italian user. Kindly I would have need that you helped me in the translation of these two articles, they are too much small and my Latin is very bad, I have studied only unfortunately him one year to school. As Friday will be the birthday of Capparoni, I would want to make him this gift, he is Roman and I makes also then it famous in Latin language. For Mr Weinek I have written something, but since you are English of mother language, I kindly ask always you, if you can also help the article taking I sprout from the English. I hope that you will welcome this application of mine, in attends him I offer you my kindest greetings from Italy--Lodewijk Vadacchino 17:45, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Image not appearing

+38 Indiani Sioux eodem tempore + So why doesn't the image appear? I copied it directly from en: --Iacobus

If an image does not appear after copying a link from en: it is probably because the image has been uploaded only to en: but not to Wikimedia Commons. Only images uploaded to the Commons are available to all wikipedias. I could not find the image on the :en:Hanging page, perhaps, if it is not copyrighted, you can move or request that it be moved to the commons.--Rafaelgarcia 16:52, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry then! I own an original print of an 1863 engraving of this execution (the largest mass hanging in U.S. history), and can eventually photograph it with my new camera and upload it here. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 16:58, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I found the image on Wiki en: it says its not copyrighted so I can move it to the commons, although your image might be nicer perhaps.--Rafaelgarcia 17:15, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded it to the Commons, it should appear now.--Rafaelgarcia 17:20, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Anglice "Italian by country not by customs". Ital. "Italiano di nazione non di costumi". Blackcat 13:08, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Natio = 'a being born, birth'; hence 'a tribe, race, people, esp. uncivilized; a species, stock, class' (Cassell's Latin-English dictionary). 'Country' in this sense in Latinitate Aurea et Vicipaedia usitate est civitas et res publica (etiam fortasse patria, terra, regio). In any case, welcome to Vicipaedia! IacobusAmor 13:20, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Well Dante Alighieri also used to say "Florentius natione non moribus", meaning - as well as me - that he didn't take his birth place's and folk's bad habits :) (of course you perfectly knew what I meant). Blackcat 13:26, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. ::winkwink:: But be careful when you disparage Italian manners. (Iosci, ubi es?) IacobusAmor 13:38, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Anyway if you can read Italian you can as well have a look at my Italian user page. I have several regional accounts that redirect to the it. user page. Blackcat 13:29, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Nationalis

Jacobus, I know I'm a tironis but why are you insisting on using classical latin?!! PLEASE STOP ! THERE ARE SO MANY ARTICLES HERE IN NEO. How about the science, technology and new math articles. Are you going to insist on using classical. WHY IN PARTICULAR ARE YOU FOCUSING ON MY ARTICLES?!! Go somewhere else! BY THE WHY THE REASON I WAS USING IUCATANIAE WAS BECAUSE I WAS PATTERNING IT AFTER THE LOCATIVE OF FIRST DECLENSION(Romae). Please read the TAO article that you translated and please apply it. --Jondel 13:05, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly focusing on your articles, as any close examination of my collations will show. Locatives occur only with towns and small islands. Which do you think Yucatan is: a town? or a small island? On my maps, it's a huge body of land. Ergo, Iucataniae as a locative is impossible, as it violates Latin syntax. IacobusAmor 13:23, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Noted.--Jondel 13:36, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Re nationalis. The word apparently isn't classical. A natio of course is basically 'a being born, a birth'; hence it has transferred senses 'a tribe, a race, a people (especially uncivilized); a species, a stock, a class'. Cassell's has this distinction: civitas = 'body of citizens'; respublica = 'state'; natio = 'tribe, not highly civilized'. IacobusAmor 13:29, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I uhh , apologize for the outburst. I was referring to the GOMBURZA article.--Jondel 13:36, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy if you could have a look at the my proposed translation of en's template "CatDiffuse" at the end of Vicipaedia:Index_formularum_Vicipaediae_Latinae#Paginae s.v. Formulae Propositae. Is it all right in terms of content, language and technical stuff? --Iovis Fulmen 11:49, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

ob Paginam mensis gratias

Thanks for your corrections, Iacobe. --Rafaelgarcia 18:28, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I do what I can, but sometimes I want correcting too! IacobusAmor 18:32, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to learn more about the terms in your "Forma administrationis" article in the hopes of contributing to it, although it's taking me time to educate myself concerning the political terms. In particular, see the comment I put on the disputatio, which suggests that a term more like "Forma rectionis" would be more appropriate. (by the way we may want to move most of your disputatio into a separate subpage(like we do for the taberna) since it has gotten very long. If you'd like I can do it for you.--Rafaelgarcia 21:35, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Please do, but make sure I can find the archived section (if I'd ever want to). ¶ As for "Forma administrationis," that was begun quickly, on the spur of the moment, to counter gibberish that somebody had inserted into some other article, so feel free to have a go at it. Rectio may well be better, especially if Cicero said it was! IacobusAmor 21:48, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

OK I made the extra pages for previous years Disputationes. See the top of this page for the links.--Rafaelgarcia 22:19, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago

Hi Jacobus. I' ve seen your message about Dom Helder Camara. He was a great Theologian of Liberation theology, and I would like that he can have a little space, on the page, about this matter. My Latin is level 2, and sure that you'll write and speak it better, can you help me? Thank you for your help. I would like, if you have urgent messages or advices for me, please, write me in my page Usor:Rex Momo, so I' ll read quickly.

I tried to optimize a little the page of Camara, and I hope is good. If you'll have other erasures or work to do on it, tell me, so I' ll understand and learn.

Thank you for your help, write soon

Rex Momo 10:20, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

De: "He was a great Theologian of Liberation theology"—Then that's what the first sentence of the article should say, no? I don't know what the Latin for liberation theology would be, but surely the Vatican has had to develop such a term. IacobusAmor 12:05, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

De auctoribus Anglicis

I didn't delete your comment on the Taberna -- in case it looks as though I did! -- I just moved it up a bit, because it links with a discussion begun yesterday. Hope that's OK. Add any further thoughts. Andrew Dalby 14:59, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for your support. --BBKurt 05:42, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Legio Honoris

Tibi respondi in taberna. Gratumst, quod errorem animadvertisti! --Iovis Fulmen 08:54, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Crisna aut Krishna

Scio bene verbum "Crisna" in lingua latina non extat, sed certe Romani etiam non habuerunt litteraturam IAST. Puto si romanus verbum "kṛṣṇa" audiat, sicut "CRISNA" scripsat. Quom audirent Romani verbum Σωκράτης, Socrates, non "Sokrates", scripserent. [Scripsit David Brault.]

Hoc nomen sic scripserunt, sed nihilominus eis fuit littera K, et mos Vicipaedianus est universum translitterationis systema adhibere; ergo rogavimus num pro litteris Hinduisticis tale systema exsistat. IacobusAmor 18:59, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

"Puto si romanus verbum "kṛṣṇa" audiat, sicut "CRISNA" scripsat." Non certus est. Saepe cum Romanis fuit /r/ syllabica, in ER versa est, cum anaptyxe ante vocalem. Ita, ubi casus Latinus antiquus -os cum radicibus in -r amissus est, /r/ post vocales et /er/ post consonantes: *agros -> ager (per *agṛ, ut possumus rem scribere), Αλεξανδρος -> Alexander, etc. Etiam ubi RI fuit, saepe in ER versa est, rem similem indicans: tris -> ter, acris -> acer, et cerno pro *crino (cf. crevi, ut lino, levi). —Mucius Tever 19:29, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

OK, describing this in Latin would be cool, but I can't really have an intelligent discussion about this. OK, so what is this "mos Vicipaedianus?" Where is it said that that is the mos?

VP:TNP. In brief, as applies here, if it already has a Latinized form, good; otherwise, use a standard transliteration. In this case, actually, we can refer to extant Latin texts; the Bhagavad-Gita was translated to Latin about two hundred years ago. Schlegel subtitled it "Almi Krishnae et Arjunae colloquium de rebus divinis". (The nominatives in his translation are Arjunas and Krishnas, btw; we have first declension like Aeneas.) —Mucius Tever 19:29, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, that might settle the issue; however, those attestations predate the time that the en:International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration became standardized. Whichever method of transliterating Sanskrit is adopted in Vicipaedia, I'd hope that it's not dissonant with our methods for transliterating Slavic alphabets and other non-Roman writing-systems. IacobusAmor 19:51, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Mucius, that's cool. I accept that. You don't know where I could read on the internet the Schlegel translation of the Bhagavad-Gita, do you? That would be so cool. David Brault 19:53, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

It would. A copy seems to be on sale for $3000: http://www.prbm.com/interest/i.htm?translations-a-b.shtml~main. IacobusAmor 20:07, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

You can get it at Google Books. Here's a version with both Sanskrit and Latin; the Latin version starts on page 129 (page 166 of the PDF). —Mucius Tever 20:27, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!

Index zonarum temporalium

I was deleting pages marked "Non Latine". Since you've worked on this one, I didn't delete it without asking you: is it better to retain and Latinize it, or to give it up? Andrew Dalby 13:09, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

My "work" evidently consisted of marking it for Vicificanda and Latinitas -5. Feel free to abolish it! IacobusAmor 14:12, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Museum castelli urbis Stolberg

What exactly do you expect me to do with this article? I added an introductory sentence already. The .... confuses me. Please give me an advice. Thanks --~~BBKurt 10:43, 1 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Titles & lemmas ordinarily correspond with each other. If the title of an article is Museum castelli urbis Stolberg, the lemma of that article probably shouldn't be museum in uno parte castelli. (Also, pars is feminine.) IacobusAmor 11:12, 1 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

I think the requested changes have been done. Is this version okay? --~~BBKurt 13:55, 3 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Ita, OK. Meliorem esse puto! IacobusAmor 15:15, 3 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Ab/a

http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitiza_(rex_Visigothorum)&diff=618662&oldid=539124 There, Iacobe, why ab before Roderico, if it starts with a consonant? Isn't ab used only when the next letter is another a?--Xaverius 08:19, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

According to my dictionaries, a may be written before all consonants except h, but ab can freely be written before all consonants, and it must be written before ALL vowels (not just a) and h (except that abs may be written before c, q, and t, especially before the pronoun te). How ab was pronounced may be another matter. IacobusAmor 12:23, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that!--Xaverius 18:27, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Bartholomaeus I

Vale IacobusAmor, quomodo te habes?

I've seen you put Dubium Latinitatis about this matter. Please, tell me how can I do, or what kind of news Ive to write to take off Dubium Latinitatis.

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo 17:12, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Intention

Did you mean to create a category, Categoria:Insulae Oceaniae? If so, I'll do it for you (and then, if you like, I'll explain how I did it)! Andrew Dalby 13:02, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I must not have the hang of it yet! Callouts for that category have been in several articles for a long time, but the category hasn't been created. Would it be better to have subcategories "Insulae Samoae," "Insulae Insularum Societatis," "Insulae Tongae," and so on? IacobusAmor 13:49, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, probably; but you can create those junior categories easily afterwards if you like. In any case they would be subcategories of this one, so it is necessary to create this one first. OK, I've just done it now, and this is what I did.

1. First, consider this: there always needs to be an existing supercategory, for any category you create. If you cannot imagine or find any other supercategory, then it is Categoria:Omnia, the supercategory of life, the universe and everything. But there must always be one (and usually more than one); and usually it is fairly obvious what they will be. You need to find them. In this case, I was confident that the obvious supercategories Categoria:Insulae and Categoria:Oceania would already exist; and indeed they do.
2. Second, create the category. You do this, usually, by putting the new category at the foot of a page -- as you have done -- then saving the page and clicking on the redlink for the category. An edit window opens, headed, in this case, "Categoria:Insulae Oceaniae".
3. Third, edit the new category. What you must do -- just this, and usually nothing more -- is to type in the supercategories that you have previously identified. So I typed in [[Categoria:Insulae]] and [[Categoria:Oceania]]. Anyway, that's all that's needed. Save, and you have created your new category. (If you go to Categoria:Insulae Oceaniae and click the "edit" tab, you will see what I typed in. In fact, as you'll see, I added a third supercategory which floated into my mind.)

So, if you now want a new subcategory "Insulae Samoae"', you can follow that same procedure. Your supercategories, I guess, would be [[Categoria:Insulae Oceaniae]] (the one I have just created) and [[Categoria:Samoa]]. You would begin by editing the page for a Samoan island so that your proposed category is listed at the foot of the page; save the edit; and then click on the redlink for the not-yet-created category. Follow the above procedure, and you've done it. Andrew Dalby 19:41, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Macte, amice! I won't get around to creating categories for a while, though; right now, I have to prepare for tonight's televised Obamathon. Good to know that these instructions will stay here for reference. IacobusAmor 21:02, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Chios

I read your comment on Chios. In my opinion discretiva pages should not keep content: It might be difficult to categorize them. Discretiva pages are not (thematically) categorized. A page - except discretiva pages - should talk just about one concept. Then it can be put into a category easily. Discretiva pages should only keep the information to be able to distinguish between the listed concepts. This also avoids redundancy. --Rolandus 08:47, 1 Novembris 2008 (UTC)