Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 12

Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera. Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.

Quaestio nova

Compendia VP:T

Hic colloqui possumus.

30,000

Admodum difficile est numerare, sed credo no. 30,000 Prigg v. Pennsylvania‎ fuisse ...! Andrew Dalby 17:29, 31 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Hurray!--Rafaelgarcia 14:23, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

Avete!

I would like to write a page about the Operation Market Garden (Sept. 1944) but I need a bit of help. First, I have some doubts about the title for I don't know how I can translate "Operation" to Latin. Then, I was not able to find a Latin word in Vicipaedia standing for "paratrooper". One last thing: I was wondering if you could tell me a Latin translation standing for "Airborne Division". Thank you. Alexander Gelsumis 12:08, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

operation = operatio

paratrooper = miles deciduus (sec LRL)

airborne divisio = divisio aërea--Rafaelgarcia 14:27, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Vel 'operation' = expeditio (a term that recently came up in discussion somewhere else). Vide etiam Cassell's: "in war, to draw up a plan of [operation]s, rei gerendae ordinem componere, totius belli rationem describere. For 'operation', the first of these phrases might give us res gerenda, or maybe merely res, a useful catch-all. IacobusAmor 14:36, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I think by an operation here is meant a smaller, limited series of actions that prepared the way for an expeditio (campaign or expedition); specifically it was an airborne assault to secure some key bridges.--24.183.186.151 17:17, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

In that case, maybe incursio or incursus would fit. IacobusAmor 19:41, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC).

I could be wrong, but I think the latin term means when the soldiers "run in" at the enemy; and the second meaning "incusion" (like in english) means a temporary running in (and out) to accomplish some limited goal. Neither quite describe this even which was more of a coordinated "dropping in" or a "delapsus". I don't think we should worry about using a vague "operatio" since the military context will of the term is pretty clear.--Rafaelgarcia 21:30, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Incursio and incursus look OK for English 'raid'. IacobusAmor 15:36, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for helping me. The title of the page will be Operatio Market Garden. Si novas et alias rationes habetis, spero vos scripturos. Avete et salvete.--Alexander Gelsumis 17:45, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

A military plan is a ratio, as in rationem totius belli describere (to establish the whole war plan). In a more "doing" fashion (as opposed to the simple planning), it would be res gerendae (operations to do) or res gestae (operations already done). The division resembles the Roman manipulum, so "Airborne Division" could be "Manipulus aerius". <vi3x> 21:10, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Translatio

Salvete!

Potestisne, quaeso, me adiuvare ad latinandum hunc textum?

Anglice: During the first years of the Viceroyalty, the art was exclusively for religious, and its usage was mainly for the purpose of evangelization. The city of Lima had a main role in the development of the colonial art. The fast urban growth, the encomenderos' accumulation of wealth and the construction of both temples and churches were the causes for the request for paintings and sculptures from the main Spanish cities. The artworks preferred were those form Flanders and Italy, although those from Seville and Andalusia were also requested.

Propositio mea (SED lingua mea materna non est Anglica; tamen spero omnia recte comprehendisse; neque rem ipsam quidem scio, modo temptavi textum Latinum reddere): Per primos annos vicis regnorum ars ista tantum sacris attigit et imprimis usa est, ut homines reddantur Christiani. Urbs Lima maximi momenti fuit maturitati artis colonicae. Causae, cur picturae sculpturaeque urbanae Hispanicae quaesitae sint, et celere incrementum urbis et encomenderos et auctus divitiarum et aedificatio templorum ac ecclesiarum fuerunt. articficia fauta fuerunt Flanderica vel Italica, quamquam Sevillica Baeticaque nihilominus postulata sunt. (15 Augusti 2009, 01:15 CET)

Vero gratias multas tibi ago!!--Le K@l!^nuntia? 16:45, 16 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Hispanice: El arte durante los primeros años virreinales fue exclusividad de los religiosos y su uso tuvo un fin práctico principalmente en el adoctrinamiento. La ciudad de Lima jugó un rol preponderante en el desarrollo del arte en el virreinato del Perú. Su rápido crecimiento urbano, la acumulación de riqueza por parte de los encomenderos y la construcción de templos e iglesias fueron motivos para la demanda de pinturas y esculturas de las principales ciudades de los reinos españoles. Especial preferencia se tuvo por las obras provenientes de Flandes e Italia, aunque las obras sevillanas y andaluzas tuvieron igualmente gran demanda.

Gratias vobis prius ago!!--Le K@l!^nuntia? 04:43, 4 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

De: "photographus=photographer; photographema = photograph)"—Yet the quaerere box shows that the commonest Latin term for 'photograph' is photographia. For example:

Laurence Olivier, 1939, photographia a Carolo van Vechten capta.

Haec photographia est facta cum pellicula primumHaec photographia est facta cum pellicula primum

Photographia ab aeroplano U-2 speculatorio anno 1962 capta

Viator 1 . . . planetae Jovis hanc photographiam 24º die Januarii amplius 40 miliones chilometrorum distans cepit.

Saturni anuli, secundum Cassinio-Hugeniae photographiam anno 2007

Numerosa telescopia planetae collineata, seu professionalia seu studiosa, photographias ceperunt

Do lexica Neo-Latina disagree about this? And if telegraphare produces telegramma, why wouldn't photographare produce photogramma? IacobusAmor 11:53, 4 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

The latinity of many of our pages, especially our astronomy pages, leave a lot to be desired. The lexica neolatina give photographia = photography or photographic artwork; photographus=photographer, photographema = photograph (as in snap shot or picture photograph). So unless one is talking about photo-like painting, or snazzy artistic photography (see en:Fine art photography) one should say photographema.--Rafaelgarcia 14:57, 4 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Then someone should fix the (two dozen or so?) articles in which photographia means 'a photograph'; so far, only five articles have photographema. IacobusAmor 13:54, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Photographema cannot be. The class of nouns ending '-ma, -matos' in Greek, representing the result of effect of the action of the verb, fit this ending directly onto the present stem. 'Grapho' is a consonant stem verb, so the noun created is graphma, which becomes, by assimilation, gramma, as Professor Love has noted. An 'e' stem verb such as phoneo produces the noun 'phonema'. There is however, no verb 'grapheo' as far as I know. We ought therefore to be talking about a 'photogramma'.82.36.94.228 20:31, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is an interesting philological question. I don't know the answer, but of one thing is no doubt, the attestation that photographema=photograph. Aside from several lexica, I just found one original source from 1887 [here with hardly any trouble.

Apparently sometimes graphema can occur see es:grafema is spanish for en:grapheme--Rafaelgarcia 20:52, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Googling turns up many hundreds of attestations of photogramma and photogrammata, including a pertinent one here: Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca. IacobusAmor 21:49, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Good find! --Neander 22:03, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Grapheme, morpheme, toneme, even behavioreme, has been formed on the analogy of phoneme in the heydays of linguistic structuralism. Usor 82.36.94.228 has a point, but the point is somewhat weakened by the fact that analogy tends to play an important role in word-formation (not just sound laws). On the other hand, I can't say I'm fond of "photographema", either ... --Neander 21:33, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

And [the discipline of] choreology has given us kineme. :) IacobusAmor 21:49, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Ah no. Kineo and morpheo are 'e' stem verbs in Greek so kinema and morphema are the regular developments. Kineme is, of course, a philological doublet of cinema. The rubicund professor Dawkins, has, as is well known, coined the term "meme", but even he has acknowledged that philologically it should really be 'mimeme'. 82.36.94.228 15:00, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes! As used in anthropology, choreology, and ethnomusicology, according to a noted (ahem) encyclopedia, a kineme is 'the minimal unit of movement recognized as contrastive by people of a given dance tradition'. It's meant to be an analog of phoneme 'the minimal unit of distinctive linguistic sound'. IacobusAmor 16:31, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is an analogue in that it is the same sort of verbal noun as phoneme - and quite regularly formed since kineo and phoneo belong to the same Gk conjugation. Whether it was consciously so coined, is another matter. It is, however legitimate from a philological point of view - unlike 'grapheme'.82.36.94.228 19:58, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

It was consciously coined as an analog of phoneme, but the coiner tells me she knows no Greek. :) IacobusAmor 15:31, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

OK now it gets more interesting. We have it turns out a photogramma page, started by Avitus, but it is translating "Film frame" (spanish: es:fotograma, italian it:Fotogramma. So apparently photogramma means more of a microfiche type of photograph that is part of a series of them intended to be viewed together as a collage or movie.--Rafaelgarcia 22:43, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

One might wonder what's Avitus's source (except for Romance languages). Iacobus found at least one textual locus (above) which scarcely refers to a frame. --Neander 00:19, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

It might if it they are refering to microfilm or microfiche frames, where each frame contains a different page of the manuscript. Remember those are like movies.--Rafaelgarcia 00:32, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: -graphia denotes a fine art (Photographia, Cinematographia, Calligarphia etc) while -graphema denotes a work of fine art. The prototype of this morphemic pattern is from Ancient Greek. Confer: ζωγράφος "painter" > ζωγραφέω "I paint" > ζωγράφημα "picture" or ζωγράφος "painter" > ζωγραφία "picture". So, there is an assumed verb -γραφέ-ω which gives -γράφημα: φωτογραφέω (Katharevousa Greek) > φωτογράφημα > photographema. (Photogramma on the other hand should rather be analyzed as phos+gramma and semantically a "photogram" is a special kind of a "photograph".) This also means that the formal graecolatin name for a "movie" should be cinematographema. Of course, even in Traditional Greek the rule is not very strict: ζωγράφημα and ζωγραφία, καλλιγράφημα and καλλιγραφία, φωτογράφημα and φωτογραφία etc, can be occasionally synonymous, but it would be useful if we make a disambiguation when using the pattern in Latin. And of course, structuralistic terminology is irrelevant to the pattern; in struct, termin. you just grab the root of any noun and then stick an -eme after it in order to define a structural unit! :) Btw, speaking of structuralism and sociodarwinism, how should we render behavioreme and meme in Latin? Shall I propose comportema (comportamentum + -ema "structural unit") / morema (<mos) / behaviorema for the former, and memum (mimema (<μίμημα<μιμέομαι) + genum "gene") for the latter?

Thanks. That sorts it out. Photographeo on the pattern of zographeo produces photographema. I can't think why grapho should shift to another conjugation in compounds though!82.36.94.228 12:39, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, it has to do with the way Ancient Greek forms derivative words. In many instances, first there is a compound noun (usually comprised of two noun-roots) from which there was derived either another (semantically more abstract) noun via a process known as parasynthesis, eg: γεωγράφος "geographer" > γεωγραφέω, γεωργός "farmer" > γεωργία "agriculture", καλλιγράφος > καλλιγραφία, γεωμέτρης "geometer" > γεωμετρία; or a verb (in which case it is the -έω conjugation that is always involved), eg: γεωγράφος > γεωγραφέω > ἀγεωγράφητος (geographiae ignarus, *«ingeographatus»), καλλιγράφος > καλλιγραφέω, γεωμέτρης > γεωμετρέω > ἀγεωμέτρητος (geometriae ignarus, *«ingeometratus»). It is very unusual to the rules of Greek morphemics to fuse a noun (like φῶς "light") with a verb (like γράφω) in order to produce a new word (and thus produce for example something like φωτογράφω which would give in its turn the word φωτόγραμμα), or vice versa to analyze neologisms, such as φωτόγραμμα as being derived from a hypothetical *φωτογράφω. Cases like περιγράφω "I describe" > περίγραμμα "lineation, contour" belong to the category proposition + verb (in which case the verb keeps its original conjugation). I was overly paedantic here but I just wanted to clarify this interesting point. --Omnipaedista 23:36, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Anglice: confederate vs. federal

According to Cassell's, the only suitable noun for 'confederacy' is foedus, ergo per Bellum Civile Americanum the Confederacy—the confederated states, Civitates Confoederatae—could be the Foedus; however, troops of the United States—the federated states, Civitates Foederatae—were then called 'federal troops' (as they still are): so during the civil war we seem have copiae Foederis 'Confederate troops' being opposed by copiae foederati '(con)federal troops'. Is there a way out of this confusion? ¶ Caesar has societatem belli facere 'to form a confederacy of war' or perhaps 'to make a military alliance', but using societas for the Confederacy doesn't seem natural, at least to a native English-speaker. IacobusAmor 13:04, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

The concepts of a federal union and a confederation were not present in Roman times, these are a new senses for these terms taken from medieval and neo latin.

You also have to keep in mind that Confederate and Federal in these cases refer to proper names. So you have to go with what the countries are called. Here you should call confedrate troops copiae confederati since here confederati refers to the Confedratae Civitates rather than to the Foederatae Civitates.

By the way this issue has some bearing on why some people call the united states the Civitates Unitae Americae rather than Civitates Foederatae Americae. Here in Vicipaedia, we decided to go with the oldest attested term, that used by Francis Glass in his biography of Georgius Washingtonius.--Rafaelgarcia 13:16, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Ergo, according to Cassell's, Switzerland is called Foedus Helveticum? I think the well-attested term Confoederatio Helvetica makes it legitimate to use confoederatio in America, too. We already have Civitates Confoederatae Americae anyway. Gabriel Svoboda 13:26, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

An internet search shows that Foedus Helveticum is well attested, in texts and on coins. For Switzerland, I don't know which term has priority (and so may be said to be preferable), but the absence of confoederatio from Cassell's suggests that, unlike foedus, it's a postclassical term. Nevertheless, for the Confederacy, I'm happy with Confoederatio if others are; I'll fix the text now, adopting Rafael's suggestions above. The obvious Latin back-formation from English 'Confederacy' would be Confoederatia (-ae, f.), but it would presumably make our modern Latin-speaking public unhappy. IacobusAmor 13:49, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

The con in confederatio, suggests the meaning "leaguing together" as opposed to just "leaguing", so these are hardly very different things. Confederatio one would suppose by rights would be a special kind of federatio, where the treaty of union emphasizes some unique aspect about how they are united together, perhaps the equalness of the unions, perhaps something else, maybe just to emphasize togetherness. In the case of the CCA, the union preserves the right of each party to leave the union; in the case of switzerland, I believe it must have been the idea of togetherness, for in fact the 1848 constitution which provides the name Confederatio Helvetica is a federal one , mimicking the US system, as described here [1] . In the end though, Conf. Helvetica just a proper name.--Rafaelgarcia 17:04, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I will probably need some advice from American people here, but if I don't get it wrong there were the Union (which won and later became the USA) versus the Confederacy (which lost). The confoederatio entails the presence of a foedus, a pact. As far as I can tell, the Confederated States kinda had a pact, an agreement, to secede from the Union. On the other hand, the Union to me looks like a... union of States! A group of states which held something in common. I'm not sure whether there was a pact, a specific agreement there. So we have a congregatio, coniunctio, societas on one side and a confoederatio on the other one. Personally, I think that naming the USA Civitates Foederatae Americae probably hasn't been the best choice. It's United states, not Federal states of America. Though the USA are indeed a federal state, that's not what their name means. To me, the emphasis is put on the union, on the binding factor, rather than on the form of government. <vi3x> 18:53, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

The continuing saga: remarkably postposed forms of esse

"Communitas Castellae et Legionis (Hispanice: Comunidad de Castilla y León ; Legionice: Castiella y Llión ; Gallaice: Castela e León ; Extremaduriane: Castilla i Lión) communitas autonoma Hispaniae, creata anno 1983 et Septemtrionali oropedii media regione in Paeninsula Hiberica, est." IacobusAmor 13:58, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Not quite so remarkable: "Iulius Giorello, natus Mediolani die 14 Maii 1945, philosophus, professor philosophiae apud universitatem Mediolanensem Università Statale ac scriptor Italicus est." IacobusAmor 11:49, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Quid est symbola?

Secundum Cassell's, symbola est 'a contribution of money to a common feast'. But that can't be what it means here: "Computing machinery and intelligence est symbola ab Alano Turing scripta." So it's something written, and the italics imply that it's a book, a play, or an exceedingly long poem. (If it's an article, it would be set roman, inside double quotes.) It's presumably not the plural of symbolum 'sign, token, symbol; creed'. So what is it? IacobusAmor 14:34, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is a neolatin word meaning "journal article" derived from the first meaning above, widening the sense of "contribution", contribution to a discussion... I have seen it other places too, but all modern. Such terms deserve their own article explaining them.--Rafaelgarcia 16:24, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Iacobus and his ruthless servant, Cassell's, provide food for thought. As Rafael surmises, basically rightly I think, symbola '(scientific) article' is a metaphorical extension of the meaning 'a contribution of money to a common feast'. But I'd like to add a few precisations. Basically, symbola < Gk. συμβολή (compositional meaning:) 'a throwing together', has nothing to suggest feast or money. As such, symbola denotes a contribution; 'feast' and 'money' come from the context, which was sympotic (or perhaps in better English, symposiac) in nature. An ancient symposium (< Gk. συμπόσιον 'a drinking together') consisted not just in heavy drinking (witness Plato's Symposium) but also in philosophically and scientifically pertinent contributions to common themes (witness Plato's Symposium, again). This is also the context of symbola, as has been told by Gellius (7.13): according to him, symbolae were scientific contributions to a sympotic picnic of learned men. /// One may have wondered, why, in nowadays symposia, there's less drinking than scientific contributions. Well, a semiotician might call that markedness reversal. Nowadays, symbolae, as contributions and output of scientific symposia, are often published within a single cover, consisting of various contributions or articles on a more of less connected scientific theme. This is, I guess, the etymological background of symbola as an article in a scientific journal, Festschrift, or collection of papers; notice that symbola is indeed a scientific paper in contradistinction to commentatio and the like, which are apt to denote newspaper articles and the like. Examples of this modern use are Symbolae Osloenses; see also this list. Both Morgan and Pitkäranta have symbola '(scientific) article'. --Neander 12:26, 9 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant but fun... Reginaldus uses esse (long e) de symbolis in case we ever want to write about en:Picnic or en:Potluck. --Ioscius ^(disp) 18:51, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland

Avete, Vicipaediani.

Scribere de pugna navalis a.D. 1916 gesta in Mare Germanico Orientali vellem sed nonnulla dubia habeo de nomine huius proelii. Pars Orientalis et Septentrionalis nominibus diversis appellata est, in exemplum: * Danice Jylland, Germanice Jütland vel Skagerrak, Anglice Jutland, Latine Cimbria vel Iutlandia vel Iutia; ex quo satis haesitans ad vestras rationes seu opiniones legendas morari malo. Puto via et ratione bonum esse titulum "Pugna navalis Iutlandensis (1916)" at spero vos me adiuvaturos. Curate ut valeatis, hoc Alexander Gelsumis vobis iubet.

Sign Language

Quis scit nomen latinum pro sign language? In pagina surditas, nullo fonte invento lingua chironomicascripsi, sed aequaliter lingua gesticularia patere potest.--Rafaelgarcia 18:01, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Lingua gesticulatoria apud Pitkäranta. --Neander 19:44, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Gratias!--Rafaelgarcia 19:47, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Supongo que 'to sign' = signum dare, vel etiam significare. Et 'signing' ergo = significatio, et 'sign language' = lingua signata—vel fortasse lingua manuum. Sed gesticulari = 'to make pantomimic gestures', and sign language is NOT pantomimic. IacobusAmor 19:52, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

De signo, credo sensum idem ac "sign"="hand gestures" admodum remotum esse. De verbo gesticulor, recte dicis, primum sensum esse "pantomimimic gesture", sed alterus sensus est simpliciter "gesticulate" secundum L&S "to gesticulate (perhaps not anteAug.; cf.: gestum agere, Cic. de Or. 2, 57, 233):"--Rafaelgarcia 20:13, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Despite of the world-wide authority and paragonality of English, "sign language" is not too felicitous an expression, the simple reason being that every natural language consists in and of signs. If you don't believe me, ask Saussure.   :–)   --Neander 21:10, 12 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Tell it to the French (Langue des signes)! and the Spanish (Lengua de señas)! and the Italians (Lingua dei segni)! IacobusAmor 03:21, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

If someone approached a Roman and asked Scisne linguam signorum?, he would think you were talking about augury or perhaps about the manner in which battle standards or household statues are made.

Significatio on the other hand, does have closer meanings to "sign" in the sense of an action conveying a meaning (making signals and meanings is something ordinary people do, an action, including gestures). As Neander points out, lingua significationum (the language of meanings and indications), which would then be a very literal translation of "sign language", is not very illuminating as to the actual intended meaning ipso facto.

Indeed, even in modern languages the use of "sign language" to mean "communication through gestures" is so roundabout, that you have to wonder how it came about. I venture it came about because of the use of flags in intership naval communication with semaphore. Via the analogy with signing a message between ships can signing between people is understood, even when no flags are used.--Rafaelgarcia 10:21, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

It's not as roundabout as all that, perhaps. "Sign", a loanword from French in early middle English, had as its earliest English sense "a meaningful gesture with the hand" (text of 1225 cited in OED, a monastic rule; signs were permitted in this particular rule to avoid the necessity for speech). And so the first user of the phrase sign language in English was building on a real major sense of the English word. (According to OED this first user was apparently an American author of 1847, writing in [American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb.) However, this wasn't the main meaning of the French word, or of the original Latin word, hence our difficulty ... Andrew Dalby 12:07, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

This is an elegant etymological explanation! The term sign language has come about as a motivated colligation, no doubt about that, and everyday routinisation has blocked compositional re-interpretations (esp. by native speakers). When referring to the paragonality of English, I was (rightly or wrongly) surmising that langue des signes, lengua de señas, lingua dei segni, etc may be word-by-word translations of sign language. --Neander 22:55, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Signum in Latin is a broad word, with a lot of meanings (...sign, signal, order, flag, platoon, symptom, statue, seal, astrological sign, nickname...). Despite the similarity with the Italian "linguaggio dei segni", which was probably borrowed from another language, the word which means "hand gestures" is gestus. I found some interesting classical sentences as examples: gestu rogare (to ask by gestures) and per gestum res significanda mihi (I have to explain the thing by gestures). I guess that lingua gestuum and gestibus loqui should be appropriate. <vi3x> 18:31, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Autonomus, -a, um

Is there a good reason to use the adjective autonomus, -a, um, rather than liber, -a, -um and sui iuris, the Classical equivalents of (English) 'autonomous'? The searchbox says that autonoma already appears in eighty-four articles; the masculine form, not so much (only five). Is autonomus, -a,-um a thoughtless bit of leakage from Romance? or do we have Classical precedents for it? IacobusAmor 12:49, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

It isn't classical but it doesn't mean that it should be disgarded...Autonomus is an important term with distinct political, moral and technical meanings. In politics, it means a pagus that sets its own laws and bugdet internally, but its foreign affairs are managed by a distinct sovereign state; like the vasque country.--Rafaelgarcia 14:21, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

What adjectives were applied to such states under the Roman empire? For example, Roman Palestine under King Herod? IacobusAmor 16:22, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

That is neither liber nor sui iuris. Autonomus is also applied to ianimate objects (automotons) or programs or any other mechanism that functions independently (based on an internally set algorithm). In philosophy and business autonomy (being autonomus) means having the power to be indepedent (autonomus=self-mind); indepedence is exercising that power (non depedence actually). Both concepts presume libertas and being sui iuris, which are legal-political terms; autonomus and independens instead are distinctions that apply in philosophical, technical, work, or moral spheres.--Rafaelgarcia 14:21, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

"Autonomus" isn't latin, the etymology is Greek (autos-nomos, "self law") and as you can see the meaning is exactly the same as sui iuris. Luckily I haven't burnt (yet) my Roman Law book and there's a chapter about civitates and citizenship. The cities which could keep their independence and their own statutes were called civitates liberae. Sui iuris is usually used for people, meaning "not legally subjected to anyone" (typically, a pater familias). <vi3x> 17:15, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I guess that just shows you how dependable you biblical dictionary is. Regardless of etymological orgin, the term is one used in latin by latin philosophers (first by Spinoza I think in the moral sense) and it is the latin term that is the source of the modern term in english and romance languages. Neither autonomus nor independens is the same as sui iuris (of one's own right); moreover a right ius is not the same as a law lex.--Rafaelgarcia 13:09, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Macte, Vi3x! Most excellent! So what should be done with Autonoma Matriti Communitas? Turn it into Libera Matriti Communitas? And what about my question about Roman Palestine under King Herod? What adjectives did Roman politicians use for it? IacobusAmor 17:48, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Gratiam tibi ago! Well, "communitas" is wrongly used: I looked for "community" in the dictionary and in the meaning of "group of citizens" it gives me civitas. The meaning of communitas is more or less the state of being common, a common condition or fate, and sociableness. Being it an administrative subdivision of Spain, I guess we should use Civitas libera Matriti. As for the Palestine legal status, I haven't found a lot around. But for sure, it was a Roman province and if we think about the story of Christ and about the fact that crucifixion was a typical Roman execution, we should probably conclude that it wasn't a civitas libera. <vi3x> 18:16, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

That's after the death of Herod the Great (about 4 BCE); but in Herod's time, it was nominally a kingdom within the empire, Herod himself having been elected king by the Roman Senate. IacobusAmor 18:48, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading the following analysis from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875. concerning Universitas :"The following are Juristical persons: (1) Civitas: (2) Municipes:...(5) Commune, Communitas." So the term was used by the Romans in the sense of community as a political person and entity.--Rafaelgarcia 17:23, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've found something useful here. <vi3x> 19:03, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

A civitas can't be called libera if it is controlled by another. Communitas isn't classical, but it is ok as a synonymous political term, just like unio and a variety of others are synonyms for consociatio, foederatio,....--Rafaelgarcia 12:47, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "A civitas can't be called libera if it is controlled by another" and "The cities which could keep their independence and their own statutes were called civitates liberae" can be reconciled. Can the discrepancy be resolved by discovering what the political components of, say, Bismarck's German Empire were called? Latin was then being cultivated in that area, so perhaps attested terms would exist. I'm thinking of states like the Kingdom of Bavaria, the "free city-states," and such. IacobusAmor 13:20, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Evidently in that phrase the adjective libera is being used distributively not descriptively; "civitates liberae" = "free citizens" or "free citizenships" not "free state" or "free community" nor "free city"; neither the city nor the state or community were free of the king, but they were free of feudal lords; the people were not serfs or slaves, which was the state of 90% of Europe at the time. In the same sense a Romanus was liber if he was not a servus... But The kings did this in return for taxes from the city, so they were his subjects, and had to follow his law. The people's freedom in return for tax revenues is considered the most important change that brought about the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism.

As an aside, perhaps this term may be the source of the medieval term civitas=urbs. However, these cities were not city states. That is a separate idea, presuming complete political independence, including control of foreign affairs.--Rafaelgarcia 13:41, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Usor, usuarius aut utens?

See the discussion at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Legatio nostra#...Usor???

Perhaps one of the old timers will remind us of why usor was selected?

Regardless, the classical usuarius would seem the most logical and transparent choice. --Rafaelgarcia 16:12, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager it was 'selected' because the people who first activated Vicipaedia didn't speak Latin very well. A lot of the original messages, IIRC, were actually in Interlingua or something like it. The continued existence of 'usor' I would say just means nobody's complained loud enough through the proper channels. (That, and it's generally conceded that 'usor' is well-formed, even if it is ill-advised.) —Mucius Tever 20:40, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Why ill-advised? --Neander 20:58, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

While waiting for the explanation of usor, I'm just remarking that usuarius in Latin is a legal word, and indicates who has the right to use something without being its owner: an usuarius in Latin is an usufructuary who is entitled to the mere usage of the thing, without being able to retain its profits and advantages.

In my opinion, to indicate "someone who uses" the most suitable word would be utens, which is the substantivation of the participle of utor. Similar nouns are agens (en. "agent", part.pres. of ago), praesentia (en. "present things", part. of prae sum), pugnantes (en. "fighters", part.pres. of pugno) <vi3x> 16:42, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the L&S entry linked above, the scope of usuarius is wider than its legal meaning: as an adjective is means "of or belonging to use, usuary"; it describes even the person or thing being used.

I looked at the link, it's just that I'm using a 1176 pages dictionary here and there's no trace of other meanings for usuarius. I really don't want to sound cocky here, but this is the dictionary I've been using in 5 years of Latin in high school, and is commonly used as a standard here in Italy. [2] <vi3x> 17:51, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, even the legal meaning cited is apt: a person who uses something without the right of ownership to the thing or profits--that describes a Vicipaedia user quite aptly.

For example, an usuarius may use a creditor/faenerator (money-lender)'s money or a commodator/creditor's land, in return for usura (interest) or locarium (rent) paid; the usuarius doesn't own the land or the money but has the right to use it for a certain time in return for a certain fee, which is the lender's cut in the expected profit.

Indeed, a VP user has no ownership of the site, but what he does is a mere fact. He has no real right to write, and he couldn't sue anyone for preventing him to use VP. In Roman Law an usuarius is someone who signed a contract, not a mere "user". <vi3x> 17:51, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Utens on the other hand, has a horrific disadvantage that Iacobus pointed out in that it is the present participle of a deponent verb (unlike agens an active verb with no unusual case structure hanging on); how about if the user is not longer using, is it proper to still call him an utens? or an usus?...--Rafaelgarcia 17:15, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Probably my Latin is rusted (and if this is the case, I beg you to excuse me and to correct my grammatical mistakes :) ) but I do not see big issues regarding deponent verbs. As for the unusual case structure, it suffices to say "Vicipaedia utens" (abl.). Regarding the past tense, don't forget that utens is born from a verb but it becomes a noun, so there is no need to put it into a past tense (usus est) even if a user ceased using VP. <vi3x> 17:51, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

MOreover the only citation of have of utens meaning anything other than the participle is Words which says:

utens, utentis (gen.), utentior -or -us, utentissimus -a -um  ADJ   [XXXFO]    veryrare
having money to spend;

Utens, utentis is exactly the participle of utor, whose third meaning is "to be in possession of", "to enjoy". An utens is someone who owns, who has, therefore he is rich. It'd be the same grammatical mechanism displayed here, only used with the first meaning of the verb. <vi3x> 17:51, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

--Rafaelgarcia 17:26, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to be said for even the English word username? A similarly formed term, screenname, could be more precise, in the sense that it's a name chosen to be displayed on a screen. IacobusAmor 17:57, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

"Screen name" would literally be nomen tabulae. Probably the whole usuarius/utens thing could be avoided focusing on the concept of "member" of Vicipaedia... Socius? <vi3x> 18:15, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Notice that usor is a morphologically well-formed word, though not met with in classical Latinity. From the same mould are lusor, fusor, clusor. Usor is indirectly attested in Salvianus, De gubernatione Dei 8 perditorum hoc adulescentium speciale convicium est, ut abusores scilicet et incuriosi ac neglegentes rerum suarum esse dicantur. Methinks usor is a tolerable word. --Neander 20:10, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm afraid it's not. Lusor comes from ludo, fusor from fundo and cl(a)usor from cl(a)udo. Utor as verb has a comletely different morphology, picking nouns who simply resemble usor does not necessarily imply that usor is correct nor well formed. The usage of abusor in a source is probably more convincing... I don't know, probably it's the word "utente" stuck in my mind, because in Italian it just means "user" and comes straight from the Latin utor. <vi3x> 20:58, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Completely different morphology? Oh, no. All the verbs mentioned have dental stems to which the -to element was once attached: *lud-to-, *fud-to-, *claud-to-, *ut-to-; for some curious reason, d/t + t was changed to ss, and later simplified to s after a long vowel or diphthong. Actor nouns were formed on the outcome of the -to- participial stem (in the present case, lus-, fus-, claus-, us-). --Neander 21:22, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed anything suspicious with usor until Vi3x brought it up. If Neander likes it, that says a lot to me.--Rafaelgarcia 21:14, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I've never liked the sense of the word. Why isn't it something like scriptor? IacobusAmor 21:47, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's why Mucius said that usor is ill-advised. And I said that usor is (only) tolerable, on account of being grammatical, as far as morphology goes. Though I can put up with usor, I kinda sympathise with Iacobus, too. In a diplomatic mood :-) Neander 22:02, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, the origin of the term is as a technical term: in information science a user is defined as a person with an account and a username: "User (computing), one who uses a computer system. In order to identify oneself, a user has an account (a user account) [ratio/conventum] and a username [agnomen] (also called a screen name, handle, nickname, or nick on some systems)." The conventum of course, is the user agreement you click on when you create an account (ratio) or save an edit. It is very much a legal thing. Nevertheless, I am happy with scriptor, or usor, even if it isn't a literal translation. Scriptor in particular carries with it a certain amount of pride that is lacking in usor/usuarius. And pride is a good thing. Veni Vidi Vicipaedia!--Rafaelgarcia 22:23, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Spreitenbach

Hello. A friend of mine lives in Spreitenbach in Argovia and would like to know it's Latin name. I was looking for one on the Internet very long and only found out that Spreitenbach was first mentioned in a document from about the years 1200. If you know the Latin name, please tell me. For I don't live there it is hard for me to find toponomastic books to look it up myself. Thank you very much. Capsicaciolum 00:19, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I found a book Quellen zur Schweizer Geschichte which gives it indeclinable in a couple of places: "Addidit etiam hobam unam in villa Spreitenbach, que sita est in pago Ziurigouve." / "Do etiam hübam unam in villa nomine Spreitenbach, quę sita est in pago Zurichgouve." and "predium Spreitenbach, pro quo redduntur vobis septem hy(r)cine pelles". It's also spelled "Sprettembhach" at one point. I'm not finding a Latinized form offhand. —Mucius Tever 18:19, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Dicio, natio, civitas, status

I'm sure this has been well discussed before, but which is the best general word for 'state' or 'country'? "Civitas" seems to have been adopted here, but the problem is that it is a very ambiguous word in Latin. In Classical Latin it means "citizenship" or "Commonwealth", but from about Tacitus onwards, and certainly in the vast corpus of mediaeval Latin, "civitas" is exactly synonymous with "urbs". Thus talking of the UK being a "civitas" or the USA being a federation of "civitates" does at first look, well, rather quaint. Modern RC textbooks seem to use the term 'dicio' to refer to the political entity of the state, although "status" (which the Classical enthusiasts will insist only means "standing") is not unknown either. The Vatican City State is known as "Status Civitatis Vaticanae", after all. Latin must be the only wikipaedia where a vocal contingent of users is so insistent on archaic terms in preference to more recent ones.Tergum violinae 22:12, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Civitas

Civitas in its primary sense is any political community with its own law and government, i.e. "the citizenship" as in a group of citizens. Only secondarily does it mean citizenship, as in "having citizenship", despite the fact that many dictionaries say so. Citizenship primarily (unabmiguously) is translated as "status civitatis" ="state of participating in a civitas"(see [3]).

The ambiguity/conceptual clash between civitas and the idea modern state comes about because, in the Roman tradition, civitas does not automatically have exclusive juridiction or exclusive imperium over a country/juridiction (pagus/regio/districtus/etc.). This is a modern innovation, which early on (e.g. Hobbes) was subsummed under the term res publica, even though this term also means a type of rectio (government).

I tried to summarize what happend next at the page "nationes mundi", although it needs work. Eventually, people started qualifying res publicas according to their status. Status civitatis, status nationis, status imperii. A res publica statu nationis is what we would call a nation-state, in the terminology of the day.

Then, after Machiavelli introduced the term stato (italian) to political discourse, some people started using the term "status" as a separate term (or "status rei" or "status rei publicae"), to mean a State in the modern sense: an independent country with an army, government and administration. This separated the two senses of res publica. In otherwords, res publica, regnum, etc... were all considered species of status. This development however, came at the end of latin as an widespread language of international discourse, and so there are not many examples. In fact many people at the time did not follow this usage.(For another take on this see [4])

Today, Latin writing people do not like using the term status in this sense, and rather translate state as res publica or as civitas according to the sense required. I think this is in large part out of a desire to avoid using non classical latin terms; in part out of the fact that using status as a synonym for state itself introduces new ambiguities, since then status rei publicae becomes non sensical. Rather than introduce an ambituity in status, modern latinists prefer the ambiguity in res publica or civitas. For example, the name "Status Civitatis Vaticanae" = "the Vatican Citizenship" or "Organization of the Vatican State", depending on which sense is taken.-Rafaelgarcia 23:13, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Cicero used status civitatis to mean something like 'condition of the state'. So Status Civitatis Vaticanae = 'Condition of the Vatican State'; thus the confusion that the newfangled use of status brings to the table. ¶ Also, we have a neat distinction from Classical times, as given in Cassell's: "civitates aut nationes, civilized states or barbarous tribes, Cic." It seems inconsistent to use civitas for 'state' but natio for something other than 'barbarous tribe'; that's why 'international' may be better rendered inter civitates than internationalis. IacobusAmor 23:57, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Observe that a political entity became a "barbarous tribe" (ahemm) merely by being outside the empire and that the only civitates not considered "barbarous" were within the empire. Given that the empire itself was a "state", Persia and all those other nationes with which the Roman Empire fought wars were the only other "states" (in the modern sense) out there!--Rafaelgarcia 12:47, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

True status civitatis is not totally unambiguous. Here the status referred to is not of an individual person, but of 'the citizenship' as a whole.--Rafaelgarcia 00:09, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

In sum, I don't think there is a consensus amongst latinists about what should be done about this issue.--Rafaelgarcia 23:13, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested, a couple of years ago (it seems), that there be at least two Latin wikis: a Classical one and one that accepts the grammatical & lexical & phonetic changes that happened later. IacobusAmor 23:57, 17 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are being humorous? Classical or Roman wikipedia which you want would only be an encyclopedia of the Classical age. Great to find out about togas and chariots and stuff, but precious little use for anything else. Dr Bradley's statement that the whole of latinity can be found in the works of Cicero, Caesar and Livy, as well as being a lot of nonsens, is very representative of a Victorian, Anglosaxon Protestant view of history - noble virtuous Romans , benighted superstitious Mediaevals. It is remarkable, but very telling, that the Latin dictionaries of that period never cite the greatest Latinist of all time (in volume, at least, even if you dispute his greatness otherwise), Augustine. He of course put forward the radical view in De Civitate Dei that Classical civilisation was a heap of ordure, and that the Romans in their history had been more barbarian than those they liked to call barbarian. Latin outside the Anglosaxon world has fortunately been rather more catholic, in every sense of the word - so that the enthusiasm of our American contributors for archaic Latin to them may look rather bemusing.82.36.94.228 07:16, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

An obvious way out of the dilemma posed by the Roman religionists' recent use of Status officially to define their capital is to recognize that common speech doesn't always (or perhaps even usually) stick to official names. People usually speak of France even though the country's official name seems to be République Française, and people usually speak of the United States, or even the States, even though the country's official name is United States of America. So there may be no reason that Latin texts can't & shouldn't mostly speak of the Status Civitatis Vaticanae as the Urbs Vaticana, or even the Vaticana. How far back does the current official name go, anyway? Does it precede the Concordatum anni 1929 ("Lateran treaty")? or the catastrophe of 1870? Also, we should bear in mind that the Status Civitatis Vaticanae isn't the same thing as the Sancta Sedes. IacobusAmor 12:30, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the name came about. But The Vatican isn't a real city, it is more of a cordoned off neighborbood: almost a quarter of its area is comprised of an open plaza. I think City in Vatican City means "the Vatican Citizenship". As to the official name: "Status Civitatis Vaticanae" = "Organization of the Vatican Citizenship" or "The Vatican Citizenship" is fine with me.--Rafaelgarcia 13:11, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

We have not addressed the main issue which is that most often in Latin, civitas means a city, not a state.82.36.94.228 07:17, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, going back to your comment at the start, I think you are exaggerating the extent to which "civitas" means "city" in classical -- even late classical -- Latin. Looking at Oxford Latin Dictionary, which ought to be a very good source for Latin up to 200 AD, "Civitas=city" (sense 3b) is first recorded from Seneca, is not noted at all from Tacitus, and has the fewest citations overall. The largest number of citations are for senses 1 "an organized community, esp. that in which one lives or to which one belongs as a citizen, a state", and 4 "the rights of a citizen, citizenship ...". I believe it's true that this changed later, but most of us don't have such ready access to the dictionaries that would demonstrate it ...

But we certainly do have the problem that the classical world was not a world of nation-states, and therefore the classical vocabulary in this area may sit uneasily in our modern writing. One reason why "civitas" came to be equated with "city", I guess, was that political philosophers had a habit of looking at classical Greece, where city and state were synonymous. Another reason, I guess, was that when western European tribal states were taken into the Roman Empire, "civitas" was used as a term for them (they had, after all, been independent), and it came to be equated with their capital cities: thus "civitas Turonum" meant not only the "state" of the Turones (i.e. Touraine), but also the "city" of the Turones (i.e. Tours) because it sort-of-embodied the state. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Dicio

Back to the start again... I wondered why dicio/ditio (lets not discuss its spelling!), a good Ciceronian word, has been passed over as the general word for 'the state'. 82.36.94.228 13:24, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

In latin it means sovereign authority of an individual. The power of the civitas over its own people in latin is called imperium, dicio includes both imperium and the power/potestas over other peoples not part of the citizenship, for example the Greeks, shortly after they were conquered. It is one of the roots of iurisdicio = the power of a magistratus to state/decide the law.--Rafaelgarcia 14:00, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Attested examples show that dicio may be larger than 'the sovereign authority of an individual'. As quoted in Cassell's, Cicero says redigere bellicosissimas gentes in dicionem huius imperii (which I take for something like 'to drive the most warlike peoples into the control of this empire') and urbes multas sub imperium populi Romani dicionemque subiungere ('to subjugate many cities under the command and authority of the Roman people'). IacobusAmor 14:26, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that true; it is predicated of a civitas as well; it includes imperium as well as power over other peoples. Also imperium is used both in the primary sense of a power of an individual, the power of the civitas, as the name of the Roman Empire, and in the sense of empire in general.--Rafaelgarcia 14:43, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Pulling words apart and trying to understand their original meaning is only ever partly useful. We can't be too concerned about what Johnny Roman thought when we are trying to convey the modern idea of a state, whether it be a nanny monarchy or a psychotic dictatorship. Dicio seems to be that word in recent Latin rather than civitas from what I have seen. 82.36.94.228 10:30, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary: "... the only wikipaedia ..."

I wanted to add a comment on Tergum Violinae's remark: "Latin must be the only wikipaedia where a vocal contingent of users is so insistent on archaic terms in preference to more recent ones." Well, but one has to admit (quietly, not saying anything to the Language Subcommittee about it) that Latin is odd among Wikipedia languages. It has no modern speakers for whom it is a mother tongue; and its medieval and modern users, of whom there are and have been many, have always tended to look to earlier authority (from Cicero to Linnaeus) for their vocabulary and style. With many variations and with greater or less success, that's what we all do. We've all learned it at school (or after) and we all try to write it the way our teachers or "classical" models tell us to. That's the kind of medium Latin is, and has been for at least 1800 years. So this "vocal contingent" of which TV speaks are (for better, for worse) a fairly good reflection of the language community. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

That has never meant that we should reduce Latin to the rather jejune vocabulary of Cicero. Augustine certainly admired Cicero, and emulated his style, but he used a considerably larger vocabulary, partly because he was writing about things that Cicero hadn't thought of, but also because he wanted to make Latin do the job that Greek did, since, unlike Cicero, he couldn't speak or write Greek. Regarding civitas + city, in mediaeval Northern Europe, the only political entities generally thought of were regnum and imperium, so, in Bede, for example, places like Hexham and York are called civitates with no other sense than that conveyed by urbs. 82.36.94.228 12:13, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

It is also true that in medieval Europe, outside of the nobility, the only free citizens lived in cities (a phenomenon which strengthened kings and led eventually to nation-states); so that the cities in medieval times were civitates in a real sense. They weren't indepedent states, but more like modern states in the USA today, except they were subject to a king rather than a federal government. So I see no contradiction calling then civitates when referring to them in medieval times; today I think it would not be fitting since the government structure is entirely different; they are mostly administrative divisions I believe.--Rafaelgarcia 12:24, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've seen civitas translated as city in english, but in the sense of "the citizenship" rather than "urbs", particularly during the 1500-1600's. I assume at the time that the two senses of city in english were considered equivalent.--Rafaelgarcia 12:42, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Errata corrige...

Avete! How I can change the title Alaetrium? it is not correct, the latin name of this italian town is Aletrium (see en.wiki or it.wiki). Thank you. --Luca P 02:32, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure of the name. I can't find a latin source in the it.wiki article. Often in medieval latin ae-->e.--Rafaelgarcia 03:10, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

I found a source for aletrium here: [5]. Our usual website for names don't seem to be working for me right now.--Rafaelgarcia 03:17, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

It turns out we already have a page named aletrium which is the ancient name for Calitri; According to [6]:"Aletrium

   * Place: usually identified with Calitri, province Avellino, region Campania, Italy
   * Name: Aletrium (Plin.)
   * Etymology: The name has an exact counterpart in Aletrium (Latium), in the same Italic domain. 
The name seems to be built with an IE suffix *-ter-, which denotes an agent. Thus, the stem could be derived 
from the IE root *al- 'to grow, nourish', or even from a parallel root with a meaning 'to grind', from which 
the Armenian word alauri 'mill', originally reconstructed as *alatrio-. The UTET dictionary at the entry 
Calitri mentions a pre-IE *galatro- 'a kind of grass'. "

--Rafaelgarcia 03:22, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! according Castiglioni-Mariotti dictionary (probably the most important latin dictionary edited in Italy): "Aletrium, ii, n., Alatri, città degli Ernici", and "Aletrinates, abitanti di Alatri (Cic.)"... Calitri is not mentioned. --Luca P 15:52, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)