Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2006

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disputata anni 2006

Salve[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve!

Gratus aut grata in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!


Liberus esto mihi aerumnas seu quaesitiones ferre.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:34, 2 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Centrarchidae & phylogenesis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve! Thanks for fixing some of my errors at Centrarchidae. I'm curious about phylogenesin non phylogenesem, though. I would have thought that it would be treated as a normal third-declension noun if used as a Latin word (as opposed to writing it as Greek φυλογένεσις), much like we write ecclesiam non ecclesian. Tkinias 10:24, 11 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Either way is probably OK, but I see in Lewis & Short (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu) that Pliny, famous for writing on scientific subjects, used genesin; a third possibility is genesim, as in Suetonius. Maybe there's something to be said for regularizing such terms throughout Vicipaedia. If you prefer phylogenesem, that's fine with me!
Btw, the last paragraph of the article seems to have derived from the use of the English word sunfish---so as originally written, that paragraph didn't belong in this article. I hope my fix made it relevant!

theoria musicae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hmmm, I saw you made several edits to BACH thema. Many of them were good changes, many of them were clearing up absolutely careless errors of mine, and others seems as if you may either have a different dictionary than mine, or know a bit about the proper lexicon for this area of study.

I left untouched a few constructions that seemed dubious to my dim lights, but for which I don't have the linguistic authority to offer emendations. Why do you prefer transcribier to transcribi? Isn't that archaic or poetic or something? IacobusAmor
Well, r is the characteristic letter of the passive voice, so for me this construction has always made more sense, and aesthetically I like it as well. My preference is not much more serious than say fuere for fuerunt, or finii for finivi, or amasset for amavisset, but the main reason I changed back was because you emended to "transcriberi" instead of "transcribi".--Ioshus Rocchio 20:21, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
And to answer, yes poetic and archaic...used alot by poets because in pentameter at the end of a line, ier scans better than i.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:21, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
How so? Since the i of scribo is long, scribier can't end a pentameter, and since the a of transcribo is also long, transcribier can't occur anywhere in the second half of a pentameter (it could occur in the first half, in the pattern of non transcribier nunc). Do you have examples?—IacobusAmor

I have proposed in the taberna a music theory project but I got no response, it seems there are few learned musicians here. I even said as a warning, I know plenty about music theory but not alot about terminology, and my lack of a proper dictionary for it has kept my pace and tenacity for this project rather low. Have you any interest in such a project? There a bunch of pages, see my user page, that I think might be the most important to get us off the ground.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:39, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

My Ph.D. is in music, though I teach anthropology. The project could be a useful exercise for the little gray cells, but finding the time is the problem. My entire formal academic experience of Latin occurred in ninth & tenth grades (in high school). Of course I've browsed here & there when the occasion has permitted, and I'm dipping into Propertius this summer. What you might want to do to familiarize yourself with musical terminology is to read something by an important Renaissance theorist or two. I'd suggest Johannes Tinctoris and his archenemy, Franchinus Gafurius. Maybe your university's library has something along those lines, or could get something by interlibrary loan. IacobusAmor
Nice, what was your focus? My BA was in theory, with percussion as my main instruments. I will read up on these fellows, thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:50, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
See my encyclopedia. (Search for Australia and the Pacific Islands.) I've taught history, theory, and "world music."—IacobusAmor

Oceania and Viti[recensere | fontem recensere]

If you think Fiii (blue link, therefore an existing page) is wrong, and Viti (red link, not an existing page) were right, please move the Fiii page with "movere" (the button on top of each page) to Viti. Providing sources for the chosen name is highly appreciated. You can add sources with <ref>...</ref> and a "Notae" section with <references/>. See Vicipaedia:Fontes. --Roland2 15:29, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

I'm so new to this operation, you don't want to trust me yet to move things around! See my comments under Disputatio:Fiii (or whatever it's called). For sources, G. B. Milner's Fijian-English dictionary should be dispositive, but I don't have it at hand. The English Wikipedia should have something relevant. Fiii is impossible and surely worse than Fidzi. IacobusAmor
Unfortunately I cannot contribute much to the discussion itself, but two technical things:
  1. In this edit (Oceania), a blue link was turned into a red link. If you edit a red link (= a link to a not existing page), this will not be a problem, however, if you change a link to an existing page (a blue link) without doing something with the target page, someone might create that page a second time. The best would be, not to change the link, but put a note on the referenced page. Later, when the page might have been moved, the references to the old name can be easily corrected (because the software supports backlinks ... "Nexus ad hanc paginam").
  2. In this edit (Disputatio:Fiii) you deleted parts of other edits, hopefully unintentionally, because it is ok to edit a page, but it is not ok to edit other people's contributions on talk pages.

Please tell me, if I can help you. - Speaking of the moving of a page: It will not be a problem if you do something wrong, I'll be able to repair it. Moving is quite simple and I am sure, you will have success. That's the technical aspect. The more important thing is, that changes which the majority might not accept, should be discussed before the change will be applied. So, if you think a change is ok, just do it. Even moving a page. If you think others will not like it, discuss it before. --Roland2 19:51, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I did what you say under #2. Someone or something has "restored" my comment beginning "In ipso loco," but it wasn't there when I was typing, or I'd have begun my addition there (and corrected a tiny grammatical error in it). Maybe simultaneous things were happening in the machinery and one cancelled the other out. IacobusAmor
Yes, that's possible. In some cases "the machine" tells about other users having started to edit the article.
The editing page was open for possibly more than an hour, while I had tea etc., so maybe Iustinus's comment came in during that time—and when I posted my comment, my addition to the conversation wiped his out. IacobusAmor 20:34, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we have found out the reasons ... ;-)
Further: the questions from Iustinus weren't there when I started typing, or I'd have answered them directly. A time-stamp might show that. Why doesn't my signature include one? IacobusAmor
Maybe you are using just 3 tildes.
3 = Name, 4 = Name + Timestamp, 5 = Timestamp.
--Roland2 20:28, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'll try it: IacobusAmor 20:34, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
It works. :-) --Roland2 20:42, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Gen*tivus[recensere | fontem recensere]

And thanks for fixing the redirect from "genitivus," but I seem to have made a mistake: both my dictionaries say it's genitivus, but L&S (online at Perseus) apparently prefers genetivus. So maybe it should be switched back. Have people discussed the spelling of this word? IacobusAmor 21:01, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Genitivus to Genetivus, so the link is blue in any case and people can see, if there is a note on the target page ... ;-) I think it has not been discussed what the "better" form is. They should be both provided on the target page. Please see my suggestion at Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Redirectio#Templates_for_some_types_of_redirects. --Roland2 21:28, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Eius v. Suus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Forgive me as a newbie, but over & over again in browsing in Vicipaedia, I'm seeing eius where a form of suus is required. Rule of thumb: if the concept of 'his/her/its' refers to the subject of the sentence or clause, it wants to be rendered as a form of suus. Example in Allen & Greenough (299, macrons omitted and other adjustments made):

Caesar suas copias subducit, Caesar leads up his troops.

(A&G don't point this out, but "Caesar eius copias subducit" would mean that Caesar leads up somebody else's troops.) Bradley's Arnold adds (#354(iv), macrons omitted):

Suus corresponds to 'his own' rather than to 'his'; consequently it is not used in many circumstances where we use the unemphatic English 'his.'
Animum advertit, 'he turned his attention'; filii mortem deplorabat, 'he was lamenting his son's death.'
But suus is often used emphatically as opposed to alienus: suo tempore, 'at the time that suited him'; and always in the phrase sua sponte, 'of his own free will.'

Is it possible to search Vicipaedia for a single word? If so, maybe somebody could search for eius and regularize the idioms. IacobusAmor 13:19, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Well using eius for "his" certainly didn't bother many latin writers, and Roman ones at that. Look at De vita Divi Augusti. Suetonius uses eius to mean "his" ie "agustus'" in nearly every chapter.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:37, 2 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't blame me: I didn't invent the rule! You'll find it again in Wheelock, chapter 13, p. 84 in the sixth edition (2000), which has examples including these (macrons omitted):
Cicero laudavit amicum suum, Cicero praised his (own) friend.
Cicero laudavit amicum eius, Cicero praised his (Caesar's) friend.
I gave the Loeb volume with Augustus in it to my nephew, but I have the second volume, and right at the start of Nero, I see Quod insigne mansit et in posteris EIUS, ac magna pars rutila barba fuerunt, 'This sign was perpetuated in HIS descendants, a great part of whom had red beards.' This his isn't reflexive, so it's in posteris eius, not in posteris suis. Right? IacobusAmor 20:01, 2 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Quite. I misread your objection above, pretend I never mentioned it.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:45, 4 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is, I've done a similiar hunt and destroy for various other single word like "vulgo" for instance. Talk to Roland about the specifics, his wikipowers are much greater than mine.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:39, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Is that the vulgo that means 'commonly known (as); ordinarily'? What's wrong with it? Cicero & Ovid used it. Or is it a vas vermum in this forum? ;) IacobusAmor 14:09, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, Iustinus and I have disputed the matter here and here, indeed. Here's my take: I perfectly well realize "vulgo" to be perfect grammatically, and certainly attested. However, you can't link vulgo to anything... I think it much more behooves a comprehensive encyclopaedia like the one in which we toil to be able to link towards language of origin, and it certainly tells a user much mroe than vulgo. Like I assured Iustinus, though, I was not on a search and destroy for every instance of the word, hell bent on its eradication, but in the first sentence of an article, I think, for instance:
"Guilelmus Gates (vulgo Bill)", is much less helpful or useful than "Guilelmus Gates (Anglice: Bill)
In the second one the reader actually knows the language, and can go read about it at that language's wiki.
Iustinus, I don't think, replied to my reply. What do you think? This policy has earned a bit of favor, Roland, Petrus, UV a few others have started practicing this too.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:26, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sure, in that case, yes, I agree with you—as long as you don't go getting rid of vulgo where the context is all in Latin. Is "Tullia (vulgo Tulliola)" right for nicknames? or would it be better to use a form of appello? or something else? IacobusAmor 15:02, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
No, absolutely in such a case vulgo is appropriate. I have no intention of weeding out such a usage.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:12, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Francia ~ Francogallia ~ Gallia?[recensere | fontem recensere]

What's the standard form in Vicipaedia? IacobusAmor 15:38, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Another vas vermum. Francogallia seems to be France, cf Lingua Francogallica. It is a bit less than consistently adhered to, though.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:33, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

The rule I usually go by is this: strictly speaking, Gallus = Gaul, Francus = Frank, Francogallus = Frenchman, however Latinists of all eras (in which there were Frenchmen, at least ;) ) have used these terms very loosely, and almost interchangeably, at least in contexts where there is no chance of confusion. As for the name of the country, well I think the term Francogallia is unnecessary: when speaking of countries and territories, people often use outdated names anyway, so really I think it's just a question of Francia or Gallia. --Iustinus 17:04, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Searching for a single word[recensere | fontem recensere]

Yes, this is possible: Instead of "Ire" click on "Quaerere". You'll find 458 results for eius. Another thing: If you have general information for all users, it might be better to put it on your user page (which is empty at the moment) and not on the talk page of your user page. Or you might want to create an article in the "Vicipaedia" namespace. These are pages where the title starts with "Vicipaedia:". See Vicipaedia:vulgo (which is a redirection page, see Vicipaedia:Redirectio) as an example. --Roland2 17:35, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Volker Beck[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hey, just a quick note about your edit summary. I know it's often infuriating the lack of knowledge or effort people put into articles, but maybe only lose cool if you remind someone a couple of times of a rule first =]. If I were judged publicly for the caliber of my first edits, I'd have a village full of people hurling stones.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:07, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

populatio[recensere | fontem recensere]

Traupman, populatio-nis, f ravaging population multitudo-inis, f multitudo-inis, f great number, multitude, crowd, throng; rabble, common people; population

Whitaker, populatio N 3 1 NOM S F populatio N 3 1 VOC S F populatio, populationis N F [XXXCX] plundering, ravaging, spoiling; laying waste, devastation; plunder, booty;

N&H population, populus-i, m, multitudo-inis, f

L&S population, popularitas-tis, f, populatio-nis, f, pubes-is, f

Populatio

Caesar Gallico I.15, Caesar suos a proelio continebat, ac satis habebat in praesentia hostem rapinis, pabulationibus populationibusque prohibere. I.33, ne maior multitudo Germanorum Rhenum traducatur.

Livy 1.6 Et supererat multitudo Albanorum Latinorumque. III.68 nisi paucis diebus hos populatores agrorum nostrorum fusos fugatosque castris exuero

Ecastor quibus credamus?!?!--Ioshus Rocchio 04:07, 19 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

??? What's this verbiage doing on my page?! IacobusAmor 00:08, 20 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was responding to the verbiage on my page. This is a wiki, dude, you have the power to remove what verbiage you'd like. I'm sorry, do you prefer latin? Remove quae vellis, puer.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:30, 20 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Why not move it over to the page where the discussion started? Then the proffered pieces of evidence would be together. IacobusAmor 13:10, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Igo[recensere | fontem recensere]

IacobusAmor: You keep making the same changes, which I believe to be unnecessary, and in some cases incorrect, to igo. Please read (and if necessary, respond to) my comments at disputatio:igo before you consider reinstating those same changes. --Iustinus 17:01, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Contemptful birds[recensere | fontem recensere]

It might be useful to remember that an absolute construction is verbiage that has no grammatical connection with the sentence in which it occurs. Consider this sentence: "He cut the tree down, the birds looking on in contempt." The boldfaced matter is an absolute phrase. You're likelier to find absolute constructions in modern English poetry than in modern English prose. In Latin prose, they pop up all over the place. IacobusAmor 20:37, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well your example is helpful, and I most certainly wouldn't have had an english language comparison if it weren't for your help because I'm not into Modern English Poetry (not much poetry at all for that matter, but especially not "poetry" that doesn't rhyme). I'll try to keep it in mind—but does this invalidate my attempt at the ablative absolute? Alexanderr 02:02, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
If memory serves, your Latin phrase nailed it: your ablative absolute was fine. Here's an example in an excerpt from a modern English poem, one published (by a woman) in 2006; all three phrases after the first line are absolute:
She lies in the grass,
her hair in a torn web,
the ribbons that laced her dress
drifting,
her shoelaces gone.
Curiously, absolute constructions seem to turn up more in English poetry composed by women than in English poetry composed by men. I wonder (a) whether that's really true, and if so, (b) whether psycholinguists have researched why.
Further examples of ablative absolutes, from Bradley's Arnold, #420:
His auditis[,] rediit, having heard (or hearing) this[,] he returned.
te praesente, in your presence.
hoc comperto scelere, in consequence of discovering this crime.
te repugnante, in spite of (in the teeth of) your resistance.
illo manente, as long as he remains.
Antonio oppresso, if Antony is crushed.
patefacta porta[,] erupit, he had the gate opened and sallied forth.
I suppose the familiar "Deo volente" is another one. Also note: "The proper place for the ablative absolute is early in, or at the very beginning of, a sentence" (Bradley's Arnold, #426). IacobusAmor 02:48, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Caesar is the master of ablative absolutes as far as latin prose authors go, Cicero almost as notably. As far as poetry, Plautus makes extensive use of this construction as well. Read any 5 lines of Caesar, and I almost guarantee one will have an abl abs. Nota bene, other languages make use of this construction, as well. Greek has a genitive absolute, and Russian a nomitave participial absolute.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:59, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
A personal favorite, at the end of Horace's Odes I.2, illustrates Latin's famous economy with words; I'll boldface it:
. . . hic magnos potius triumphos,
hic ames dici pater atque princeps,
neu sinas Medos equitare inultos,
te duce, Caesar.
"Here may you love glorious triumphs, here be called father and prince, nor suffer the Medes to raid unpunished, while you are our leader, O Caesar." I suppose beginners would want to translate that English clause as something like Dum tu es dux noster. IacobusAmor 03:17, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is quite a nice example of just how efficient the absolute construction can be, 5 words become 2.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:20, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Somoa Americana[recensere | fontem recensere]

Everybody can change this. You have to edit the page Formula:Civitates foederalis. It is just a special namespace like "Usor:xxxxx". --Roland (disp.) 22:28, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Now I do, and I've fixed it. Thanks! (It's rather odd that the linkname was correct, but somebody, using the pipe character, had "corrected" it to the wrong form.) IacobusAmor 00:14, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was a typo, see [1]. --Roland (disp.) 06:57, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Kiribati[recensere | fontem recensere]

I have moved Kiribatum to Kiribati ... according to your information. --Roland (disp.) 13:49, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

And for more details on countries in Oceania, see the commentary elsewhere (in Taberna?). IacobusAmor 16:07, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Oceania[recensere | fontem recensere]

I've added (most of) your suggestions to {{Oceania}} and created the missing pages to make it easier to discuss the names. I'll post a note in the taberna. --Roland (disp.) 19:06, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Euge! Gratias tibi ago. IacobusAmor 21:24, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Jose Rizal[recensere | fontem recensere]

Correxisti res iosephus recidivus gratias ago. Doleo inferio latine meius.--Jondel 10:25, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Annus bisextilis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Re vera, Allen & Greenough melius fons est. Sed vicipaedia voce "bisextilis" saepe utitur (et discrimen sine momento mihi est: ambos modos videram). Cave ne nexus fractos facias. Nexus fractos, qui antea non fracti, valde odi! Quod aliquid de tempore edidisti, amabo te si in hanc disputationem quoque spectes et scribas. Sinister Petrus 20:31, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Contact information[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe, you haven't provided wikipedia with your email address. Would you mind getting in touch with me? --Iustinus 04:49, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I did, the same day, but you haven't responded. IacobusAmor 15:47, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
That's odd! I never received it (even in my spam filter). I had thought you were ignoring me. Would you mind trying again? Hopefully it was just a random fluke and it will work this time. --Iustinus 17:06, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

genus names[recensere | fontem recensere]

Yeah, check this from Petrus.--Ioshus (disp) 15:09, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

OK, but genus names & species epithets weren't italicized in the article as I found it, and I didn't italicize them; maybe later. IacobusAmor 15:50, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Auden[recensere | fontem recensere]

Bene facis! Thanks for the corrections and improvements. Locatives are not my strongest point. Xn4 18:46, 10 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

The article caught my eye because Auden is one of my favorite poets, metrically the greatest English-language poet of the twentieth century (and I once had lunch with him). You must be at Gresham's School? IacobusAmor 02:15, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Another O.G., anyway. I'm just wondering if you met Auden at Oxford in 1973? In 1975, I bought a book at Thornton's by Loren Eiseley which he had inscribed to Auden, but that's the nearest I came. Xn4 06:34, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

It was at Harvard, on Ash Wednesday in 1965 (if memory serves); he wore slippers. IacobusAmor 11:00, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien was also a man for slippers. Xn4 11:14, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Deus Caritas Est[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for your help on the Deus Caritas Est page. Alexanderr 03:58, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anything to help. IacobusAmor 14:28, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

The placement of est/sunt[recensere | fontem recensere]

Is the placement of est/sunt at the end of phrases, as in the title of the encyclical Deus Caritas Est (instead of Deus Est Caritas), a marker of Roman Catholic Latin? In a previous thread I've pointed out having often encountered such late placement in Vicipaedia and asked about where it comes from. Is this the answer? IacobusAmor 14:28, 11 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Britannia Spears[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias propter auxilium tuum in hanc rem tibi ago. Meminisse "nubere" non potui, ergo verbo "duci" usus sum. "Nubere" melius est. De Britannia Spears scribo non quia illam amo, sed magis a marito ilius stupefacior. Sinister Petrus 16:34, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Stupefio ego quoque. Est in Vicipaedia res de grege musicali (in casu nominativo:) "Dies Viridis"? IacobusAmor 18:13, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Non credo Iacobe, vide Categoria:Musica rock.--Ioshus (disp) 21:17, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Neque ego. Fortasse aliquis facturus esse rem de Diebus Viridibus debet. Sinister Petrus 04:39, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

A B esse / A esse B[recensere | fontem recensere]

I wonder about this. You often bring it up, so I figured I'd form my thoughts outtyped to you. In a few of the southern Italian dialects, a b est is the prefered form, especially when b is an adjective. This obviously has rubbed off of late due to modern Italian influence, but certainly in most breed of Sicilian and Calabrian I have encountered, especially the old people say "a b est". I wonder then about spoken latin, especially as it progressed to the vulgar forms, and away from the refinement of a cultural mecca like Florence. I have nothing profound here, just rambling...--Ioshus (disp) 21:21, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Then let's ramble along with Cicero, whom, in a continuous passage, we'll see keeping his prose flowing by varying the positions in which 'to be' occurs. Here's his description of Syracuse ("In C. Verrem"), analyzed for 'to be':
Urbem Syracusas maximam esse Graecarum . . . audistis.—MEDIAL
Est, iudices, ita ut dicitur.—INITIAL (for emphasis)
Ea tanta est urbs ut . . . constare dicatur,—MEDIAL
quarum una est Insula,—MEDIAL
in qua domus est—PHRASE-FINAL
quae Hieronis regis fuit, qua praetores uti solent.—PHRASE-FINAL
In ea sunt aedes sacrae complures . . .—MEDIAL
quae fuit ante istius adventum ornatissima, Minervae.—MEDIAL
In hac insula extrema est fons aquae dulcis—MEDIAL
cui nomen Arethusa est, incredibili. . . .—PHRASE-FINAL
Altera autem est urbs Syracusis,—MEDIAL
cui nomen Achradina est,—PHRASE-FINAL
in qua forum maximum . . . est curia templumque. . . .—MEDIAL
Tertia est urbs quae,—MEDIAL
quod in ea parte Fortunae fanum antiquum fuit,—PHRASE-FINAL
Tycha nominata est,—PHRASE-FINAL (with a participle)
in qua gymnnasium amplissimum est et complures aedes sacrae.—MEDIAL
Quarta autem est quae,—MEDIAL
quia postrema coaedificata est, Neapolis nominatur. . . .—PHRASE-FINAL (with a participle)
Praeterea duo templa sunt egregia. . . .—MEDIAL
A rich array in a short passage!—twenty instances, of which one is initial, twelve are medial, two are phrase-final with a participle (as part of a composite perfect), and five are otherwise phrase-final. None of the instances of 'to be' is sentence-final. A final est especially would be a thin reed on which to lean a sentence, as it has no stress, and it often loses its vowel. (Some modern editions, e.g. the Loeb, write the prodelision, as in famast, for fama est.) This is a small sample, but it may have lessons to teach. We might want to be wary of phrase-final 'to be', except when it immediately precedes a relative pronoun, and of sentence-final 'to be', except when it's part of a composite perfect, or has some other idiomatic rhythm, as in the sentence Meumst ("Meum est") 'It's mine'. IacobusAmor 01:16, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
OK, now I've tried out this question on a retired classics professor in the United States. Here's what I told him:
In Vicipaedia, one often sees entries whose first sentence takes this form (as, say, in an article on Aetna):
Aetna mons in Sicilia est.
This bothers me because putting est at the end (1) makes an ambiguity between "Aetna is a mountain in Sicily" and "Mount Aetna is in Sicily," and (2) to my ears, sounds clunky. . . . Are there any rules for the placement of forms of esse? I don't see any in Bradley's Arnold, but I've checked some prose by Cicero, Suetonius, Tacitus, and (of all people) Angelo Poliziano, and rarely find a sentence-final form of esse, unless it follows a participle, as in factus est. (For example, in Cicero's oration In Verrem, the paragraph describing Syracuse has twenty instances of esse, and none is sentence-final.) I have a feeling that many of the authors of articles in Vicipaedia have been told by their teachers that it's always safe to put verbs at the end, and so, being diligent students, that's what they do, no matter what the result sounds like. Here's an actual example from Vicipaedia:
Stephanus VI aut V (natus Romae die ignoto – obiit die XIV Septembris DCCCXCI), episcopus Romae Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae a mense Septembris DCCCLXXXV erat.
Isn't erat there a rather thin reed on which to lean a sentence?
And here's his reply (emphasis added):
You are absolutely right to question the placement of forms of esse in sentences. It never comes under the postponed placement (periodic) tendency. If it and sunt and erat and erant are first in a sentence, they are the way Latin expresses ‘there is’, ‘there are’, ‘there was’, etc. So, to express your thought about Aetna, you could say, Est mons in Sicilia, Aetna (‘there is a mountain in Sicily, Aetna’). Or you could say, Aetna est mons in Sicilia (‘Aetna is a mountain in Sicily’). Putting est at the end creates the ambiguity you cited. The placement of erat in the Stephanus citation is utterly false. It belongs before episcopus.
Could we have comments here from other authorities? I'm particularly interested in where the sentence-final placement of copulative forms of esse is coming from. Is it being taught somewhere in the world as a desirable stylistic choice? Is it Germanic Latin? modern Roman Catholic Latin? or what? IacobusAmor 13:11, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Memorandum: in Vicipaedia, I've observed a final est in independent clauses mainly in texts emanating from Germany, Poland, Romania, and Finland. IacobusAmor 14:04, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)

esse ultimum, post qui, quae, quod, etc.[recensere | fontem recensere]

  • Ammianus Marcellinus: "Cuius disciplinae Tages nomine quidam monstrator est,..." —PHRASE-FINAL [addit usor ignotus]
Nothing unusual there: "The copula final type is quite common when the subject is or includes a relative pronoun . . . ; in this structure the whole predicate phrase is in the focus position" (Devine & Stephens, Latin Word Order, 2006:198). In the passage analyzed above, Cicero's only phrase-final uses of copulative esse in the passage cited above occur in such clauses ("when the subject is or includes a relative pronoun") :
in qua domus est.
quae Hieronis regis fuit.
cui nomen Arethusa est.
cui nomen Achradina est.
quod in ea parte Fortunae fanum antiquum fuit.
In the last example, quod functions as a conjunction, but it could still have been heard as the accusative neuter of qui. IacobusAmor 13:42, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

esse, esse[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vide hanc vocem, quae olim inventa est in commentario Wilhelmus Ricardus Wagner: "Drama melica de seprentionali [sic] navigatoro [sic], qui condemnatus est, est." Formae verbi esse quae sic sese arietant sunt ferme inconcinnae. IacobusAmor 13:43, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)

A esse [participium][recensere | fontem recensere]

Vide hanc vocem: "Pontius Pilatus erat praefectus Iudaeae et Tiberio imperatore iudex qui condemnavit Iesum Nazarenum notus." (1) Hac in sententia, notus est admodum sero. (2) Praeterea, hoc notus est verbum supervacuum et putidum, saepe sicut situs (e.g., A est B in C situs). (3) Sensus est plusquam perfectivus: (Anglice) 'Pontius Pilate had been known as governor of Judea, and under Emperor Tiberius the judge who condemned Jesus of Nazareth'. Pro erat . . . notus, lege tantum fuit. IacobusAmor 13:43, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Laus Deo solo (Anglice: Praise to God alone)[recensere | fontem recensere]

Your correction is good, but the motto is in English and not Latin, viz., Al worship be to God only. Laus Deo solo was my stab at it. I also toyed with veneratio. Maybe you can advise? Regards, Xn4 21:53, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep spelling all with one ell? (Do you have a problem with it?) You left it out of your Latin translation, so I didn't know to add it into the English version! The Latin word for 'worship of God' is (according to my dictionary) adoratio. IacobusAmor 00:00, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Duos nummos meos profero: Bach signed his works "sola deo gloria". This is something of a transferred epithet, but I wonder if that's the norm for latin. Ie, "sola deo adoratio" instead of "adoratio soloi deo".--Ioshus (disp) 00:13, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

don't forget: the dative of solus is soli. --68.28.147.114 00:43, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

It is? IacobusAmor 01:12, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
(That anonymous user was me, btw)
Yup, like unus. See here, for instance. This of course causes the embarassment that deo soli can mean either "to God alone" or "to the sun-god" (look what happens if you google it). And although I make a big deal about not using nouns as adjectives in Latin, Sol Deus is a well attested exception (not even an exception, really: the words are in apposition). --Iustinus 02:47, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it goes along with ullus, unus, uter, and suchlike. That means the genitive singular should be solius. Did those irregularities last through the Renaissance and beyond? or did later authors regularize solus? IacobusAmor 13:29, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... odd that solius strikes me as more weird than soli. As for regularization, such things were bound to happen in the middle ages (I speculate), but by the renaissance I'm sure they were going back to the classical forms. Note that the OCD already lists classical sources that "regularize" it:
I. gen. regular. solius; dat. soli; gen. m. soli, Cato ap. Prisc. p. 694 P.; dat. m. SOLO, Inscr. Orell. 2627; f. solae, Plaut. Mil. 4, 2, 28; Ter. Eun. 5, 6, 3), adj. [orig. the same with sollus, q. v.; cf. salus. By Pott referred to sui, Kühn. Zeitschr. 5, 242] .
--Iustinus 15:46, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Any insight on the nuance of syntax, Iustine? Is it praise to the only god, or the only praise to god? As I said, if I hadn't grown up seeing sdg on the bottom of scores I never would have thought of it. I try to avoid ecclesiastical writings =].--Ioshus (disp) 03:01, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
You're just asking about the semantics? Well Laus Deo Soli could literally translate to either "Praise to God alone" or "Praise to the only God" (or, of course, "Praise to the Sun-God"), but I don't think I've ever seen it taken any way but the first. Of course a Roman would doubtless think we were splitting hairs if we were to ask which one he (or, I suppose she) thought it was. --Iustinus 06:40, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all this thoughtful advice. In googling, I have found a web site about Bach called [Soli Deo Gloria. This site says that what Bach signed was simply SDG, so perhaps he, too, was not too sure! On the al, I guess the English motto had (and has) only one -l- because the College of Arms in the 1550s thought one was enough. As you know, in those days English was seen as a lesser language and no one thought its spelling would trouble posterity. Now, perhaps, the single -l- is a kind of heirloom. In any event, it makes no odds to the Latin and I should have put in omnia, but then I'm only an la-2 user and in worrying which word to use for 'worship' I forgot it. How about Omnia adoratio soli Deo? Xn4 21:54, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Others may rule on that, but if you're going to give the English, I wonder whether you shouldn't add a "[sic]," lest 99.99 percent of your readers think you've misspelled the word. IacobusAmor 22:02, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Admonitio tua mihi placet. Xn4 15:33, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

C. Iulius Caesar[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe, did you revert my changes for a reason or can I go ahead and re-add them? Greetings, --UV 00:52, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Hi, UV. I didn't revert anything specifically thinking of you, but I noticed that the article contained numerous unnecessary examples of "a.C.n.," and (per a previous conversation with Ioshus) it seemed reasonable to get rid of them. (I made other changes too.) Had you just added them in? If so, then we all need to have a discussion. Maybe years like "(double bracket)44 a.C.n.(double bracket)" could be given as "(double bracket)a.C.n.|44(double bracket)." Do others have relevant opinions? Mine is that, once the text gives an instance of "a.C.n.," readers will understand that the years are counting down to 1, and they need no additional reference to the Christ. IacobusAmor 01:52, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
ok, now I understand. I like and I support your proposal: Let the first place a year is mentioned read e. g. [[78 a.C.n.]] and subsequent years generally e. g. [[72 a.C.n.|72]]. Greetings, --UV 21:51, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Position of the verb (at the end or in the middle)[recensere | fontem recensere]

You correct the pages when the verb at the end is, but now (see mutationes 15.10 in the morning) I see that Finnicus writes "in school. classical latin usually puts verbs last. verbs in the middle in an anglism and should be avoided". What's the correct solution? Could you help me? Thank you and ciao--Massimo Macconi 09:42, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Maxime, Latin prose usually puts verbs last, but esse is a special verb, with special tendencies of its own. Scroll up a little bit in this disputatio and you'll find relevant discussion under the title "A B est / A est B." The late placement of bare forms of esse (that is, not in association with a past participle as part of a verb in the perfect system, like paratus est) is the first stylistic thing about Vicipaedia that I noticed. If it occurred seldom, it wouldn't attract attention to itself, because Latin uses word order for special effects, or just for rhythmic variety (for example, "Et regressus est Jesus," not "Et Jesus regressus est," in Matt. 4:14); but in Vicipaedia, the late placement of esse occurs so frequently that one suspects that authors have been taught that it's the best way to write. I've asked where it was coming from, but responses haven't materialized. More thorough browsing—noting the topics covered and the location of their authors—suggests that it may mark a Central & Eastern European dialect of modern Latin—perhaps Germanic or, as we see today, Finnish. It's not a mistake that native speakers of English, Dutch, Spanish, and French would likely make. German can in some constructions put its cognate (ist, sind, etc.) at the end (e.g., "Er muss dabei nicht nur verbergen, dass er ein Mann ist, sondern auch, dass er Christ ist), so I wonder if terminal esse sounds natural to Germans; it appears in the Ratzingerese of the encyclical title "Deus Caritas Est," but it isn't a prominent feature of the text that follows.
Examine extended passages of genuine classical prose and see what you see. Here, for example, from Seneca (De Providentia):
Infelix est Mucius, quod dextra ignes hostium premit et ipse a se exigit erroris sui poenas? . . . Felicior esset, si in sinu amicae foveret manum? Infelix est Fabricius . . . ? Felicior, si in ventrem suum. . . . Infelix est Rutilius . . . ? Quid ergo? Felix est L. Sulla. . . .
None of these forms of esse is sentence-final. Incidentally, this is a good passage to show that questions of this type don't have to begin with Est or Estne.
Also, esse is often so unnecessary that it can be left out. See the Beatitudes: "Beati [sunt] pauperes spiritu" (Matt. 5:2). Note also the continuation of that verse: "quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum" (not "quoniam ipsorum regnum caelorum est"). On omission, see also Seneca's "Felicior [esset], si in ventrem suum" (above). For a later example, see Angelo Politziano's summary of Lorenzo de' Medici: Vir ad omnia summa natus (letter dated 18 March 1492), for which in English we have to supply a verb: "[He was] a man born for every excellence."
The rhythm of simple sentences (which we often find at the start of articles in Vicipaedia) almost demands medial placement of esse, as in this continuous passage (Gen. 1:8).
Terra autem erat inanis et vacua,—MEDIAL (not "inanis et vacua erat")
et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi. . . .—MEDIAL (not "super faciem abyssi erant")
Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux.—MEDIAL (not "Et lux facta est")
Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona. . . .—MEDIAL (not "quod bona esset")
Factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus.—MEDIAL (not "Et vespere et mane factum est")
Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmamentum. . . . Divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento,—MEDIAL (not "quae sub firmamento erant")
ab his quae erant super firmamentum.—MEDIAL (not "quae super firmamentum erant")
Et factum est ita. Vocavitque Deus firmamentum Caelum.—MEDIAL (not "Et ita factum est")
Et factum est vespere et mane, dies secundus.—MEDIAL (not "Et vespere et mane factum est")
So the first nine instances of esse in Genesis are medial, not sentence-final, and not even phrase-final; and if you keep reading, the pattern continues.
Note the instances of esse at the start of a paragraph from Pliny's famous letter to Trajan:
Alii ab indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt, et mox negaverunt;—MEDIAL
fuisse quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante triennium. . . .—PHRASE-INITIAL
Omnes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra venerati sunt et Christo male dixerunt.—PHRASE-FINAL but not SENTENCE-FINAL
Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris,—MEDIAL
quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem. . . .—MEDIAL
In short, a rule like "verbs in the middle [is] an [Anglicism] and should be avoided" should be taken with more than one grain of salt. Read good authors and notice their habits. IacobusAmor 13:22, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Clara exempla, e texto missae Catholicae Romanae:
Et incarnatus est de Spirito Sancto ex Maria Virgine.—Non "Et de Spiritu Sancto . . . incarnatus est" (though that formulation might also be OK).
qui locutus est per prophetas.—Non "qui per prophetas locutus est" (though that formulation might also be OK).
Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare. . . .—Non "Vere dignum, justum, aequum, et salutare est. . . ."
Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua.—Non "Caeli et terra pleni gloria tua sunt."
Hoc est enim corpus meum.—Non "Hoc enim corpus meum est."
Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti.—Non "Hic enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, est."
Pater noster, qui es in caelis—Non "Pater noster, qui in caelis es."
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.—Non "Pax Domini semper vobiscum sit."
In principio erat Verbum,—Non "In principio Verbum erat."
et Verbum erat apud Deum,—Non "et Verbum apud Deum erat."
et Deus erat Verbum.—Non "et Deus Verbum erat."
Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.—Non "Hoc in principio apud Deum erat." IacobusAmor 15:56, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but putting the esse verb in the middle after the noun makes it so much easier to read and even similar to romance languages. It is much easier o function and use Latin this way.--Jondel 03:51, 16 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Recte dicis, Jondel. IacobusAmor 13:09, 22 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Quid de "errare humanum est"? --Alex1011 17:10, 20 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
1. Beats me. We'd have to ask Seneca. ;) Seriously, if Wikipedia is right, the copula, though standing at the end of a phrase, is actually in the middle of a rhetorical rhythm, which we might punctuate as pronounced: errare humanumst; perseverare, diabolicum. The comma stands for a suppressed est. Making the syntax of the phrases strictly parallel ruins their sound: both errare humanumst; perseverare diabolicumst and errarest humanum; perseverarest diabolicum lack a deft rhetorical touch. I haven't read much Seneca (though see above), so I can't speculate more.
2. Not to be ignored is that the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary reverses the terms: Humanum est errare. Where could that version have come from?
3. I've been browsing in Tacitus, who seems to be waging war on esse, killing it wherever he can. When it occurs early, it seem to have emphasis, as in section 3 of the Germania: "Fuisse apud eos et Herculem memorant. . . . Sunt illis haec quoque carmina. . . ." But it also, and rarely, occurs late: "quae neque confirmare argumentis neque refellere in animo est: ex ingenio suo quisque demat vel addat fidem." Note, however, that its tardiness here is not occurring in a phrase of the structure "A est B." IacobusAmor 18:13, 20 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Gratia...[recensere | fontem recensere]

tibi ago propter perfectam explicationem. Nunc emendabo paginas meas. Salve --Massimo Macconi 16:21, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Salve, munde![recensere | fontem recensere]

Does the page en:Hello world program answer your question? ;-) --Roland (disp.) 20:50, 17 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Why, yes it does. Gratias! IacobusAmor 00:04, 18 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Scutum fidei[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for catching the Orientis vs. Occidentis thing -- I looked at that more than a dozen times without ever noticing! For the difference between the placement of node labels in the 13th century versions vs. the most usual post-13th-century versions, see en:Shield of the Trinity... AnonMoos 13:32, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Haedui[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ave, Jacobe.

  • Scripsisti in Haeduorum pagina :"Cum Caesar in Galliam veniret, ...factiones erant", potius quam Cum Caesar in Galliam venit, ...factiones erant. Insisto tamen constructionem meam validam esse, nam cum haud semper subjunctivum appellat, et dico in hoc casu indicativum utendum esse.
Fortasse recte dicis, Verbex, nam hac verborum structura est perdifficilis, quia cum usitate subiunctivum, sed nonnunquam indicativum, gubernat. Secundum Bradley's Arnold (#430): "When the clause introduced by cum refers to a past action[,] the verb is generally subjunctive. Caesar, cum haec videret, milites impetum facere iussit. Caesar, seeing this, ordered his troops to charge. Legati, cum haec non impetrassent, domum redierunt. The ambassadors having failed to obtain this, returned home." Sed nota proximam sententiam (#431): "But in some circumstances a cum-clause referring to a past action has an indicative verb. (a) When the relation between the clause and main sentence is solely one of time. This relation is often impressed on the reader by the presence of tum or eo tempore in the main sentence. Cum tu ibi eras, tum ego domi eram. At the time you were there, I was at home." In sententia originali, hoc tum non vidi. IacobusAmor 13:04, 22 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Recte quidem est, nam Caesar ipse scripsit in Comm. VI,12 : "Cum Caesar in Galliam venit, alterius factionis principes erant Haedui, alterius Sequani". Licet autem constare grammaticae libros in Francia hanc structuram non tam verecunde docere, quam Bradley's Arnold (quod confiteor numquam legisse!) docet. Priscianus haec dixit : (cum + ind.) utandum quoties cum mutare possumus cum eo tempore quo.--Verbex 15:21, 22 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Ne Caesarem emendemus! IacobusAmor 00:25, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
  • Reversisti significationem sententiae meae de Diviciaco. Nam Romanos non pugnavit (ut apparet in Commentariis Caesaris), sed Germanos et Helvetios, et econtra auxilium Romanorum petiit. Ordo verborum mutare potes, nam rarissime poetor, sed significationem serva.
  • De vergobreto mox declarabo : officium apud Gallos erat, quod proxime Romanus praetor par est.--Verbex 21:44, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Bene; adde explicationem, fortasse: apud Gallos, "vergobreto" erat officium praetoris Romani simile.
IacobusAmor 13:04, 22 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Notulam ergo addam. Puto autem nexum meliorem fore. Gratiam tibi ago pro diligentia. --Verbex 15:21, 22 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Complimenti![recensere | fontem recensere]

Sei un grande grammariano! You really know your Latin grammar! Thanks for your help on the Derthona page. Grazie mille, mille fois merci, vielen Dank! GiovaneScuola2006 14:54, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

"Savum Oppidum Alpinum"[recensere | fontem recensere]

vide en.wiki et it.wiki "Savona". Apud et non locativum, quia Franciscus Della Rovere non in urbe sed in vico apud hanc urbem natus est, ciao--Massimo Macconi 21:47, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Dicisne nomen vici esse "Savonam" (unum verbum), quae est oppidum quod est alpinum? sed res ipse dicit nomen esse "Savum Oppidum Alpinum" (tria verba). Ergo coniicio rem errare, et locutionem rectam esse "Savum, oppidum alpinum" (Anglice: Savum, an alpine city), non "Savum Oppidum Alpinum" (Anglice: Alpine City Savum). IacobusAmor 23:44, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Quid est imago?[recensere | fontem recensere]

You mean the images need a title or do you think the images are inappropriate? I clicked on that images and - from the description - they seem to be ok. --Roland (disp.) 11:29, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

If I ask that, it means (a) an image has no caption, or (b) the caption is confusing or confused. IacobusAmor 11:31, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
What about a template similar to {{Nexus carentes}} which says something like "Image needs a better caption"? --Roland (disp.) 11:35, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
If something like that would be useful, it's fine with me. Maybe there ought to be a general caution somewhere, urging people who insert images to insert captions too. IacobusAmor 13:32, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Please do add such a general caution to Vicipaedia:Imago#Ad imagines includendas. I like the idea of a template as well (but maybe we should make it a little less eye-catching and eye-hurting than {{Fontes carentes}} ;-) ) Greetings, --UV 15:02, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Res publica Romana[recensere | fontem recensere]

emendavi paginam. Wtha do you think about it?--Massimo Macconi 20:27, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Sancta Caecilia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Maybe you will not like that edit: [2] It seems that it was not you, who made this change. --Roland (disp.) 00:36, 29 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. It's a bizarrely sourced article anyway! (If I had time, I'd scrap it and start over.) IacobusAmor 17:40, 20 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

de pronuntiatione Latina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Adnotationem tuam non intellego. Longitudo et vocalium et consonantium eodem modo iam significatae sunt, scilicet ː. usor:Bohmhammel, 23.31 h, 6 Idus Dec. 2006

Horch and Audi[recensere | fontem recensere]

Referring to [3]. Normally we do not translate company names but some companies do it themselves: Horch (germ.) = Audi (lat.). There is also a story behind it. --Rolandus 11:46, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Then it would be useful for that little article to mention it. At the moment, the illustration doesn't illustrate anything specifically mentioned in the text. IacobusAmor 11:49, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
The German WP says for de:Horch: August Horch verließ seine Firma 1909 und gründete in Zwickau die Audi Automobilwerke GmbH („audi“ ist die Übersetzung des Firmennamens „Horch“ in das Lateinische. Der Imperativ Singular von audire (hören) lautet audi! (höre! oder eben horch!) Many years ago I heard that the daughter of Mr. Horch, told him about this and he chose "Audi" for the new company. You are right, this should be mentioned. Some sort of insider joke now. ;-) --Rolandus 11:59, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Middle names[recensere | fontem recensere]

I believe that the middle names are used to differentiate Petrus Cosimi Medices from Petrus Laurentius Medices , recte Petrus Laurentii Medices (I have to correct it) (cfr. others wikis). They were not kings or dukes and therefore it's not possible to give them the names Piero Medici I and Piero Medici II. Historians use instead as middle names their fathers names (di Cosimo and di Lorenzo).--Massimo Macconi 20:40, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

This is plausible—but in his lifetime, was he called "Petrus Cosimi Medices"? I'd rather have expected "Petrus, filius Cosimi Medicis," or something like that. IacobusAmor 20:46, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

deus/Deus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Well, in this case it is not just one religion for whom god represent a sense of the infinite, so I didn't want to capitalize it. Furthermore, I never capitalize it. I don't know the guy's name, so I don't see why we should capitalize the word we pick to describe him. In english maybe I can see it, but in latin?--Ioshus (disp) 15:16, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Then lowercase her! ;)
Why not make the generality of this deus clearer by making it 'their god' or 'their supposed deity' or something like that? IacobusAmor 17:25, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Well, I left it lowercase in the sentence "in rebus theologicis, infinitas fiat deus..." but took your capitalization in the part about in theologia Iudaea-Christiana, Deus est...". Maybe I could change the former to "infinitas aequet et videatur esse deum..."--Ioshus (disp) 17:38, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Or "in rebus theologicis, infinitas fiat suprema entitas vel potestas vel virtus, quae theologiae professores Deus appellant." Or whatever. This issue doesn't excite me today. IacobusAmor 17:53, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Aristarchus[recensere | fontem recensere]

His geographical epithet really is Samius, as I used on Astronomus. Note the number of google hits for "Aristarchus Samius" vs. "Aristarchus Samotrhacius" --Iustinus 21:01, 21 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Apparet fuisse duos Aristarchos:
Aristarchus Samius, 310–c230
Aristarchus Samothracius, c220–c143
The latter is the one involved with Crates Mallotes. The similarity threw me for a moment too. IacobusAmor 02:48, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Gratiae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thank you for fixing my latin, as of yet it is abysmal- could I (in the future) bother you with some questions about latin? --BiT 15:47, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Bother everybody! That's what we're here for! (However, it might be useful first to learn the difference between nominative & accusative case, and similar distinctions.) IacobusAmor 15:55, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
I know the diffrece between the two (I'm from Iceland, and icelandic has declensions so declining is easy for me). It was merely a rare lapse in judgment. --BiT 17:29, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Consolus, ludi consolus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Is consolus OK? English "game console" is effectively "gaming console, console for gaming," but ludi consolus is more like "a game's console" (assuming consolus is a legitimate word). Somewhere a Neolatin site has a list of these words, but I don't have the URL at my fingertips. IacobusAmor 15:55, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I tried googling "consolus + computer", "consolus + video", "consolus + game", "consolus + est"... I got things like "xboxicus", "video gamicus", etc... Nothing here] either.--Ioshus (disp) 16:42, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
The English noun console seems to have begun (in 1664) as an architectural term, referring to a projection from a plane (a wall or a keystone), forming a bracket on which an object might be placed. From there, it developed into the term for a case involving the works of an organ; and from there, it got extended to denote a panel or cabinet for controlling mechanical or electrical devices. It apparently comes directly from French, where it's been assumed to have developed from a word whose cognate in English is consolidate. So there's a clue. (Would consolidator work?) Alternatively & preferably, since console as an architectural term was in use in Europe in the 1600s, we'd expect to find a seventeenth-century Latin word for it—but where can we find it? IacobusAmor 17:25, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Well assuming consolus is legitimate, I think declining "ludus" in genitive is ok. Genitive of quality i.e. Like "Day of wrath" (Diēs irae). Of course if there is a Latin word for console, that would be great- and I do know that it's not wikipedia's job to make up words, but if no other word exists.. --BiT 18:18, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Barring anyone who can make 'consolus' legitimate, Modern Greek has it feminine: κονσόλα consŏla... in full κονσόλα παιχνιδιών (i.e. consola ludorum). —Myces Tiberinus 17:41, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
The modern Romance languages have it in feminine 'consola' too, judging from interwiki links (except apparently Italian). Where'd this weird second-declension form come from? —Myces Tiberinus 17:48, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
If to take consola, might we prefer dative consola ludis?--Ioshus (disp) 18:23, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
I would caution against using datives adjectivally. It does sometimes happen, but it's considered poor style unless you have some adjective governing the dative, e.g. consola ludis apta or destinata or whatever. I'd rather see a genitive, or better yet a pure adjective here. --Iustinus 19:32, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

If it's of interest, there's a general case here: for noun-noun compounds in Germanic languages, Romance languages reverse the order of the nouns and insert a connecting word between them; so, where "x" is a connecting word, Germanic AB is Romance BxA. Example: English question mark vs. French point d'interrogation. The Romance equivalent in Latin could be with a genitive, the Genitive of Quality (A&G #345), which, as Iustinus points out, occurs only or usually with an adjective or a numeral; e.g., murus sedecim pedum, 'a sixteen-foot wall'. Maybe the Partitive Genitive is relevant here too. IacobusAmor 19:57, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Ars convertendi verba Polynesiana in Linguam Latinam[recensere | fontem recensere]

In Latinizing Polynesian words, we face a grave problem: the final vowel of Polynesian nouns is almost invariably part of the ROOT of the word. In at least some attested words, the tradition has been to lop off such vowels when necessary for attaching Latin suffixes. Example: Polynesian Samoa yields the well-established Latin taxonomic adjective Samoensis, not Samoaensis. (With -ensis, other vowels appear to be exempt: Fijian Viti yields Vitiensis.) From the viewpoint of the Polynesian languages, this procedure may be puzzling. For some words ending in -a, like Samoa, a quick solution is to use the first- and second-declension suffixes: Samoanus, -a, -um. But constructing Latin nouns out of words whose ROOTS end in -e, -i, and -o will strongly jar indigenous phonologies. (I suppose nouns whose roots end in -u can be considered fourth-declension nouns.) I've confronted several examples in a new article, on Savaium,* which I wrote partly to test what solutions to the problem might "feel like." I'm not satisfied at all, but need to think further. Meanwhile, any suggestions? IacobusAmor 20:14, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

  • Which, by the way (at least for the moment), is more accurate & far more complete than the matching article in the English-language Wikipedia, to which I'd link it if I knew how. IacobusAmor 20:14, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Possible examples (some obvious, some problematic):

Alofa'aga = Alofaaga, -ae, 1. <---But Samoan G is pronounced "ng."
Asau = Asau, -us, 4.
Auala = Auala, -ae, 1.
Fa'asalele'aga = Faasaleleaga, -ae, 1. <---But Samoan G is pronounced "ng."
Fa'ato'afe = Faatoafeus, -i, 2. (Personal name.) <---Hmmm.
Falealupo = Falealupum, -i. <---This conversion looks weird (the O being part of the root).
Matavanu = Matavanu, -us, 4.
Moso = Mosus, -i, 2. <---This conversion looks weird (the O being part of the root).
Mulinu'u = Mulinuum, -i, 2.
Pagoa = Pagoa, -ae, 1. <---But Samoan G is pronounced "ng."
Pumele'i: I avoided the problem by using an adjective, Pumeleianus, but the problem is still there.
Sale'aula = Saleaula, -ae, 1.
Salelologa = Salelologa, -ae, 1. <---But Samoan G is pronounced "ng."
Savai'i = Savaium, -i, 2. <---Hmmm.
Tafua, -ae, 1.
Taoa, -ae, 1.

Does the double A in Faasaleleaga bother anybody? The G could be a problem: would Latinists prefer Alofaanga, Faasaleleanga, etc.? For words ending in -e, -i, and -o, would it be best to leave the nominative singular alone and to decline only the other cases? or to treat the whole @#$% word as indeclinable? IacobusAmor 20:37, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that I've spent a few hours keyboarding articles containing Polynesian words, I'm really not satisfied with turning names ending in -o into second-declension nouns. Saveasiuleus looks bizarre. I suppose some of these could become -o, -onis, 3. But which ones? all of them? For another model in -o, there's echo, echus, 4. Hmmm. IacobusAmor 03:28, 24 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

factorizatio[recensere | fontem recensere]

What's the right word? =] --Ioshus (disp) 22:53, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Idaho, but I'd guess factor. My question, though, was about the word order, factorizatio cuius. I've started reading Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning & Information, by A. M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), which Santa Claus brought me—and there's a danger I'll soon be bristling with word-order quibbles. ;) IacobusAmor 22:58, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
"cuius factorizatio" probably better you're right. Where did Santa Claus find that book, out of curiosity? I have an Amazon gift certificate...--Ioshus (disp) 01:17, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Via Amazon; but I found a bargain with a secondhand copy that has a negligible (one-inch) tear on one page. The book is heavy on linguistic theory & terminology ("If a phrase takes with it some element that it should have left behind when it raises, that is called piedpiping: cepit quam urbem? ---> quam urbem cepit?, where the interrogative piedpipes the noun although that is not part of the query but part of the presupposition," p. 29), but it's got many good examples on many subjects. I'll bring these forward as the occasions arise. IacobusAmor 01:39, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you're here...[recensere | fontem recensere]

or the article Lingua Cambriana I wanted to translate the sentence "Due to the increasing use of the English language the numbers of Welsh speakers had been declining for decades". And I got to "Lingua Anglica locuta, illa qui potest linguam cambrianam dicere" but when it came to saying "has been declining for decades" I didn't know how to say it. I don't even have the foggiest idea how to say "has been -ing" only "has been -ed" nor do I know how do say "for decades". Is there anyway you can help me? Thanks, Alexanderr 23:05, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

"Due to the increasing use of the E. language" = "Because use of the E. language had been increasing." + "The numbers of those who spoke W. had for decades [accusative of time during which] been declining." Sorry, that's all I can write right now: the dinner bell just rang! IacobusAmor 23:13, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Pro-vita[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobus, I am unsure of the original source of the quoted sentence on the pro-vita page but it is a translation a quoted sentence on the German wikipedia's article for Pro-life. The original sentence reads "für den Schutz des menschlichen Lebens in allen seinen Phasen von der Zeugung bis zum natürlichen Tod einsetzen". That said I remember reading a similar mission goal in English or at least think I do :) Alexanderr 05:27, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Do you have any new contributions to my last question. I still don't know how to say "has been -ing" in latin :P

Alexandre, render "has been -ing" by the present tense, with an appropriate adverb and/or the length of the duration in the accusative:
Multos iam annos hic domicilium habeo.
I've now been living here for many years.
Bradley's Arnold adds (#181): "Since the Latin Perfect cannot express 'I have been doing' . . . , the Romans used the Present in its continuous sense and expressed the idea of the past by the adverbs iampridem, iamdiu, iamdudum. . . . Similarly, since the Latin Pluperfect cannot express 'I had been doing,' the Romans used the Imperfect (a continuous tense of past time) with the adverbs iampridem, etc." It has a note that "Greek and French have a similar idiom: palai legw. Depuis longtemps je parle." Happy New Year! IacobusAmor 05:13, 31 Decembris 2006 (UTC)