Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2007

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disputata anni 2007

sol deus[recensere | fontem recensere]

I forget where we were talking about Sol Deus and the possibility of two nouns in latin, but is this another example?--Ioshus (disp) 13:28, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Almost—but here, the second part of Aqua Virgo resembles a proper name or a brand name: 'the aqueduct that's named "Virgo"'. To my ear, this pattern resembles that of Aetna mons and Rhenum flumen (and, for that matter, Antiques Roadshow, the roadshow named "Antiques"). So in Aqua Virgo, both terms decline. But Coca-Cola doesn't work that way: it's not a cola that's named "Coca": it's a cola that's named "Coca-Cola." The whole entity is the trademark, and trademarks are legally adjectives. (I'm not making this up: it's the law!) So we're always supposed to say something like "a Coca-Cola soft drink," just as the law requires us to say something like "a Kleenex facial tissue," not merely "a Kleenex." (Believe it or not, copyeditors enforce this law in print.) The reason we can say "an aspirin" instead of, say, "an Aspirin analgesic medicament," and "an escalator" instead of "an Escalator moving stairway," and "linoleum" instead of "Linoleum canvas flooring" is that the owners of those trademarks failed to take the legal steps to stop us from turning their adjectives into nouns. So, to refine my prior question: what are some examples of double-barreled adjectives in Latin? IacobusAmor 15:57, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Benfey[recensere | fontem recensere]

This article is ligitimate and real and should not be deleted. 14:59, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Well, legitimacy and reality are not the only criteria necessary. --Iustinus 15:18, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
It's apparently trying to say: "Christopher Benfey is an English-teacher. He has written many books about America of the fourteenth century. He lives in Amherst." (But it postposes est for no reason and ignores the locative case.) If it's a legitimate encyclopedia article, perhaps it needs the tiro marker, or something new, equivalent to "this article has been written for nine-year-olds." Or maybe there should be a separate Vicipaedia for kids. IacobusAmor 15:21, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Like Simple English? Latina simplex? I quote from Ecce: "In pictura est Vicipaedia, nomine simplex"--Ioshus (disp) 15:32, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
See my comments at the disputatio page. It does look like the article has a genuine claim to legitimacy. But it's a substub, and even the English version needs a lot of work. --Iustinus 15:27, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I have created Vicipaedia:Gravitas to discuss relevance. --Rolandus 17:09, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
By english teacher it is meant professor. My friend wrote this durring class.- 20:28, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to keep this page or was it just a joke? Or was it a joke and now you want to keep this page? --Rolandus 20:53, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to keep this page and it was never a joke in the first place. My user name on wikipedia is Vcelloho. - 21:52, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Vcelloho, what about having a user here as well? ;-) --Rolandus 21:56, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
done. -Vcelloho 03:09, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added a note to page Christopher Benfey. I hope we will read more about Mr. Benfey there. ;-) --Rolandus 07:57, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

cau[recensere | fontem recensere]

it never ends...--Ioshus (disp) 19:49, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

And have you searched for Unitae, Unitas, Unitis, Unitum? Aiiieeee! IacobusAmor 19:50, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I am Ahab.--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
We still have about 70 pages linking to "Civitates Americae Unitae" … --UV 23:36, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Like hell we do! =] --Ioshus (disp) 02:19, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Yes I made a dent earlier. Ghastly and boring stuff that.--Ioshus (disp) 23:46, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Iterum dico: Ego sum Ahab!--Ioshus (disp) 02:19, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
It's worse than you think, because there was only one white whale, but the unitae thing keeps coming back to life with new contributors! IacobusAmor 05:11, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Worse is USA USAe, which I have seen a couple of times (especially from Europeans). When those creep into Wikipedia they are harder to search for! --Iustinus 06:16, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that's [ūsa, ūsae], much as Americans render NATO as [neitou] (or, in parts of the upper Midwest, [neito:]).

Archibaldus[recensere | fontem recensere]

When you want to link to other Wikipedias, you have to look up the pages and praefix them with the language codes, like [[en:Archibald]]. --Rolandus 21:01, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to link to something in line of text put a colon in front of the language prefix like this: [[:en:Archibaldus]] which will put old Archie right in your sentence.--Ioshus (disp) 22:43, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
notice the slightly different blue color, too--Ioshus (disp) 22:44, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Septimania et archaeologia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias tibi ago, pro contritionis et correctionis. Semper erro litteras duplas (divissa, appellata...) --Medievalista 13:52, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

It may help to learn the pronunciation. Latin had two i-vowels: a long vowel, [i], and a short vowel, approximating [ɨ]: so divisa is pronounced [divisa], but divissa would sound quite different: [divɨssa]. If you're spelling the word divissa, you're probably shortening the "i" to [ɨ] and lengthening the "s." Good luck! IacobusAmor 13:33, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[ɨ]? I've never seen that reconstruction. But note that unlike Italian, Latin is perfectly capable of having a long vowel in a closed syllable. --Iustinus 18:44, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not exactly, but something approaching it, in my interpretation of W. Sidney Allen's chart & discussion; here's part of his evidence: "The qualitative similarity of short i and long ē is also illustrated from early times by the tendency of inscriptions to write e for short i and i for long ē, e.g. trebibus, menus, minsis for tribibus, minus, mēnsis ; and by the frequent use of Greek ε to render Latin short i, e.g. Λεπεδος, κομετιον, Δομετιος, Τεβεριος = Lepidus, comitium, Domitius, Tiberius" (p. 49). I take this to mean that the difference between Latin long i and short i is somewhat like the difference between the vowels of English teen and tin. Others may of course disagree. IacobusAmor 19:47, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but the vowel in English tin is [ɪ]. [ɨ] is rather the sound of Russian ы. Well, at least in IPA. I can't speak to the NOrth American System, which may well use the symbol ɨ that way. --Iustinus 19:59, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Reykjavík[recensere | fontem recensere]

I had pondered about what Iceland's capital (Reykjavík) would be called in Latin. The gymnasium of Reykjavík is called [Sigillum] Schola[e] Reykjavicensis (I got it from the school's coat of arms- so I leave the "sigillum" part in, if I had made any mistakes). How would the name be in nominative (as I am new to Latin I can only gather that 'Reykjavicensis' is in the third declension- but that's about it)? --BiT 20:44, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Well, Reykjavicensis is a nominative adjective, not a noun (and, if it is used here should alter j=>i, so Reykiavicensis). As for the noun of the capital, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Iceland is not so new that people didn't write about it in latin =]. I'll see what I can find.--Ioshus (disp)

Vetus Testamentum[recensere | fontem recensere]

You can edit the formula on Formula:Vetus Testamentum, ciao--Massimo Macconi 13:30, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I had to correct myself the formula (I forgot actually the orthodoxe churches). I hope that now also the language is correct. Could you please check it? Thank you--Massimo Macconi 19:58, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Recaredus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ita vero, pater Recaredi fuit Liuvigildus, qui arianus erat. Arianus est ille qui Haeresiam Arii credidit!--Medievalista 14:04, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what do you mean by "quod" here (fuit Christianus quod pater erat haereticus)? IacobusAmor 14:14, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
It is just quod as a conjunction: because, simply explaining the facte that he was the first catholic king because his father was an Arian
That's what I thought it meant, but it's illogical in any language : "X was the first Episcopalian in the family because his father was a Baptist" ; "Y was the first president because his father was a farmer" : there's no logical connection between the ideas. Not all men whose fathers were Arians were the first Catholic king. IacobusAmor 21:00, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Sgt Peppers Lonely hearts club band[recensere | fontem recensere]

See Disputatio_Usoris:Leo_rain#Sgt_Peppers_Lonely_hearts_club_band and Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus#ITA_EST_ROLANDE. --Rolandus 20:53, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Gratias[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for voting for me, IacobusAmor. I hope I'll justify your confidence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Quick (hopefully) Question[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobus, I was told by Iustinus & Ioshus how "that" as in "I thought that" but they didn't get too involved with how to use verbs other than esse, so I wanted to know if this is right. To say "it was said that they were broken" providing that the they is feminine would be "dictus est eas fractas sint", right? If not can you explain. Thanks, Alexanderr 05:25, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. What you need to look up is oratio obliqua (indirect discourse). The basic idea is that, in reported speech, the subject and any complement are accusative, and the verb is infinitive. However, there's a complication: the Romans treated the passives of simple verbs of saying & thinking personally —which led to a slightly different construction, for which Bradley's Arnold's example is Dicitur Cicero consul fuisse, Cicero is said to have been consul. The active forms dicunt, ferunt, tradunt go with accusative & infinitive. So you can say Dicitur eae fractae fuisse or Dicunt eas fractas fuisse, and (more commonly with compound verbs) Dictum est eas fractas fuisse, but you can't say Dictus est eas fractas sint. HTH. IacobusAmor 05:47, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. It was really helpful, and I'll be sure to look up oratio obliqua. Alexanderr 06:00, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobus, I usually just use "Catholic Church", however you seem to prefer to use the name "Roman Catholic Church" for one reason or another, however the Catholic Church also includes several smaller sui iuris Eastern Rite Churchs, such as the Maronite Church located in Lebanon. And thus for the most part the Catholic Church only uses "Roman" when discussing the Latin Rite Church in particular - for example when discussing the age of reason, a concept not in the Eastern Rite Churchs. So the point I'm trying to make is by using Ecclesia Catholica Romana all the time you are basically saying only according to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church - and thereby excluding all the Eastern Churchs which are bound to accept the same dogmas, as encyclicals, being members of the same Church. So either we'll have to leave of Romana or if you prefer use something like "Ecclesia Catholica Romana et sua Ecclesiae Rituales Occidentales" which'd be a bit long, but still good. Alexanderr 04:58, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Fiction[recensere | fontem recensere]

I do not think we should delete fiction. For several reasons. The main reason: Such articles do not hurt and some people like them. I mean, "fiction" should not be the reason to delete an article. --Rolandus 20:37, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Texts should be truthful. "X is a student in Y School" in this case is a lie: it's a statement that X is a person, alive, and Y is a school, one that exists. Perhaps an author whose mind is so young as not to understand this point shouldn't be writing encyclopedias. Harrumph. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 20:48, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course. An encyclopaedia shouldn't say a thing is if it isn't. However, like Rolandus, I'm doubtful about deletion as the answer.
In French you could just change the verbs to conditionals and it would be fine. In Latin I suppose we could make old Ioanna Rowling the subject, give her a scripsit, and change the verbs to infinitives? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Iacobus, I understand what you mean and your arguments are right. But we should be nicer. I guess the author has problems with Latin and does not really believe that this school exists in the real world. Maybe he has just forgotten to use a {{tiro}}. We should avoid this {{delenda}} when there are other solutions. We might rate the article bad in several aspects and give the author a chance to come back and improve the article or ask for help. We should have templates which tell this. When the author does not care about the article and nobody else cares about the article, ok, it might be deleted after some time. I am just trying to be as nice as possible. I think this will be good for us in the long run ... even if we might have some very bad pages for some time. --Rolandus 21:08, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Re: "I guess the author has problems with Latin."—As the en: article most excellently cited below by Iustines implies, inept writers have a similar problem with writing in their native language. So one suspects that, with our young & artless authors, the fault, dear Rolande, lies not in their Latinity, but in themselves ; and there's little we can do about it other than tidy up after them. IacobusAmor 22:09, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Here's what en: does: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) --Iustinus 21:21, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't seen that en:Template:In-universe in use. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:44, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Good alternative for {{delenda}} in this case! We should avoid {{delenda}} where possible. It is not nice. Our templates should explain the problem and we should have a policy for each problem. However, the policy might say that the page will be deleted after xx weeks. "delenda" is not the problem, it is the solution ... when we do not have a better option for the page. --Rolandus 21:59, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Latinitas[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobus, what about this: Formula:Latinitas#Another_try? --Rolandus 14:29, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Falealupo (movere)[recensere | fontem recensere]

For the renaming of a page see Vicipaedia:movere. --Rolandus 20:58, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Still it seems clumsy. Why is there no way simply to rename the title of a page? By contrast, renaming subtitles (subheads, within pages) is easy. IacobusAmor 21:28, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Tangaloa[recensere | fontem recensere]

I put in the link to ru: You should be able to add these links simply by copy-paste from an edit screen on the English Wikipedia -- does that not work for you? At the same time as doing that, one can add the link to la:, which I have also done in this case. They say it's important (but I must admit I have been known to forget it!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew! I tried something like that, but it didn't work ; maybe I got distracted in the middle of the process. If you glanced at en: and the others, you'll have noticed that la:'s article is the most comprehensive in the wikis. Now I'm looking for an illustration ; the one in en: doesn't seem at all apt. IacobusAmor 12:45, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's nice when Vicipaedia becomes the definitive source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, my friend I said I would show the article to also requested an illustration ;) --Iustinus 14:50, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Actually, how about this one? At least it seems better than what en: has for the time being. --Iustinus 15:03, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it might be aptest for an article on gods in general. I've copied it to an expert on the subject of ancient Polynesian art, with a general request for references to illustrations of Tangaloa. Objects known as "stick gods" also come from East Polynesia outside Aotearoa (New Zealand), but being sure about what they formerly designated is a tricky business, as their main collectors were missionaries, who sometimes mutilated them and didn't always get their identifications right in the first place. ¶ Meanwhile, I've received an authoritative reference from a scholar of another Polynesian outlier, and shall add a paragraph after he's approved its translation. (I need to know what his published article means by "cosmological" and other concepts) IacobusAmor 15:54, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

significet[recensere | fontem recensere]

Compare the english...

  1. This means that or that.
  2. This may mean that or that / this can mean that or that.

In my head, it has always sounded like the second one. So i'm the one to blame, you could say...--Ioshus (disp) 15:45, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

OK: I blame you ! As for me, I hear it indicatively: "This means A & B & C (and maybe D & E, but we're not bothering to mention them)." I hear the subjunctive as saying something more like "Let this mean A & B & C" and so on. But it's a small point. Maybe a native speaker will someday arise and choose for us. IacobusAmor 17:16, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Didacus Roderici filius[recensere | fontem recensere]

I took the quote from the Spanish wikipedia. The date is correct, because it is not an AD date, it is an Aera Hispanica date!--Xaverius 14:32, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

I was well aware of that, but how many of your readers are going to be? Note that Ioshus has fixed the problem, though he should have put the fix in (square) brackets instead of (curved) parentheses. IacobusAmor 14:58, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Disputatio:Theoria musicae[recensere | fontem recensere]

What do you think?--Ioshus (disp) 02:04, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

thumb[recensere | fontem recensere]

There needs be the tag |thumb in the string of an image for the caption to work. Compare:



and then



--Ioshus (disp) 18:50, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)

PS, the image means nothing more than that I'm hungry. =] --Ioshus (disp) 18:51, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)

est grex est[recensere | fontem recensere]

Error fuit meus... in anIMo habui movere est ad frontem gregis, at impressi ctrl + c loco ctrl + x...--Ioshus (disp) 00:36, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Ioshe, UBI habuisti movere est ad frontem gregis ??? ;-) --UV 09:05, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)

columnae duae[recensere | fontem recensere]

In disputatione Andreae nuntium posui quod ad te magis pertinet: rogavisti de columnis duabus in fontum partibus:

 <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;">

Vide Infinitas#Fontes. Ave, nunc!--Ioshus (disp) 17:19, 19 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Well, but this effect is just what I was trying to avoid:
Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate
Quae est Latine conversa:
Plenum illud, plenum hoc ;
ex pleno plenum tollitur.
Cum pleni plenum aufertur
plenum quidem manebit.
By my lights, setting translations of poetry in parallel columns is more effective typography. IacobusAmor 17:56, 19 Martii 2007 (UTC)

thinsp[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe, why do you add thinsp before some semicolons? I haven't noticed anyone else doing it. It must do something nice on your browser, I guess, but on mine (Firefox) it makes a very wide space, a real big gap in the text. Might there be a work-round? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 21 Martii 2007 (UTC)

If the 'thin space' character is making a wide space, there might be a bug in the font you're using. It should be a thin space, or if unavailable in that font, an ordinary-sized one. —Mucius Tever 10:48, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)
You must be right. I find that with Opera I get a normal space, but with IE, Firefox and Netscape I get a very wide space. Evidently others don't -- and since my fonts work well in every other way, it's not worth playing with: I'll just accept the wide spaces in the pages that Iacobus has edited! But I'm still curious as to why you add these thinspaces, Iacobe. Is it something we all need to be doing? In what circumstances? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)
It's just a semiexperiment to improve the typography. In most books published before World War II, printers inserted a thin space to the left of semicolons, colons, exclamation points, and question marks. After midcentury, something happened to change that ; my guess is that it was the rise of automatic machinery using fonts designed by nonprinters. (Compare, in another domain, Word's defaults, which seem to have been designed by nonwriters.) As a result, people are now unfamiliar with the elegance of well-set type. In some fonts, combinations of certain letters with unspaced punctuation marks are hard to read ; for example, an "r" plus an unspaced ";" (i.e., "r;") may be almost indistinguishable from an "r" plus a "," (i.e., "r,"). Certainly "...r;" is harder to read in a hurry, especially in smallish type, than "...r ;" (or so it seems to me). In the French-speaking world (and Canada?), space to the left of those punctuation marks widened, and it survived on typewriters as a full space. To my eye, that's too much, but it stands as proof of divergent evolution from a common aesthetic & concern. If people prefer, I won't add thinspaces (except in numbers with more than three digits), as they're more a matter of aesthetics & tradition than anything else. ¶ Is it possible for an administrator to make systemwide typographic changes? If so, there's no necessity for individuals to be typographically finicky about the pages they edit. ¶ FYI : with the colon after language-names in parentheses, I've resisted adding thinspaces. The presence of that colon seems questionable to me : all it's doing is following a usually one-word adverb, and we seldom otherwise have cause to insert colons after such adverbs ; but it's the established style, so I've gone along with it. IacobusAmor 13:30, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)
On that last point, I quite agree with you: the colon seems unnecessary to me.
Very interesting, thanks. Yes, indeed, I have noticed the French habit; since my computer, and some of my software, is bought in France, Word occasionally starts thinking I'm typing French and puts in the spaces before the colons whether I like it or not. Well, if I'm the only one who has the problem -- and it's hardly a problem after all! -- don't change your practice, Iacobe. I was just curious, really. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Savo[recensere | fontem recensere]

paginam discretivam creavit. Vale--Massimo Macconi 10:20, 24 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Ars Germanistica[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ex Anglico Vicipaedia:
In English the terms Germanistics or Germanics are sometimes used, but the subject is more often referred to as German studies, German language and literature, or German philology.

Ergo Germanistik/Germanistics = ars Germanistica? --Alex1011 14:32, 27 Martii 2007 (UTC)

So you see why the term jolts a native English-speaker. It's the double suffix -istus + -icus = -isticus that I wondered about. Germanistic can apply only to Germanists. I suppose then we could have Anglisticus (what Anglicists are) and Italisticus (what Italicists are) and such, and wonder if similar terms are attested. Hellenisticus 'pertaining to Hellenists' presumably is. IacobusAmor 17:46, 27 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Disputatio:Scaccarium[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe amice, inspician hunc nexum? Volo scire quod significasti.--Ioshus (disp) 12:59, 28 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Legio (urbs)[recensere | fontem recensere]

Dear IacobusAmor

Excuse me, but I don't read your objections until yesterday. I reply in Spanish because I writed my text in Spanish.

in viam est?

Está en la Vía Jacobea, dentro de la Vía Jacobea, forma parte de la Vía Jacobea, y no circula por la Vía Jacobea, no tiene sentido de movimiento sino de pertenencia y creo que debe de ir en acusativo via, ea = viam.

ad ostios?

Junto a la desembocadura. Ad = junto a. Near to


Lleva su nombre. «Su nombre» es complemento directo y va en acusativo ¿no?


Es considerada la «genuina» fundadora de la ciudad. Voz pasiva. «Genuina» es complemento directo y va en acusativo ¿no?

archaeoligia antiqui est?

occupata? Fue ocupada. Voz pasiva. occupata... est

considertur? Es considerada. Voz pasiva.

in urbem permanent? En la ciudad quedan = Dentro de la ciudad permanecen.

sub Romam? Es un error, mejor «ab Roman».

I try not to abuse verb sum, and to use verbs more precise.

The text in Spanish is this:

«Ciudad española perteneciente a la comunidad autónoma de Castilla y León. Se sitúa en la desembocadura de los ríos Bernesga y Torío. Es punto clave en el itinerario del Camino de Santiago.

La ciudad fue fundada en el siglo de nuestra era, una placa la data el 10 de junio del año 68, aunque la arqueología está descubriendo restos de ocupación más antiguos.

Su origen, en la Hispania Citerior, está en un campamento de la Legio VI, que posteriormente fue ocupado por la Legio VII Gemina Felix Pia, a la cual se le considera la auténtica fundadora de la ciudad, y por eso lleva su nombre.

Quedan en la ciudad pocos restos romanos pero, al parecer, tenía un fuerte carácter militar, ya que su cometido era asegurar las calzadas por donde se transportaba el oro desde Las Médulas hasta Roma. El resto romano más claro de la ciudad es su plano, marcado por el contorno de la muralla, y la calle ancha, que coincide con el antiguo decumano.

En el siglo VI fue conquistada por el rey godo Leovigildo, y entró a formar parte de su reino.

En el año 712 fue conquistada por los musulmanes, pero el dominio musulmán dura muy poco, y pronto queda abandonada».

P.D.: If you have some suggestion I will thank you. --Pastranus 11:18, 1 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Respuestas[recensere | fontem recensere]

Amigo, gracias por las preguntas. Trataré de responder en español :

in viam est? ←El caso acusativo aquí es imprudente ; mejor es est in via o in via est.

ad ostios? ←La forma es imposible porque el sustantivo ostium es neutro.

Junto a la desembocadura. Ad = junto a. Near to ←Sí, pero recuerde que el significado fundamental de ad es 'movimiento hacia'. Busca estas palabras útiles : iuxta y prope.

nominem? ←La forma es imposible porque el sustantivo nomen es neutro.

Lleva su nombre. «Su nombre» es complemento directo y va en acusativo ¿no? ←Sí, pero la forma nominem es imposible.

genuinam? ←Es incorrecto porque el sustantivo conditorem es masculino.

«Genuina» es complemento directo y va en acusativo ¿no? ←Sí, pero genuinam es femenino.

archaeoligia antiqui est? ←Mal deletreado—y imposible porque antiqui y archaeologia no se concuerdan.

occupata? Fue ocupada. Voz pasiva. occupata... est ←(1) La frase "Suus origo" es incorrecto porque el adjetivo Suus es masculino, y el nombre origo, aunque sea masculino en español, es femenino en latín. (2) La declaración "origo, . . . quae deinde occupata . . . est" es tontería porque no se puede ocupar un origen.

considertur? Es considerada. Voz pasiva. ←Sí, pero es mal deletreado (el infinitivo es considerare, y entonces el tema es considera-, no consider-) ; además, palabras más aptas son fertur y habetur.

in urbem permanent? En la ciudad quedan = Dentro de la ciudad permanecen. ←Sí, pero considera : están in urbe, pero van in urbem. ¿Entiendes la diferencia?

sub Romam? Es un error, mejor «ab Roman». ←No, no, no : esta palabra Roman es imposible. Los hombres están sub Roma o van sub Romam. Así como así, por "hasta Roma" en la oración "se transportaba el oro hasta Roma," no se usa alguna preposición, pero se dice simplemente Romam, y esta declaración completa es aurum Romam transportabant (o transportaverunt).

Creo que debes estudiar la diferencia entre el caso ablativo y el caso acusativo. Por nosotros anglófonos, estas preposiciones son fáciles porque nuestra palabra in usualmente pide al ablativo latín, y nuestra palabra into pide al acusativo, pero ambos sentidos en español necesitan la misma preposición (en). Igualmente on y onto ; en español, ambos también piden a en (o otras palabras, como encima de y sobre). Espero que estas respuestas te ayuden. Sin embargo, hay en el texto otros errores, que no he mencionado (e.g., ab Romam). IacobusAmor 14:24, 1 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Correcciones[recensere | fontem recensere]

Estimado IacobusAmor

Gracias por las correcciones, y por ayudarme a hacer un buen texto. Algunos de los errores se deben a que hablo en español, por ejemplo genuinam lo puse en femenino porque en español concuerda con legio (de hecho concuerda con legio genuina fundadora).

OK, pero no te entiendo, porque la palabra español fundador es masculino, y no hay esta palabra, fundadora, en latín. IacobusAmor 19:33, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
En español fundador/fundadora es un adjetivo y puede ir en masculino o femenino, que significa el que funda o la que funda, y luego está el verbo fundar. Claro en latín conditor, conditoris es sustantivo y de ahí mi error. --Pastranus 11:59, 13 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

No sé si habré resuelto bien todos los errores. En archaeoligia... antiqui est he puesto archaeologia... antiquis est. No sé si está bien.

No comparto la segunda objeción de occupata (La declaración "origo, . . . quae deinde occupata . . . est" es tontería porque no se puede ocupar un origen). La frase dice: Sua origo, ..., in castris Legioni VI Victix est, quae deinde occupata ab Legione VII Gemina Felice Pia est. Son dos frases: el origen está en un castro, y el cual fue ocupado.

Sí, pero en la frase quae . . . occupata . . . est, la palabra quae es femenina, y no hay antecedente feminino con exceptión de origo. Entonces, la sentencia dice "origo . . . occupata est"—que es imposible. Si quieres decir que ocuparon el fuerte, tienes que decir quae . . . occupata sunt—y ahora ¡quae es neutro! IacobusAmor 19:33, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Ab Roman. Creía que había que poner la preposición cuando se decía desde... hasta..., ex... ab... Desde Las Médulas hasta Roma.

"Hasta Roma" = Romam. Tal vez la palabra Roman sea un "typo" (error tipográfico). IacobusAmor 19:33, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

La diferencia de in e into en inglés aclara más las cosas que las explicaciones en español que he encontrado para el uso de in en latín.

Muchas gracias. Procuraré escribir poco texto cada vez para que no sea molestia corregirme.

De nada, amigo. ¡Buena suerte! IacobusAmor 19:33, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

P.D.: "clerus" et "cortes" I find this works in --Pastranus 09:39, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Scores[recensere | fontem recensere]

Scin tu, Iacobe, modum rectum "musical score" appellandi?--Ioshus (disp) 17:59, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a musical score (which temporally aligns all polyphonic parts in a single system) has been common for only the past few hundred years, so the concept is new, but the term could be old: is something wrong with notatio (scilicet musicalis)? Alternatively, German Partitur and Italian partitura offer an idea: partitura, -ae, f. Would that work? IacobusAmor 18:11, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Interesting... Notatio seems safer to me, but maybe substantivized, notata?--18:14, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Franci[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for following me up, I only had a specific task in mind... to assess the usefulness of {{in progressu}}, and didn't even read the rest of the article. As I said, I appreciate it.--Ioshus (disp) 03:53, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Checking multiple articles for one inconsistency is a perfectly respectable practice. Who wouldn't do it sometimes? I didn't read all of Franci either, but the ease with which I found grammatical errors (not the one triggered by your emendation) led me to believe that others probably lurk in passages I didn't read, so the Latinitas might be rated at -1 or -2 or so. IacobusAmor 13:44, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Praemium[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratulationes, Iacobe! Propositus est praemio Stella Constantiae. Vide Vicipaedia:Praemia Vicipaedianis --Xaverius 18:58, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

cap(p)ella[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ad notam: In dictionario Langenscheidt invenio "cap(p)ella", "capellanus", "capellus". In Smith-Hall "capella" (chapel). --Alex1011 19:52, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Meum dictionarium dicit capella solum esse (Anglice) 'she-goat', 'a statue so-called' (by Cicero), and 'a star on the left shoulder of the constellation Auriga'. All seem to be a diminutive : caper + (u)la. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary derives English 'chapel' from Modern Latin cappella [sic] and then derives that from Medieval Latin cappa 'cloak'. So it would seem that we have a genuine minimal-pair distinction here between capella 'she-goat' and cappella 'chapel'. Of course my corrections could be wrong, and vicipaediaists should bring any other pertinent evidence to bear on the question. IacobusAmor 20:24, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Gratias ago. --Alex1011 20:30, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
  1. Words has capella, capellae N (1st) F [FEXDE] Medieval lesser chapel; choir; [a capella => unaccompanied (song); ~ magister => choirmaster]; she-goat; meteor type; star in constellation Auriga (rising in rainy season); dirty fellow, old goat; man with a goat-like beard; body odor;
  2. Words has cappella, cappellae N (1st) F [FEXDE] Medieval lesser chapel; choir; [a capella => unaccompanied (song); ~ magister => choirmaster];
  3. {{PONS-SS}} has capella (A): 1) goat 2) constellation
  4. {{PONS-SS}} has capella (B): 1) chapel 2) clergy
  5. {{PONS-SS}} has capellanus (capella): chaplain
  6. {{PONS-SS}} does not have "cappella"
  7. de:a cappella (pp!) says: 1) "In historischen Schriften des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts wird a capella in der Regel nur mit einem p geschrieben." 2) "A capella [...] Johann Gottfried Walther: Musikalisches Lexikon 1732, Seite 4." 3) "A capella, alla capella [...] (F. A. Brockhaus: Allgemeine Deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. 1851 Leipzig. 1. Band, Seite 85)"
--Rolandus 21:00, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
OLD autem dicit:
  1. capella ~ae, f. [caper + la]]
    1. she goat
    2. star in the constellation Auriga
As it only has words from classical writing, neither cappa nor cappella is in there.
Traupman gives the same two definitions for capella. He does not have cappella and he says sacellum for "chapel". My hunch is with Iacobus here. Cappella was definitely derived from cappa. That we see it as capella sometimes is erroneous.--Ioshus (disp) 21:12, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

What's with Germans? Since PONS is German, and Walther was German, and German takes the Latin with one P into its compound Kapellmeister, one begins to wonder if we haven't once again hit upon a divide between Germans (a la several contributors with their postposed est, and of course the pope, with his encyclical Deus Caritas Est) and the rest of us, or (throwing in the Finns) between Central & East Europeans and the rest of us. Maybe it's something about the pedagogy. ¶ In any event, the Italian & English eurodance, house, and techno band that flourished in the early 1990s was indisputably known as Cappella. IacobusAmor 03:25, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

The German wikip article is "A cappella" as Rolandus mentioned, but explaining that it is often written in later centuries with only one P. On the other side US "Smith-Hall" perhaps under Germanic influence in the 19th century, has only capella for chapel. By the way, why is chapel written with only one P? --Alex1011 06:58, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
According to Merriam-Webster, because it reflects Old French chapele. Or maybe it's because English is a Germanic language. ::winkwink:: ¶ Seriously though, if the Medieval Latin = cappa, why didn't the French become chappelle? Modern French appears to be chapelle, but a search at Google turns up numerous French personal names and placenames spelled chappelle. A puzzlement! IacobusAmor 09:54, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
It's because Old French was spelt more or less phonetically, and double consonants in Latin had become single consonants in Old French. So "chapele" was a sensible phonetic spelling. Later, in the 16th century especially, people began to reintroduce in spelling the extra consonants that had existed in Latin -- but this was a spelling-game and never consistent. Hence there are some names that have the double -p-. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:03, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

=D[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for catching (one of) my mistakes. I swear, I know more Latin than it seems! Agriope 02:35, 15 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

hypallage[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe amice, possis recordari locos classicos quibus exempla hypallagae inveniam? Si vitem, nolo Aeneidem aperire vel adhibere. Gratias!--Ioshus (disp) 01:38, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Eheu! obliviscor! (And why has my Star of Steadfastness stopped rotating?!) IacobusAmor 03:11, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Mi videtur etiam volvi...--Ioshus (disp) 04:52, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Carabao[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias ago. Thanks for your insights and improvements. I'll study up on the verb-noun gender agreement.--Jondel 13:30, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Perthia Amboi[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias tibi ago, Iacobe, pro tuo auxilio in meis paginis, propitim recentissime paginae "Perthia Amboi". Salve! Rafaelgarcia 00:58, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Alicia in Terra Mirabili[recensere | fontem recensere]

On this page you asked: "Which reminds me has this work been Latinized?" Yes: 1964. Alicia in Terra Mirabili (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) tr. Clive Harcourt Carruthers. [1] -- Secundus Zephyrus 04:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)

De Cratete Mallota[recensere | fontem recensere]

Fabullus Iacobo s.p.d. In pagina a te creata de Cratete Mallota scripsisti: "Traditur excogitasse globum qui terram in pilae modum exhibuisset ("Geophysical Earth" 2005:18)." Non teneo quid vis cum parenthesi "Geophysical Earth" 2005:18. Ceterum id factum nobis tradidit Strabo in Geographia 2.5.10, ut nunc in pagina legi potest. An huius facti alii sint auctores, nescio. Vale, --Fabullus 12:26, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Gratias, Fabulle. "Geophysical Earth" 2005:18" est pagina in magazina Scientific American (auctoris nomen nescio). Vide bibliographiam. IacobusAmor 17:55, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...[recensere | fontem recensere]

for the edit conflict yesterday, next time I will wait much longer... --Amphitrite 18:48, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)

No big problem in this case, as I lost only about five minutes of work. In general, it may be best to wait an hour or two before editing a text that someone else has been working on. IacobusAmor 19:09, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Praemium[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratus sum ob praemium quod me dedisti! Nunc debeo praemio honorare cum pluris paginis (pluris fortasse, sed cum bona latinitate)!--Xaverius 08:32, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Res Novae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobus please see my question at Disputatio:Res novae#What does Res Novae mean#novae res ~ res novae?. Did your quote on Casesar's word order from Devine & Stephens pertain to "res nova" or "res novae"? Is "res nova" a typo?--Rafaelgarcia 01:04, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Trenchcoats[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ok you helped me on the translation of sunglasses (umbrae, which I think is a great translation), but how would you translate the word trench coat? As a guideline you can maybe use the Icelandic translation síðfrakki (or just long-coat)? Amimagnum, magnamiculum... --BiT 22:37, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

why uv deleted delenda[recensere | fontem recensere]

Only because the template that says that this article is not even a stub does one extra thing. It still says the article is delenda (inter septem dies) and it also TELLS WHY, because the page is not even a stub. It's what you had, but better! Cheers.--Ioshus (disp) 01:16, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's even better. I'll have to remember it! IacobusAmor 03:38, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I caused confusion! We have {{delenda}} (where a reason for deletion needs to be given), but we also have related templates for “problem pages”. Some of these templates say that the page will be deleted after a while (7 days) if no one will remedy the problem beforehand. Unlike delenda, when using these templates, it is not necessary to explicitly specify a reason for deletion: {{latinitas|non latine}}, {{latinitas|pessima}}, {{non stipula}}, Disputatio Formulae:Not verifiable. In all but the most clear-cut cases (e. g. a page with characters that look like the result of a cat rubbing its back on the keyboard), I prefer these templates over plain {{delenda}} without any reason - using these templates can help prevent accidental deletion of legitimate content (e. g. content in the wrong language that should be moved to a different wikipedia). Greetings, --UV 21:47, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

accusativus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Verene maius tibi placet figuras verborum accusativas videre rectas apud Accusativum? Iacobe, credo te saevum esse ;] ;] --Ioshus (disp) 03:46, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

bishop[recensere | fontem recensere]

thank you for your correction (actually III decl. no locative). For the moment in the category I put only catholic bishop , I believe we should create a category ad hoc for lutheran and anglican bishops. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 17:00, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

De Xota[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for the correction on xota... I see I got all my -ire verbs wrong... About categoria:Musica Hispana what is sensu stricto the difference between hispanus and hispanicus? I thought that it would not make a difference, but if you have spotted it, it must not be the case. Maybe the category should be moved?--Xaverius 12:02, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Just because I ask questions doesn't mean I know the answers! (I don't know which term is preferable, as both are certainly attested & available.) It struck me as odd that you'd call it a saltatio Hispanica and then put it in the category Musica Hispana. In reference works, inconsistencies—even small ones, like that—are usually bad, bad, bad. ¶ The article might mention the coplas & estribillos and instrumental interludes. ¶ Isn't xota also spelled jota? ¶ There might also be a category for Spanish dances: fandango, flamenco, seguidilla, etc. ¶ Which category do Basque genres go in? IacobusAmor 12:15, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I know about inconsistencies too well, just look at my essays ;-)... About the coplas and estribillos, I thought that they would be difficult to translate, so I just stuck to the basics: singing and dancing and castanetes. About the spelling, in Spanish it is jota, but I used xota a) to stay closer to the etimology from valencian, b) to represent the /x/ sound and c) because this would then get confused with iota! Concerning the Spanish dances, I think that we should think of this when we have more articles...--Xaverius 13:03, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

exsulare[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratiam ago per verbum exsulare et emendationes. Thanks. Did you sort of back translate? eg. research at perseus , the word refugee then select the best among alternatives?--Jondel 13:08, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

De vicifontibus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe, do you know how does Vicifons work? as any other normal wiki? I have a Latin chronicle of the Visigoths that I would like to put there, but I do not really know how. Is anyone here a magistrate in vicifons?--Xaverius 16:12, 18 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Ta'ilo. (Beats me.) E a pe'a 'e fesili ia UV po'o Massimo po'o se isi tagata atamai? (How about asking UV or Massimo or some other clever person?) IacobusAmor 17:38, 18 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, blablah blah bla blah (very well, and so I shall do)--Xaverius 18:37, 18 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

instar plantae??[recensere | fontem recensere]

"Model plant" and "plante modèle" have a sense in genetic. it is an organism (here a plant) well studied and with a genome fast fully known. those organisms have a high syntheny (there genome is like the genome) from cultivated plants or used organisms. in genetic, we can't study all the organisms, so we used some organisms with a small genome (like Arabidopsis or Medicago) and we work on it. when we know all wa can know about it, we suppose there is a lot of gene in other organisms like those comming from model organisms and we can suppose about the genome of rice, pea, bean, soya, ... without making a lot of experimentation. Vide etiam article about "model organism" and "syntheny" in english. -- Thoma D. 06:52, 3 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Parvula Ariana[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve! Grato animo emendationes tuas accipio. Unum tamen restituere volo, scil. Unum (Ἕν), quod eodem iure magna prima littera scribitur ac Pater. Ambo enim vocabula Divinitatem significant, aliud philosophicam, aliud Christianam. De virgulis taceo, nam animadverti editores textuum antiquorum plerumque regulis patrii sermonis uti. De gustibus &c. Adhuc, sodes, unum: "Adde quod usque a saeculo secundo erant qui fidei Christianae speciem verae philosophiae induere vellent", scripsi. Forma "vellent" usus sum, quod vim consecutivam sententiae relativae dare volui. Formam a me adhibitam in "volebant" mutasti. Sit ita, nam mutata, si tolerabilia sunt, reciprocare nolo. --Neander 00:39, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

dictator[recensere | fontem recensere]

that's what we were talking about. We got a problem because in Roma, a dictator wasn't what it is nowadays: Cesar was a dictator (that was a politic real function) but he wasn't a dictator like we imagine this man, nowadays. But the point is that in french and english and probably other language, we tell that Cesar was a dictator and that Staline was a dictator. Even if the idea is different, the word is the same. Why not in latin?? -- Thoma D. 12:55, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The standard technical term in Latin was dictator. That's what Romans called those rulers, and we have to respect their terminology. We wouldn't call Gaius Caesar a tyrant (tyrannus) unless we wanted to assert a point of view. We shouldn't do so for Stalin either, should we? The title he held was (I guess) Secretarius Generalis Factionis Communisticae Comitiae Centralis Consociationis Sovieticae, and that's what we should call him, no?—unless we call him something like dictator de facto? IacobusAmor 13:41, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
From the english wikipedia article on Tyrant:
In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions of a deme. The word "tyrant" carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power in a polis to engage in autocratic government.

And also from the same article concerning the modern meaning of the term:

A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his/her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which s/he governs or controls. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.

I think we should prefer the original Greek meaning to the second. Also I should point out that both points can be used without expressing a point of view as tyrannus just names a particular kind of political leader. That said, I don't think Tyrannus would apply to Caesar as he didn't sieze power illegally nor, as far as I am aware, did he rule in the interests of himself or a small oligarchy over the interests of the general population. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable of Caesar can comment on this. From what I know of Stalin, however, I would be inclined to say he was a Tyrannus, as he ruled in favor of the communists over the interests of the general population, he was an autocrat, and he used cruel measures to impose his view over the people.--Rafaelgarcia 14:06, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

if i've well understand what IacobusAmor told, you suppose that we must have three points of view: (i) some people in ancient Roma were called dictator (as Ceasar), so, we call them dictator, (ii) somme people in ancient world were called tyrant (as in Syracuse), so, we call them tyrant, (iii) some people are called dictator or tyrant (as Staline, Hitler, Castro) but this is not their real political function: we don't care about their surname: we just have to write their real function. All right?? -- Thoma D. 14:17, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Right! Probe dicis, amice! IacobusAmor 14:25, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Neutrum[recensere | fontem recensere]

Oh ... thanks! --Rolandus 12:58, 8 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Next stop[recensere | fontem recensere]

According to Graesse it's Compendium (I haven't checked further). If you care to do it, link it to Esia (praefectura Franciae). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:52, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Why don't I handle the race and you handle the stops? IacobusAmor 17:07, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I can work with that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Are you close enough to go outside one day and watch the racers pass by? IacobusAmor 18:06, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I am getting (just) ahead with the place-names and I am adding them to the page Circuitus Franciae. I guess you could add your news text to that page too -- why waste it, after all? And, yes, they will pass quite close to us on the Cognac-Angoulême stage: we might well have an outing there that day! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
That would be cool! Btw, in the construction 'course from A to B', I've been using prepositions (cursus ab A ad B) to clarify the structure for beginners—but idiomatically, since these endpoints are all towns, we should probably be using the plain ablative for A and the plain accusative for B. For today's stage, that might necessitate shortening the starting-point to Villare (as putting an intrusive ad in the middle of the construction might confuse readers). Would that be OK? Maybe I'll go back and change the earlier entries. IacobusAmor 13:42, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Bare accusative certainly fits, and is better Latin (newbies have to learn sometime =]).--Ioscius (disp) 14:16, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think you should shorten that very awkward place-name to Villare (3rd decl. neut.). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, I felt that to use a preposition neither for from nor for to made the sentences too difficult. I therefore reinserted "a" for from in each case. Sorry! If you disagree, by all means change them back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:24, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, I ran our questions by a retired university professor of classics, and if I can find your email addy, I'll copy his answer to you. Meanwhile, I've fixed the nuntii in accordance with his advice. IacobusAmor 02:52, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I think it should work if you click on "send an email to ..." (in Latin, naturally).
In this context I think of the one surviving sentence from Trajan's memoirs. "Inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus." They are foreign names so not everyone knows how to decline them, but Trajan gets away with it, because the first one is clearly an accusative and we can take it from the structure of the sentence that the other one is as well. But to put two foreign names together in the same clause, in different cases, especially if the cases are difficult to recognise, might be going too far. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try the email. Allen & Greenough's example (#427.2) is Delo Rhodum navigare 'to sail from Delos to Rhodes'. IacobusAmor 13:05, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Ciclistas[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola Iacobe, he estado haciendo algunas páginas de ciclistas (Petrus Delgado, Laurentius Jalabert, Eduardus Merckx y alguno más) y he estado usando vinco como transitivo para decir que han ganado el Tour o la Vuelta. ¿Eso está bien o hay otra forma de decirlo?--Xaverius 16:24, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Está bien: vinco, vincere, vici, victum: hodie ego stationem vinco; heri properationem vici; cras circuitum totum vincam. IacobusAmor 16:38, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Finnish places[recensere | fontem recensere]

The 'ä' and 'ö' sounds are quite different from 'a' and 'o' (See this). Have you read Neander's comment in the taberna? That sums up why we should probably use them. I wouldn't really say this is an issue about pronunciation, since the Germans use the 'ä' in Finnish names and that is quite a difference in sound from theirs, and we can often find IPA forms of these city names which I on the pages wherever possible. --Harrissimo 20:06, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Then there are two ways of approaching the question. In the old days, Romans happening upon Finnish might have heard ä as a kind of e and written it E; they might have heard ö as some sort of a (or o) and written it A (or O). If this Vicipaedia were to be an old Roman encyclopedia, that's what we should naturally do. But these are the new days, and we're literate, and so we know better. If we're allowing J and W, why not ä and ö? The cat is out of the bag! Still, such diacritics look odd in Latin. I've been suppressing most of the Polynesian ones. IacobusAmor 21:30, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I did ask Rolandus to take a look at it, because he usually has something about policy, but he hasn't replied yet. I do think though, that we shouldn't think of Latin as so much of a special case that we can't use foreign lettering, like other languages, which have to cope. I could definitely see your point of view if we ever covered Iceland though. Names like Seyðisfjörður and Þorlákshöfn are just annoying. Of course if we chose to use foreign lettering, that also means we would have to invent declension rules for non-latin names, which is a real snag. --Harrissimo 14:45, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
For Finnish, it's been done. I've seen a presentation of Finnish spelling & declension rules here in Vicipaedia, but where? IacobusAmor 15:06, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
In Jämsä, we can remove the vowel harmony making just Jämsa, more easy to decline. Iustinus said he'd look for us in Kalevala (if you didn't read that in the Taberna anyway). --Harrissimo 18:15, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Loebs[recensere | fontem recensere]

In saying "The Loeb isn't writing an encyclopedia", I meant only to comment on the issue of whether or not to transliterate Greek. I agree with you 100% that current Loeb practice over spelling issues should weigh heavily with us -- it is a hugely important series.

And I don't think you're mad. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness! Now let's see if you can still say that when I come back from the dentist's (in a few hours)! I was actually responding to noster Avitus, as I agree with you in all this. IacobusAmor 12:33, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

sam-3[recensere | fontem recensere]

I think it should be smo-3 ... which we do not have either, see also en:Talk:Samoan language. --Rolandus 11:45, 4 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Categories[recensere | fontem recensere]

You can but an article into a category, by adding Categoria:xxx. However, this does not create the page Categoria:xxx itself. So click on the red link then and add the parent category Categoria:yyy for that category Categoria:xxx. Then save page Categoria:xxx. So you have created a category with a link to the parent category Categoria:yyy, which might exist or not. The link to Categoria:yyy is blue or red then. You can also add content to a category page like to an article. We seldomly do that. But if you do it, a category will be displayed this way:

  1. the title
  2. the (optional) text you have added
  3. the list of articles (and categories) which have this category as a parent category
  4. the parent categories to which this particular category has been linked

Just treat category pages like normal articles. They have the prefix "Categoria:" in the title and the child pages are atomatically displayed. This is where they are special. You can also add interwiki links. Was my explantion good enough? ;-) --Rolandus 13:44, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Not at this hour of the morning! I need more coffee! Wait! IacobusAmor 13:48, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Until then an answer to your question about having direct links: I think, this is not possible in this version of the software Vicipaedia:MediaWiki. This might be the reason why the English Wikipedia tries to do this: en:Category:Lists_of_female_movie_actors_by_name. It uses subcategories which have the starting letter in the name. For lists (= normal articles which we normally call "Index ...") there is the solution with the formula {{A-Z}} (see Index nominum). This works, because the headers of articles have "names" which can be adressed. Categories do not have "names" which can be referenced by a link. Maybe they will add this feature in the future, I do not know. --Rolandus 14:02, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Tell them to hurry! At the moment we have maybe 1000 names, and scrolling down to the bottom is a bother. But what happens when we have 100,000 names?! Scrolling to the bottom will be too daunting, and this category will be useless except for people whose name begins Aa and maybe for those whose name begins Ab !!! IacobusAmor 14:09, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to give you this as an example where it is annoying too: - But now I see that they have an index on Commons. Hm ... maybe we have just to find out the trick or need an upgrade of our software. --Rolandus 14:25, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I should do the testing more carefully. It works: --Rolandus 14:28, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
It goes on ... we already have the template which they are using: {{CategoryTOC}}. I have added it to page Categoria:Biographia and see what happens. :-) (The software has this feature built in, so it works although the headings cannot be addressed.) --Rolandus 14:32, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Woohoo! That's perfect, Rolande!—at least until we have so many names that we'll want to subdivide the index into Aa-, Ab-, Ac-, Ad-, and so on. Macte! IacobusAmor 15:08, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

cannabis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hey, Iacobe. If you feel the desire to make edits to this page, you might as well do it at Usor:Ioscius_Rocchius/Cannabis. Within a few days, Cannabis as it is will be but a memory. There's a lot to write.--Ioscius (disp) 04:37, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

ecclesiae minister[recensere | fontem recensere]

tibi gratias ago--Massimo Macconi 14:46, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Cappellae musicae pontificalis[recensere | fontem recensere]

dear Iacobus, what title should I give to this page. In any case I believe that also you can move the page to an other page name vide "movere". Ciao --Massimo Macconi 13:48, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

We have instructions about "moving", I have added a section: Vicipaedia:Movere#Needed_rights_for_moving_a_page. --Rolandus 06:34, 11 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Re: "what title should I give to this page"—Any title that doesn't have the misspelling MUSUCA in it! IacobusAmor 14:53, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Senates and what not[recensere | fontem recensere]

I hope you don't mind, Iacobe: Avitus-like, I have copied your citations about Senates from my talk page to Disputatio:Senatus Britanniarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

By all means, copy away! Put them where they'll be of greatest use! You'll notice that Ainsworth doesn't distinguish between Commons and Lords, but surely there was a standard way of doing so. Anybody deeply interested in the modern political vocabulary will find useful words & idioms in actual parliamentary documents, but of course not everybody has ready access to them. IacobusAmor 12:52, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

De nomine[recensere | fontem recensere]

I didn't really know where I should write this, so here goes. I honestly think that "re-naming" everybody into Latin is HIGHLY superfluous and, even, stupid. Sure Latin 'has' an equivalent of the name "Edward" but that doesn't mean we change that some guy's name into "Edvardus" or what ever. There is an Icelandic version of the name Edward as well (Játvarður)- but nobody on the Icelandic Wikipedia would ever change the name "Edward Island" into Játvarður Island like you are doing here. And in most cases you are simply making up names. To people who's speak Latin natively that would sound weird; i.e. changing the spelling of a name to adapt it to the declension of said language. I don't know if this post has been coherent, but I hope you get my point. I just think it's stupid to call George Bush 'Georgius Bush'. Why not simply call him George? --BiT 11:53, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Re: "nobody on the Icelandic Wikipedia would ever change the name "Edward Island" into Játvarður Island like you are doing here" (emphasis added)—I haven't done the renaming about which you complain. IacobusAmor 12:18, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Re: "And in most cases you are simply making up names."(emphasis added)—No, I am not. IacobusAmor 12:18, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
You, BiT, posted your remarks in a place that the person you're addressing is unlikely to visit. That person seems to have changed Edwardus to Eduardus. This change would have been the right thing to do if the Edward in question, or at least those close to him or writing authoritatively about him, actually preferred Eduardus to Edwardus. (But where's the evidence?) Non-Latin names have been Latinized in writing for maybe 2500 years now, despite your sensibilities on the subject. IacobusAmor 12:18, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Its often necessary in latin to decline a name because of the grammar. For example especially to form dative, genitive and ablative. For this reason there is a long tradition in latin lit. of translating names. In middle ages people would translate their own names. Thus we have Isaacus Newtonus, Leonhardus Eulerus, etc...--Rafaelgarcia 12:00, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe this discussion belongs at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Translatio nominum propriorum, so I have copied it there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:10, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Provincia + nomine proprio[recensere | fontem recensere]

Could you please help me? I have done a lot of pages of old Nations, e.g Res Publica Venetiae (Repubblica di Venezia) ecc. Is the present formulation e.g Ducatus Mediolani correct or wrong (perhaps Ducatus Mediolanum?Thank you and ciao--Massimo Macconi 12:43, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC) P.s to find the wrong pages you could put provincia in the box and then do quarere and not ire--Massimo Macconi 12:43, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

According to Bradley's Arnold's rule, the right way to handle those appositives would result in Res Publica Venetia (or maybe better, with an adjective, Res Publica Veneta or Res Publica Venetica or Res Publica Venetiana?) and Ducatus Mediolanum (or maybe better Ducatus Mediolanensis?)—but surely Latin versions of these names have been in existence for many hundreds of years, so why not check the literature and see what you find? Attestations can show the way! IacobusAmor 13:39, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Thank you--Massimo Macconi 13:58, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)-- 13:58, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Ainsworth's[recensere | fontem recensere]

Would you recommend Ainsworth's latin dictionary - listed as c1850s - AINSWORTH's ENGLISH~LATIN Dictionary? You talk about it a lot and I guess my only dictionary (except for Words, of course), the Oxford Latin Minidictionary, doesn't always do the job... --Harrissimo 23:03, 24 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

That depends on what you're using it for. Its Latin–English section is nowhere near as thorough as L&S and probably later dictionaries, so I can't recommend it for that. Its English–Latin section, however, has useful idioms, and it seems likely to have been designed for students who wanted help in writing their exercises in Latin prose composition (a task not irrelevant here in Vicipædia). For example, suppose you need to Latinize "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good"; you look under wind, and you find that the Latin is Etiam aconito inest remedium—a sentence in which (you'll observe) no Latin word for 'wind' occurs. While we're here, let's whisk through the wind-section. Under wind itself, you get of course the words ventus, flabrum, and (marked with a special character because it's a special use, for 'breath') anima. Then you get several idioms, including the one quoted above. Then a new paragraph: "The eight winds known to the ancients" (with a note saying that another wind, euroaquilo, in the Gospel of Luke, is best translated 'east-northeast'). Then many paragraphs of particular uses:
A little wind made with a fan = ventulus
To have the wind with one, or have a favorable [sic!] wind.
To go down the wind [evidently a now-obsolete English idiom] = adversa pati, fortunam experiri adversam. [And several more related idioms.]
A boisterous wind. [Then a set of other winds: contrary = reflatus, gentle = aura, ventus lenis, &c., &c.]
A whistling wind = ventus stridulus.
To have the wind of [a nautical term?] = vento praevertere.
An easterly wind [then winds from several other directions, then:] That causes rain = pluvialis, imbrifer, &c., &c.
Wind-bound = vento adverso detentus
A wind-egg [?!] = ovum urinum.
A wind-fall [i.e., the nonmetaphorical sense: "apple, pear, &c. beaten down by the wind"; then the metaphor:] = lucrum insperatum.
One's wind or breath = halitus, spiritus, flatus, anhelitus; anima.
To take wind or breath = respirare; anhelitum, vel animam, recipere.
To take wind, or be known abroad = patefieri, retegi, evulgari, palam enuntiari.
To be out of wind [i.e., breathless] = anhelitum ducere.
To wind (scent or smell out) = odoror, olfacio.
To wind, or blow, a horn = cornu inflare.
Long-winded = animae praelargus. A long-winded piece of work = opus diutini, vel diurturni, laboris.
Short-winded. . . . A short-winded person = anhelator.
Windiness = venti inclusi abundantia.
Windward = ventum versus.
Windy = ventosus, ventis obnoxius.
Windy or flashy expressions = ampullae (and specially marked, verba sesquipedalia).
I've compressed the style and suppressed parts of some of these paragraphs. (And obviously I've left out references to the other wind, meaning verto, circumverto, contorqueo.) It might prove interesting to see how modern Latin–English dictionaries handle the concept of wind.
Ainsworth's main faults from your viewpoint are probably two. (1) The lesser is that it treats I & J, and U & V, as the same letter, so jam, inch, job, Ionian, juvenile, ivy, vixen, ulcer, vocal, up, vulgar are in perfect alphabetical order. If you look for a word and don't find it, you have to remember that you may have been looking in the wrong part of the current alphabet. (2) The greater, especially for a nonnative speaker of English, is that because its diction is two centuries old, its English vocabulary isn't quite the same as ours; the language has changed: many once-ordinary senses of words have become rare or obsolete, and many new senses & words have come into existence. You may get a feel for this fault in the entries for wind above. In glosses, you'll sometimes see hath for has, but that's only a minor irritant. ¶ An example that just turned up: the commonest current sense of invest is 'to commit money in hopes of getting a return', but you won't find a Latin word for it in Ainsworth's; the senses of invest that you will find under invest are 'invest in an office = inaugurate' and 'invest = besiege'—neither of which you're likely to think of looking for under invest.
At the end are thirty-two pages constituting an index nominum propriorum, drawn from history & literature. I'll copy the first in its entirely so you can compare it with other such lists: "ABDALONYMUS, i. m. A poor gardener, yet of princely descent, made king of Sidon by Alexander the Great." And another: "MACAREUS, eos et ei. m. The son of Æolus. Having had a child by his sister Canace, he fled from his father's indignation, who had ordered the child to be cast to the dogs, and sent his daughter a sword, with a command to use it as she deserved." IacobusAmor 01:07, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Well, improving my composition is exactly what I want it for and I often try to translate little phrases like these without success. It also delights me to see the eight winds. I spent HALF AN HOUR looking on the internet yesterday for how to say southwestern in latin, eventually getting to Africus -a -um somewhere obscure.
P.S. Wind egg (n.): an imperfect, unimpregnated, or addled egg. ;) --Harrissimo 01:48, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Is a reprint available? My copy is coming apart, and every time I look up a word in it, fragments fall to the floor. IacobusAmor 18:55, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
The version that I might buy looks pretty rag-eared and the spine is "taped on" but £11 seems a pretty fair price. I think the latest reprint is the "Morrell Abridgement" from some time in the 19th century - I guess there isn't some mint condition colourful new reprint about. Maybe this one (at $35 - you are American, right?) could be good if it is deteriorating so badly. While we're at it, does Ainsworth have population density? We're having a discussion about it over at Disputatio:Caiania. --Harrissimo 23:36, 25 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have "(population) density," which I'd guess is a twentieth-century concept, but it does have "populousness, population, populosity," for which the Latin is—ta-da!—populi frequentia. ¶ In general, I don't like abridgements and don't recommend them. IacobusAmor 00:14, 26 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Cyriaco[recensere | fontem recensere]

Notice a recent change to your article. Anon added the Italian name of Ragusa (which is of course the same as the Latin one) and failed to format the addition correctly. I thought this was getting silly and overweighting the sentence, so I took out all of it, even your original gloss "Dubrovnik", because, I thought, if one wants to know about Ragusa one can click on the link. But you may well prefer to put your original gloss back in -- it's up to you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Links make a great deal of duplication unnecessary. Good catch! IacobusAmor 11:47, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Andreas Howe[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi... thanks for the improvements you made to 'my' article. That frase should means: "After three years, Andreas got two golden medals at the Yunior Championship of Grosseto"... but I think I make out a messe with the dipendent proposition... :) --Sogeking 12:10, 6 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. "Post tres annos, Howe in certamine iuvenibus Grosseti duo numismata aurea lucratus est"? IacobusAmor 13:04, 6 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Well, for me it's good, but are you sure the word "numisma" is better than "phalera" for "medal"? --Sogeking 16:53, 6 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
No, but phalerae appears to be used only in the plural with a singular sense (, whereas numisma can specifically refer to a medal ( There may yet be an apter word. IacobusAmor 19:53, 6 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Ok done! (Sorry if I didn't answer for a while, I've had some things to do on :)) --Sogeking 19:22, 11 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Bock vel Tragus[recensere | fontem recensere]

enlace autor imagen vide wiki germanica --Penarc 14:59, 12 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

de ente[recensere | fontem recensere]

That was my try to make "about being" (so he was learning in Holland about being a merchant. Should mercator be in the ablative there, or is the whole construction wrong? --Harrissimo 15:57, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

It's odd even in English. The more English possibilities you can juggle in your mind, the likelier that you'll come up with an apt Latin one. He was learning about being an X, He was learning how to be an X, He was learning how to become an X, He was learning so as to become an X, He was learning so that he might be an X, He was learning how to work/function/live as an X, He was learning the duties/methods/manners of X's, He was learning what X's do, He was learning the art of Xship. You get the idea. ¶ IIRC, esse has no classical present participle, and ens, entis was invented late. That doesn't make it wrong, but it might be cause for worry, or at least a raised eyebrow. IacobusAmor 16:52, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
iit ad Londinium ut acquireret scientiam ut fieri mercatore. He went to London so that he would acquire? knowledge in order to become a merchant. Would that work better? --Harrissimo 17:33, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget your Accusative of Place to Which. Londinium ivit ut. . . . I've checked a dictionary, and there's an idiom for 'to follow the pursuits of trade': mercaturas facere. + 'Acquire' = adipiscor. IacobusAmor 17:47, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was just about to make the changes, but I see you beat me there :) . Harrissimo.

Something similar[recensere | fontem recensere]

Quoque, adiuvit pauperes urbis aedificante elemosinas eis. Also he helped the poor of the city by building almshouses for them. Is there a way in which I can express "by building" which isn't part of the present participle? Harrissimo.

Adiuvit = wrong form (a syllable left out). The thought might be easier if restructured: 'Also, he built almshouses to help the city's poor' (= ut-clause). Here, you can leave out 'for them.' Or, back to the original: 'Also, by building almshouses, he helped the poor of the city (urbanus, -a, -um?).' Perhaps an ablative of means with a participle (and more typically at the start of the sentence) would work: ptochotrophis aedificatis. (My dictionaries don't have elemosina, though I see where it's coming from.) Ask an expert! IacobusAmor 00:35, 23 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
May I butt in and add that you don't begin a sentence with quoque. You put in, early in the sentence, whatever word you want to emphasize, and then you add quoque after it. Adiuvavit quoque pauperes ... or Pauperes quoque adiuvavit ... or (turning it round as Iacobus suggests) Aedificavit quoque ptochotrophos ... or Ptochotrophis quoque aedificatis .... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 23 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good point: the placement of adverbs is tricky. They cling to the word they modify—unless they go wandering for special purposes. Native speakers don't always get it right. In English, the also used above goes at the start of the clause because it's a clause-modifying adverb (it affects the whole clause), but many people would write 'He also helped the poor' even though the previous sentences haven't confirmed that he helped anybody else ('He helped A; he also helped B'): by attaching also to helped, they turn it into an adverb that can be read to affect only its verb, rather than an adverb that affects its whole clause. Somewhere I've read that linguists call adverbs a syntactical grabbag: the "part of speech" that's left over after you've listed all the respectable ones. IacobusAmor 11:41, 23 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Aedificavit quoque ptochotrophos ut adiuverit? pauperes urbis. Acceptabilis? Harrissimo.
Non! Again you're leaving out a syllable (adiuvaverit)—but that form, even if rightly spelled, is wrong because it's indicative, and you need the subjunctive: '[so that] he might help'. IacobusAmor 11:41, 23 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the -va- is optional. Also wiktionary says here that adiuverit is perfect subjunctive. Harrissimo.
That must be right. I plead a lack of caffeine! IacobusAmor 12:11, 23 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Emendatio paginae Iuliano Amato dicatae[recensere | fontem recensere]

non intellego quia in pagina Iulianus Amato iurisprudentiae studuit a tibi emendata est iurisprudentia studuit. Ex Castiglioni, Aloisius; Mariotti, Scaevola. Vocabolario della lingua latina, latino-italiano, italiano-latino. Quarta editio a Petro Georgio Parroni curata (Taurini, 2007)., studeo col dat.: ergo: non student agriculturae, non si dedicano all'agricoltura, gratia tibi ago propter explicationes--Massimo Macconi 18:41, 22 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Sic, dicunt L&S, recte cum dativo et genetivo, et raro cum accusativo. IacobusAmor 19:09, 22 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Calvaria Samogitiensium[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thank you for your work on article Calvaria Samogitiensium. May I ask you to expand it a little bit more? It is pretty important Christian artcle, so I think it would be pretty important to have it in Latina. Pleckaitis 06:34, 24 Septembris 2007 (UTC) (Best of greetings from Samogitia).

Raedwald[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias ago tibi, Iacobe, emendationibus tuis! Ulvapes 16:13, 13 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Dies Solis[recensere | fontem recensere]

I copied your comment to Disputatio:Hebdomas. I hope that's OK! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 13 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Your correction to Laurentius Valla[recensere | fontem recensere]

dear Iacobus, I do not understand your correction in the page Laurentius Valla. Why should we use "Inter opera SUA notius est De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione" and not "Inter opera eius...."? According to my Latin grammar (Gusmini, Monfroni, Romussi, Nexus, vol. 1, pag. 287, Torino 2002) you should always use eius when the adjective doesn't refer to the subject of the sentence as in this case. Actually opera isn't not the subject of the sentence. Thanks for your help and explanation--Massimo Macconi 19:14, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps eius is OK; I must have been thinking of Bradley's Arnold #354(ii): "Sometimes, when no ambiguity is likely to arise, suus refers in a simple sentence to something other than the subject of the sentence. Senātum ad suam sevēritātem revocāvī. I recalled the Senate to its strictness." IacobusAmor 20:17, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thanks--Massimo Macconi 20:20, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

proceedings[recensere | fontem recensere]

  • Well i've created some startups now wich you can see at Gastropoda working your way down, there are two steps down to go their about the (familia) genus and te (Genera) specimen, there is a part with a header called taxinomia, and climbing a ladder, on the top below the name there's room for text about the things the members of the group has in common and about habitat and distribution, on the right there can be images - below the head with the taxotree there's room for header called references or literature (what's latin use for that?)
  • I like to get rid of the taxobox - I think the box is so common - all pedia sites use them and in fact i think their ugly and take a lot of space, this is a Latin project so it's a good thing to have soom differances towards english, french or dutch pedia, it makes it somuch mor - scientific approach, don't you think ?, Hendricus 20:13, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the taxobox was just fine. I don't like the new way.--Rafaelgarcia 20:19, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Ok maybe I take that back. I am in favor of taxoboxes for species. I guess it may be ok removing them for classes and kingdoms and the like...--Rafaelgarcia 20:23, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Sound good to me, use the taxobox at the species articles, that would be great, Hendricus 20:30, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Eligius Gonzalo[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobe, potesne, si vis, grammaticam paginae de Eligio Gonzalo corrigere? Gratias ago!--Xaverius 15:16, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Gratias iterum ago!--Xaverius 15:40, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome; nihilominus, errores fortasse manent. IacobusAmor 15:58, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Bloody errores semper adsunt--Xaverius 16:07, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

translation help[recensere | fontem recensere]

stipula Haec stipula ad Medicinalis spectat. Amplifica, si potes!

Category:Stipulae Medicinalis

Hi, can you help me workout a Latin based layout for some infection diseases, and a stipulae formula for medical subjects, thanks, Hendricus 14:06, 3 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

  • We have {{med-stipula}} already as a stipula. - ok, i've found it, Hendricus 15:18, 3 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
  • As for a translation of "Diphyllobothriasis est diseasa infectia parasiticorum caused by species of Diphyllobothrium." :) I would propose:
  • Diphyllobothriasis est morbus contagiosus parasiticus, a speciebus Diphyllobothriorum transmissus.
  • Just to make it clear, if you want that as a template for diseases as a starter sentence, what you will need to change is in bold below:
  • Diphyllobothriasis(name of the disease; Nominative singular [i.e. don't tamper with it]) est morbus contagiosus parasiticus, a speciebus Diphyllobothriorum(name of the species which spreads it; Genitive plural.) transmissus.
  • Don't start using it just yet, my latin isn't too good itsself, we should wait for Iacobus. Harrissimo.
  • Yes, let's wait, at this moment there are three parasite infections i like to start as a stipula, there are hundreds of them at the CDC site, i want to start them at the same time i start the zoological article about the species, i also wanted to know how to call a categoria for these infections, and maybe its better to create two seperate categories one for animals (lifestock) and one for humans hosts, Hendricus 14:59, 3 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Also, Hendrice, proglottis (all other cases beginning with proglottid- [then endings]) is the word for proglottid, just in case you ever want to use it. Also, please remember to put category names in the plural and use genitive when you need it. If you don't understand how, just ask! Harrissimo.
  • That's a common mistake to make if you'r from Holland, It's the name of a individual, person or species / genus name, it's not common to change it in multiple, Hendricus 15:34, 3 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
  • I was just wandering what to do with infections wich don't have a "own" latin name like these: Dipylidium infection, should this title be translated? Hendricus 15:34, 3 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Well, my suggested word for infection is morbus. I suggest morbus +gen. sin. of the tapeworm which causes it. Morbus Dipylidii canini. Harrissimo.
Maybe tomorrow. Is there an adjectival form for diplydium? Later! IacobusAmor 13:35, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Thylacinus cynocephalus‎;[recensere | fontem recensere]

G-evening, do you have some time to take a look at Thylacinus cynocephalus‎ and correct some of the tekst, thank you, Hendricus 19:16, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC) ??Hendricus 21:09, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Quæso, adiuva me[recensere | fontem recensere]


Nescio quomodo hoc traducere. Quæso, adiuvare me potes? (I don't know how to translate this. Could you help me please?):

El lienzo del Señor de los Milagros se ubica sobre el eje transversal del anda. El lienzo, en cuya parte posterior se ubica el de Nuestra Señora de la Nube, está encuadrado por un doble marco de columnas salomónicas que rematan en capiteles a modo de querubines, sobre los que se apoya un arco ornamentado con especies de volutas y rostros de ángeles.

Gratias!!!--Le K-li 19:51, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Sorry[recensere | fontem recensere]

Forgive (if you notice it) the slight irritation in my summarium, following yours, at Buffon. You're quite right, of course, eruditus takes a straight ablative. But I think you may have saved over my previous edit, hence restoring the wild k in Leclerc and causing Hendricus to make confusing remarks in the Disputatio. I think I'll leave Buffon to others now ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:24, 14 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! It's always a problem when multiple people are working on the same page at the same time! (But I didn't think I'd inadvertently reverted something.) IacobusAmor 02:42, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Gentilitium Peruviae[recensere | fontem recensere]

De hac pagina, gentilitium Peruviae peruvianis, -e est, ipsum quod est adiectivum declinationis -i. Numquid adiectivum femininum peruviana quoque uti?--Le K-li 15:46, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hoc verbum Peruvianis, -e non recognosco. Ubi attestatur? Credidi verbum rectum fuisse Peruvianus, -a, -um, et Peruvianus, -i, et Peruviana, -ae. IacobusAmor 17:25, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
I was wrong, as well as this page. It is peruvianus, -a, -um and not peruvianis, -e. Thx a lot!!!--Le K-li 14:30, 28 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
PS: Quæso, inspice capitulum meum de Domino Miraculorum. Iterum gratias tibi promutue ago.

Classical Japanese[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi, I am 榎, a user of Japanese Wikipedia. Now, I have a request to you. Could you write a new article about Classical Japanese in Latin based on or or the others, and then please put an External link to Wp/jpn-classical. A few sentences would be enough.-- 04:04, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

muliercula[recensere | fontem recensere]

Care Iacobe,

Exemplum mulier > muliercula iam erat in ipsa pagina! Gratias tamen tibi ago quod rei operam das! Sit annus novus tibi faustus felixque! --Fabullus 15:23, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Pontificatus[recensere | fontem recensere]

thank you for your precious correction and happy New Year --Massimo Macconi 16:09, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Definitive[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobus, Wallabia bicolor is the last stipula i've created this time with all proposed corrections, i like to ask you to take a look at it, so i can use thisone to correct all my previous lemma's, i think i've found a correction of my one: species should be specimum - i think. Youmay notic that in stead of one line of introduction i split this to two, the second line tells something about the animal and its distribution, while the first line tells something about the name and its history- what do you think?? Hendricus 15:00, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

If others may comment ... heaven knows where specimum comes from. It isn't Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
This specimum is gibberish: English specimen is Latin specimen. English species is Latin species. IacobusAmor 15:08, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
So what do you like me to do with it?Hendricus 15:11, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
(Anyone may comment), Hendricus 15:12, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Vide paginam renovatam. IacobusAmor 15:13, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes i've seen it, i didn't expect this, because of Harrisimo corrected an article sometimes ago into herbivororus Australianorum, Hendricus 15:17, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
That's impossible, but herbivorus Australianorum could be 'a herbivore of the Australians'. It all depends on what you're trying to say! IacobusAmor 15:22, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Impossible or not, hereally did mension it: [2], Hendricus 15:37, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Hi! What I wrote was X est species mammalium herbivororum Australianorum with Australian- meaning the national adjective, not the demonym in this context. A species of the Australian herbivorous (also adj.) mammals. Harrissimo 15:42, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
Yes, that makes sense: 'a species of Australian herbivorous mammals'. Hendricus may not yet appreciate the violence that just one wrong letter can do to a Latin word. :) IacobusAmor 16:06, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Also, I wouldn't recommend putting both animalium and mammalium in this type of sentence. Harrissimo 15:45, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
Well, one way or another, i like to use Wallabia bicolor as example to correct all previous lemma's, i realy like to get something definitive here, without the change to get other corrections when i've done with it, and beeing another 50 articles onworth, Hendricus 15:51, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Why not consider with what en: says?—"The Swamp Wallaby (Wallabia bicolor) is a small (85 cm 33 in) macropod marsupial of Australia. It is also known as a Black Wallaby or Stinker (in Queensland). It is dark-brown to black above and light yellow to strong rufous-orange below - thus the latin name bicolor." = Wallabia bicolor est parvum (85 cm, 33 unc.) marsupial {?} macropodum {?} Australianum. . . ." Is it marsupial, -alis, n.? macropodus, -a, -um? or what? IacobusAmor 16:06, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

See Disputatio:Wallabia bicolor. And it is marsupial, -alis, n. but macropus, -podis, m. is the noun for macropod. I don't know if it has an adjective form and in my suggestion, I used macropodida as in "one of the Macropodidae". Harrissimo 16:21, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

...which I have now changed to macropus (more specific). Harrissimo 16:25, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
Speaking of which, who'll write an article on 'Macropus ('Big Foot'), the illusory humanoid of the American Northwest? ¶ In the phrase "macropod marsupial," the word macropod is an objective noun (which can be considered a noun pretending to be an adjective), and there must several ways of Latinizing that construction. IacobusAmor 17:34, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)