Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2010

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

?[recensere | fontem recensere]

IacoboAmori spd., Videbam te unum creationum meorum spectare. Meum rogatum: Quae sunt signa interrogationis? --Martinus567 18:33, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Haec signa corrigenda vel verba dubia denotant. IacobusAmor 19:08, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
Tempto emendare. Videas, quaeso rursus, commentationem: Nuncne quoque est dubia?

Taxus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Why did you restore this if it's 'delenda' anyway? Pantocrator 20:56, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "restore" it: I added a delenda notice. The original author, obviously disagreeing, deleted that notice and added a link to an article in the English wiki, which shows the animal's name to be Taxidea taxus, not Taxus, which of course is a plant, a genus of yews. If the article is still there when I get some time (in a week or two), maybe I'll fix it up. IacobusAmor 22:26, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Disregarding then what I wrote on the disputatio ot taxus, we'll leave it there for a fortnight, so you can edit it into taxidea taxus if you want. Otherwise it'll be better if we delete it, don't you think?--Xaverius 22:49, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Notiones[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve, Iacobe. Fortasse tibi interest Disputatio Categoriae:Omnia de deletione proposita categoriae Notiones cum sub-categoriis :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Pantocrator's pages[recensere | fontem recensere]

I see you are trying to correct my excretable Latin. I can only explain that already I write many Latin words without thinking and evidently sometimes get them wrong. Can you tell me what's wrong with ob ? - in torquum and in Eratosthenes, I used it to mean 'away from' meaning physical distance or angle. What's the correct way to say that? Pantocrator 05:58, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If I may, there you need "ab" + ablative. "Ob" (+ accusative) means for, because, for the sake of, etc. Maybe before writing pages if you are not sure of the Latin you may want to use either the {{tiro}} formula or even write them in our VP:PE > VP:PE/SC.--Xaverius 09:22, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
And check a dictionary! ¶ 'From' is ab, de, ex (each with ablative), depending on the sense. IacobusAmor 12:28, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Right, thanks. Pantocrator 16:24, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Also for 'excretable' it's possible you want 'execrable'. —Mucius Tever 15:39, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure myself... --Ioscius 18:06, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Quid est hoc?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe mi, quid est hoc? --Fabullus 17:31, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Nescio. Evidenter computatralis interretialisve error! IacobusAmor 17:39, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

What?[recensere | fontem recensere]

What are you doing at Exafroplacentalia? I never saw a sillier page name! Please choose a better one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, but it wasn't my name: it was (?) Hendricus's. IacobusAmor 19:04, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
You moved to it. That was a bad move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:38, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
A move that makes a title conform with a lemma is a good move! IacobusAmor 20:32, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I cited this habit of yours to defend Pantocrator against Ioscius's criticism. But Pantocrator's new title, in the case of Iacobina Kennedy Onassis, was at least better than the old title [-- or so some had argued]. Yours is clearly worse; therefore the result of your move will be to waste someone's time. Your time, please, not mine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Oh, forget it. Just tired today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:05, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
PANTOCRATOR (!) was the farthest thing from one's mind. I was browsing, saw the inconsistency, and fixed it. Surely, since titles are merely display-font versions of lemmata, nobody doubts that both sets of characters should be identical (excepting parenthetical matter for the purposes of disambiguation). If the lemma is wrong, the expert who created it can fix it. It looks strange to me too, as do many things. IacobusAmor 00:10, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I got brought into this; I had nothing to do with the page. Now, I don't believe there's any precedent for a title with an equal sign in it; all other wikis have Exafroplacentalia. Therefore it should be moved back unless someone can argue otherwise. Pantocrator 03:56, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, PC, there was no reason really -- as I said, I was tired yesterday. Been travelling. But, yes, I agree exactly: it should be moved back unless someone can argue otherwise. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Emerita (Venetiola)[recensere | fontem recensere]

Buenos Dias a ti, te escribo si por favor puede ayudame con ese puede arregrarlo y allargarlo un poco de mas. Mi Latin no es perfecto...te pido ayuda si puede hacerme ese favor. Con la Carte te Mando las Felicitades para Una Exelente Pascua♥ gracias de corazon♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino 10:04, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Feci, sed locutionem "Est maior factorum lacti" non intellego. IacobusAmor 11:37, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Contribuenda[recensere | fontem recensere]

I see you created both Categoria:Circumiectus civitate digesti and Categoria:Circumiectus civitate digestus. Clearly we ought to merge them -- which form should we prefer? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

The concept is equivalent to en:Category:Environment by country, but other concepts sorted in Vicipaedia by country seem to be plural, so we should prefer the plural form, right? IacobusAmor 19:19, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:25, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Gratias[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thank you for your note on Arthurus Rodas. I tried my best today to correct the problem today as I was waiting for a friend to help me out. Unfortunately she didn't appear and the software translators are still hopeless ... My best regards --Anne-Marie Martin 10:54, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! You might want to check your conjugations. For example, Iam is ago? Londinii means 'He I already/still act at London.' For the verb, you need a third-person-singular form, not a first-person-singular one. IacobusAmor 14:02, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. A few minutes ago I decided to take out some problem phrases until I get my friends help again. Probably the article is better now ? --Anne-Marie Martin 20:52, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what categories are for?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Aragonites. Did you have anything it mind other than simply reverting whatever I do? You removed a category that's actually useful and replaced it with four categories with just a single member, which are not. Pantocrator 12:57, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

It's not all about you. These categories, which I started long ago but never finished, are at last coordinate with those in Wikipedia, each of which already has multiple members (not all of which have been Latinized yet). IacobusAmor 13:10, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at all four again, and saw no pages other than Aragonites. I admit others could be added, but there's no point making them if you're not going to. Pantocrator 13:18, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
The point is to set up the scaffolding to ease the work of whoever wants to build. Failure to anticipate the growth of Vivipaedia has added to the enterprise countless hours of unnecessary labor. There's truly no point in having a category with tens of thousands of members (like the mindless "Mineralia") or, as in the early Vicipaedia, a category with maybe ten million members (like the original "Insecta"). IacobusAmor 13:26, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Corrected[recensere | fontem recensere]

The article on Arthurus Rodas has been corrected. Could you please take the "latinitas" sign off as it is not needed any longer. Thank you for your help --Anne-Marie Martin 12:31, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

It was still -2 (I'd guess), but I've brought it up to -1, and others may improve it more. Vicipaedia has yet to standardize the names of musical instruments & genres, which will someday need links, here and in other articles. IacobusAmor 12:42, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Great and thank you very much. I cant wait until the instruments latin standard names arrive. Regards --Anne-Marie Martin 10:39, 12 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Dubsig templates[recensere | fontem recensere]

I think you overuse them, for one. No one else applies them as you do. It would take no more time to fix them yourself, in many cases, than to put the dubsig there. In any case it is excesive to put them on every word not found in classical Latin, even when the meaning is clear. Anyway, they do not belong on fusio or liquatio; those are discretiva pages, which by their nature do not suggest that the term is the correct one. I have seen myself liquatio used in Latin writings; and fusio is so present in modern languages that it's reasonable to add that as a possible meaning, even if it had never been used in Latin (which is doubtful). Pantocrator 13:38, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

You think wrongly. It would often take more time to fix them, and if they were fixed, the original perpetrator is less likely to learn from her or his mistakes. The meaning isn't always so clear as you imagine. Liquatio is an exceedingly rare word; if it's the best word for the concept, then it's OK. You've just told us that it is. IacobusAmor 10:03, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Hey Iacobus. I too really feel you overuse dubsigs for non classicals. For example, I really believe servio can be used as "serves as", etc. Please focus on mainstream latin, overall grammar, good and substantial contents, improving instead of just criticizing or labeling. Remember the latin of this wiki has to accommodate an encyclopedia, technology, quantum physics, etc..Thanks.--Jondel 08:25, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Jondel, on what basis do you "believe servio can be used as "serves as", etc." [in general]? One is always eager to learn new things. Since this sense of the word isn't in dictionaries at hand, one wonders where it comes from. IacobusAmor 11:22, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I agree. I enjoy learning new words and usage. (Can I ask btw, did you even try to read my latin below? Pls also remember not everyone uses English, thus latin really might be a good internationall auxilliary)
My point is I feel you are overemphasizing too much very old latin, inspite of the fact that we need to accommodate articles such as antigravity, quantum electronics, broadband, etc, and the dub sig's are overused. we're an encyclopedia too. I don't wan't to discuss servio/servire too much but in a particular article, it seems you were insisting that servire be used in a 'slave' sense.
And rightly so, be subject to being pretty much its sense. IacobusAmor 10:03, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the 'serve as' usage now (dang this perseus site!). However, for non 'slave' meanings I have the following.
Postquam ephebus est factus et palaestrae dare operam coepit, non tam magnitudini virium servivit quam velocitati.Not exact word for word translation but I believe this is the meaning :When a youth is given for training in wrestling, it does not 'serve' to train to such a degree for strength , rather, speed.
Nope: 'he wasn't so much subject to the strength of force as to its quickness'.
et operi pro quo servivit adversus aeam: and for the work which serves against her /it
ut totus truncus alienigenis surculis serviat, . I'm not sure: So that the whole trunk serves (as an advantage to) to a different branch.
vatican stuff:
cui servivit fructum tibi afferens cum tolerantia, ut eum quoque lucraretur tibi:
Which served to bear fruit to you (to your advantage) with tolerances such that to him also it is profitable to you.
et operi pro quo servivit adversum eam dedi ei terram Aegypti pro eo quod laboraverunt mihi ait Dominus Deus : (I didn't peek at the English version, ok, this is my own translation) And for the work for which it serves against it/her , I give him the land of Egypt for that which they worked for me says the Lord God.
Nope: et operi pro quo servivit 'as the recompense for which he labored (served, slaved)'. IacobusAmor 10:14, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Cheers.--Jondel 13:26, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Et ego his consentio. Pantocrator petit modo ut Latinitatem eius corrigamus aut amelioremus, minime constanter irrideamus. Signum dubitationis adhibendum sit tantum cum quod auctor dicere conatur non intellegi possit. Alioquin corrigamus ut tyrones hortemur.--usor:Tergum Violinae
Licet mihi. Probe. Ego etiam velim ne rem irrideat. Sed credo Pantocratrum ,ut ego, sentire Iacobum adhibendum Signum dubitationis in intemperantia(ne modo corrigendum). Etiam in intemperantia verbum antiquum ahibendo quamvis in dictionario normae sit verbum. Sentio ego Iacobum (me paenitet, sorry to say this)non conari intellegere, haud, non esse anticuum verbum neque ex "Cassell" igitur constituere ponere Signum dubitationis. Melius est corrigere aut ameliore. Mihi, si occupatus occupati, igitur Signum dubitationis ponamus quae res multus sunt.--Jondel 09:20, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Pantocrator, you think wrongly. It would take much more time for me or anyone to fix those attached to unusual or unintelligible coinages. People who aren't mind-readers can't always tell what's intended. Nor are you right in stating that I "put them on every word not found in classical Latin"; I often use nonclassical words and idioms. I often add dubsigs to my own prose. They're nothing to be ashamed of. IacobusAmor 11:17, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
I should add here that I add dubsig to my own work sometimes too, when I really don't know if I did that right. I've seen PC do this too (globus niveus). --Ioscius 13:07, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree a little with what Tergum Violinae said. If Pantocrator had asked that we correct or improve his Latin, I think would be willing and happily. It seems, however, that he is at least as, if not more, interested in convincing others what should be correct Latin (this includes people with doctorates in Latin and 40 or more years of experience writing it). Also if he wanted people not to make fun of his Latin or insult it, he might try not doing the same thing to other people (at least half a dozen examples come to mind "jesus christ mind your genders!" "attende grammaticam!" etc.). A person with no humility should not expect to be humbly treated, and I think that's one thing going on here.
I also agree with Iacobus that sometimes it does take far more time to correct someone else's Latin. I have spent entire days looking through user contributions and fixing them, rather than getting my own work done. I have said this to PC before too, that sometimes I don't have any idea what he was trying to say (this is getting better).
All that being said, I agree with PC that maybe you do use the {{dubsig}} a little much. I have seen it on perfectly good Latin words in perfectly good sentences, and I haven't understood its application at all.--Ioscius 11:26, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. Could you bring an example into light so I can try to reconstruct what might have passed through my mind? IacobusAmor 11:32, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
For instance in infinitas you marked dubsig the abbreviation a.E.V. for a.C.n, [Ioscius]
I did? I don't find it in the history of the page. IacobusAmor 12:21, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that was cannabis.--Ioscius 12:44, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Which shows you the value of rhetoric! I've made dozens of useful improvements in that article, but Pantocrator has diverted you into fixating on something else. Over here, the Republicans have been especially good at that for several decades now. Among their tricks is the Fenestra Overton. IacobusAmor 12:57, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Come now, mi Iacobe, you don't think I'm unappreciative of your help in that article. Just throwing my two cents in since the topic came up.
although we have a page on it and it was discussed in the Taberna, cited by Muke.
Was there a link on "a.E.V."? The abbreviation meant nothing to me and will probably mean nothing to most other readers. IacobusAmor 11:54, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
This is what I mean about fixing stuff yourself - if you think a.E.V. should not be used (which I agree with), you should just change it. The dubsig doesn't help readers at all. Pantocrator 12:37, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
One can't change something when one doesn't know what it means. That's the value of the dubsig. It's often the case that someone can recognize a problem but not know the solution. IacobusAmor 12:39, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Well I'll kindly ask no one to change my attested dating system, but it's definitely not dubsig, since we have an article on it.--Ioscius 12:44, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
As you know, we're in total agreement on the POV-ness of a.C.n. & p.C.n. IacobusAmor 12:59, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Right, you'll no more get a./p.C.n. out of me in Latin than you will BC/AD in English. On this I'd ask no one to argue against my right to disassociate as thoroughly as possible. --Ioscius 13:03, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
OK (bearing in mind that disassociation is often held to be a pathological state of mind). :) IacobusAmor 13:07, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
There was on the first usage in the article.--Ioscius 12:08, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
One doesn't necessarily read articles from the top: one often arrives at a spot well down in the text because one has been searching for a specific word. IacobusAmor 12:23, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
In PCs what was it evaporatio yesterday you dubed proportionalis. Sure its postclassical, but it certainly exists and works in exactly the way PC wanted it to. I agree with you that other stuff was dubious in the article, but not that, I don't think.
Ah, but does it work? and for whom? The point there was that the author didn't reach for the established idiom. Translating 'to be proportional' by esse + an adjective is mindlessly to force a latter-day syntactic structure into a different language. Cicero might regard the result as Pidgin-Latin. I added a dubsig so people could think about it. Perhaps an apt way to say 'X is proportional to Y' is X se ad Y accommodat or X se Y [dat.] accommodat, but other possibilities may exist. Proportionality is hardly a modern idea. Even if uses of esse proportionalis + dative are found in Late Latin, why take the easy way out and follow them thoughtlessly? They're not going to help us read Suetonius better. IacobusAmor 12:17, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
This is unacceptable. Those expressions are not precise enough, and when people started doing mathematics and exact science in Latin (which the Romans did not), they needed something better. Pantocrator 12:37, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
How do you know they're "not precise enough"? How do you imagine Roman (and Greek) architects & engineers managed to construct the aedifices of the ancient world while not knowing much about proportionality and lacking a vocabulary for discussing it? IacobusAmor 13:03, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Of course certain parties (to judge from hints & asides dropped here & there) don't want to read Suetonius better. That point of difference is likely to remain a source of strife until the champions of different dialects split up and go their separate vicipaedian ways. IacobusAmor 12:27, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe over at the English wiki, eventually there should be a divide between British English wiki, American English Wiki, Australian English, New Zealand English, Indian English, Canadian....They should all split up too. Age. Please ascribe to a standard mainstream Latin.--Jondel 17:19, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Those variants of English are far more similar to each other than Pantocrator's Latin is to Latin. IacobusAmor 09:52, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're implying here. But on the matter of Latin usage, it seems you're alone here, Iacobe. Pantocrator 12:37, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Well he's not entirely alone. Just because we are talking about science doesn't mean we should abandon the Classical ideal of elegantia, where the latter innovation doesn't help anything. In some situations it cannot, admittedly, be avoided. --Ioscius 12:44, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Elegance is just fine but should never be allowed to get in the way of communicating accurately (except in poetry). I don't generally mind people making my prose more elegant as long as the meaning is preserved, but splattering question marks all over it, as if it were simply bad Latin, is unhelpful. Pantocrator 13:02, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of elegance, nor is it a matter of preserving meaning: it's a matter of trying to wrench meaning out of the void. IacobusAmor 13:00, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
I'll look back and see what else I can find. A lot of the time I agree with you. Sometimes a word will look funny and I'll mark it as dubsig, but not if in L&S the word means exactly what the author wants it to.--Ioscius 11:43, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Commons cat[recensere | fontem recensere]

If, instead of hiding the commons template e.g. {{Commons cat|Endocrinology}} you convert it to {{CommuniaCat|Endocrinology|Endocrinologiam}}, and don't hide it, it will work. It requires the English name e.g. "Endocrinology" (because Commons runs in English) followed by our own Latin equivalent in the accusative e.g. "Endocrinologiam". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did not know that. Are all the Commons Cats going to work then? IacobusAmor 14:53, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they all work the same way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Zuidermeer[recensere | fontem recensere]

Optime!!! I have true friends in Zuidermeer, that breed the same dog I breed, Italian Bracco. If you go on my site on Dutch Page, you can see me in the Zuidermeer fields with a Bracco of them. See you soon Rex Momo 18:41, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

LRL?[recensere | fontem recensere]

In your edit of Fagottus, what does "LRL" mean? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Ask Morgan, whence that collection of terms comes! (I'd guess Lexicon Recentioris Latinitatis.) IacobusAmor 12:48, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's no good writing something we don't understand. I'll put {{Morgan}}. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Latinitas Pulheim[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi IacobusAmor, I tried to correct the doubted sentences in the article Pulheim. Please have a look at my suggestions and check the Latinitas of the article again. I hope I could improve the language's quality. Best regards,--Fecchi 09:44, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly good already. (Septentrionalis is misspelled.) However, depopulor is deponent, so depopulatus = 'having laid waste' (active in sense) and therefore doesn't seem right for what you're trying to say. In general, the text is a good start! IacobusAmor 09:48, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the orthography-hint, I'll correct it later. Oh my, I hate these deponents. A looting town is not what I wanted to say... compilo would fit the sense much better, but I actually neither have an idea of the correct participle (compilatus erat?), nor the correct english denotations (for example quaerens which is a "Partizip Präsens Aktiv" in German). Starting to become difficult at this point.--Fecchi 10:14, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Hard work[recensere | fontem recensere]

I like the way the natural history categories are growing :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of them are as cut & dried as can be. It's therefore disappointing to observe the earliest authors' lack of planning in regard to them. Some articles treating genera & species were going to be in the Categoria:Animalia—a category that, if followed through in that manner, would eventually contain ten to thirty million members and thereby be useless. Plenty of mammals were going to go directly into the Categoria:Mammalia, rather than into a subcategory several taxonomical levels down; likewise with birds, fishes, etc. In general, it would seem that insciti are lumpers and eruditi are splitters. ;) IacobusAmor 12:58, 5 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Imagines Zuidermeer[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Iacobe. Duas imagines in hac pagina misi. Videre ptes si bonae sunt? Tibi gratias ago. Rex Momo 20:30, 9 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo 06:00, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Ioannes Bosco (discretiva)[recensere | fontem recensere]

Tibi gratias agos caus paginaea Zuidermeer. Potes, nunc, custodire hanc novam paginam, et etiam Ioannem Bosco Burnier?
Thanks a lot Rex Momo 06:00, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! IacobusAmor 12:38, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Tibi gratias agos causa Ioannis Herman[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iam feci pagina de Lingua Italica. Sed... cur non in pagina mea sscribiste sed solum in pagina nostri amici Fabulli? Cura ut valeas Rex Momo 21:17, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Maybe worth mentioning[recensere | fontem recensere]

I noticed the hidden text that you put at Categoria:Domini Cancellarii Anglici et Britannici. It looked interesting, but the name "Domus Parium" looked dubious; anyway, I moved it to the disputatio page, where it can all be seen, and added a comment.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:32, 12 Maii 2010 (UTC)

It was a quick guess, and of course it can be fixed! IacobusAmor 12:19, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd mention en passant that if I see a lot of hidden text that's been on a page for a long while (not the case here!), and if it doesn't look as if someone is working on it currently, I often remove it, on the grounds that it may be confusing to other editors -- whose only common language, after all, is Latin. I think some others do the same. Of course, it's all still there in the history; but if you want such notes to remain at hand, I'd suggest it would be safest to put them on the disputatio page, where all languages are equal. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:32, 12 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Why is what's hidden going to bother any readers? IacobusAmor 12:19, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
I said it "may be confusing to other editors -- whose only common language, after all, is Latin." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Some such deletions have involved intervici links for categories. In contrast with some others who create categories, I (almost) always check what's been done before in the biggest wikis and include such links when I create categories, and I usually hide or dubsig them when I'm uncertain of the best Latin for them.
I am suggesting that to write such notes in English, and then to hide them on the category page, is counterproductive: (a) because they are addressed to those who read English, a subset of our editors; (b) because they will only be seen by those who edit the category page, not by any others who may visit it. So, if you're wondering about the best Latin for a concept, you won't get much help if you hide your question. And if you're wanting to advise people how to categorise certain pages, they are very unlikely to see your note; they won't even suspect that it exists.
So, for example, in the category page that you just created for Categoria:Incolae Regni Havaiorum, it doesn't help other users to insert advice about how the category is defined in English and then to hide it. If you want it to be in English, please put it on the disputatio page; or, if you want it to be on the category page, please write it in Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I gather that you might have been doing this for some time: believe me, I don't want to make work for you, what I want to do is to make the work you've done more accessible! I suspect we could get a bot to transfer the hidden text from any category page to visibility on the disputatio page. How would you feel about that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:18, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
They exist, and they may contain dozens or hundreds of articles, even if not yet in Latin. Some of your deletions are curious, such as blotting out Categoria:Advenae in Civitates Foederatas for Alexander Hamiltonius, even though he was born in the Caribbean and—as nobody doubts!—he was an immigrant to the United States. But no matter: in a few years, bots will regularize all this finery, and any present quibblings will be moot. IacobusAmor 12:19, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are many advenae in many countries, and we don't at present have any categories for any of them. That's exactly why I commented it out: we need to agree how we are going to categorize migrants in general, before we create a category just for these two. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Most are sorted by country of origin (en:Category:Chilean immigrants to the United States, en:Category:Chilean immigrants to Canada, and so on), but :en: and other wikis put Alexander Hamilton in the grab-bag en:Category:Immigrants to the United States. IacobusAmor 12:50, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
So (since I don't know any reason why Hamilton should be treated differently from others) we, too, could apply two-term categories, "migrants Britain > US", etc. Some of them would already have many members. What should we call them? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
According to Cassell's (citing Cicero, Horace, Livy, Ovid, Tacitus), 'immigrant' is advena, the opposite of indigena 'native'. IacobusAmor 14:31, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
So if, based on your work above, I suggested a general pattern Categoria:Advenae e Britannia in Franciam (myself for example!) and Categoria:Advenae ex Insulis Caribicis in Civitates Foederatas (that's what Hamilton was, I gather) would that be a good start? Or would it be more helpful to reverse country-of-departure and country-of-arrival? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Could someone first find examples of genuine syntax? For example, is it (as a native English-speaker might suppose) advena in + acc.? or is it advena in + abl.? Maybe the concept itself is awkward in classical Latin: after all, for emigrant, a related concept, Cassell's tells us to "render by verb" (maybe as qui emigrat/emigravit?). ¶ As for order, the historical one ('from A to B, out of A into B') would seem to be more natural, but lists & categories & such are a world apart, so who knows? IacobusAmor 14:58, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Subsection[recensere | fontem recensere]

Quoting myself from above: "if I see a lot of hidden text that's been on a page for a long while ... and if it doesn't look as if someone is working on it currently, I often remove it". Often is relative, but I do this at least occasionally and I know others do as well. (The reason is to present, so far as possible, a clear, tidy edit screen, in Latin, that anyone who wants to can easily improve in the way they think best.) So, anyway, far as I'm concerned, if I do this I'll do it in a separate move and put a note in the "summarium". So, if you watch your old pages, you'll be able to see that I've removed hidden text because I'll say so. If you wanted to go on working on it, feel free to revert -- I shan't mind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 21 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Hawai[recensere | fontem recensere]

I see now that you've decided to ignore the intervici distinctions among

en:Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii
en:Category:People of the Republic of Hawaii
en:Category:People of the Territory of Hawaii
en:Category:People of the State of Hawaii

and make them all "Category:People of Hawaii" (without intervici links). Somebody later will want to undo this lumping, and let's hope the work falls to the bots! IacobusAmor 12:56, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)

The category was created (without links) by you. I'm sure one of us will soon add the links :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
It was in progress. I added Kamanava II yesterday and Kamanava today. IacobusAmor 13:31, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Of course ... I've added the links now anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Bibliographies[recensere | fontem recensere]

I saw your note at Prima expeditio sacra. It reminds me that we haven't ever agreed a format for bibliographical references and we should. It would be so much better if we were consistent. I would happily work with the same system that you follow, and I would happily urge everyone else to work with it too ... but I don't know how. Is there a guide to it somewhere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Here's the range of styles that prevail at academic presses in the United States:
Naturally, each house & publication will indulge in minor deviations from it. For example, for in-text citations, instead of "(Author Year, Page)," many publications in the social sciences use "(Author Year:Page)" or "(Author Year: Page)." IacobusAmor 12:24, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Great. They propose two styles; you seem to go with their author-date style, not their humanities style ... and I have never seen any humanists rise up to object. Do you think we should try to standardise on the author-date style throughout? Shall we propose this on the Taberna?
Once we have agreed, we can then easily ensure that any templates (such as the {{Setton}} one, which caught your eye) correspond with the standard. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)
You're more sanguine than I about the possibility of reconciling humanists & scientists! ¶ A reason I like the author-date style is that, when an author's works are bibliographed, they're sorted by year, so one can see the trajectory of the author's career. Making the secondary sorting by title (and indeed, burying the year at the end) obscures that. Sorting first by name and second by year creates new & potentially useful information. Also, in-text citation by name & year eliminates bibliographic footnotes, which most readers over here regard as an abomination. Footnotes are for comments, glosses, asides, etc., not for teasing & then annoying our eyes with nothing more than "Ibid." and its accomplices! IacobusAmor 13:04, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Note ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

I posed a question at Disputatio Categoriae:Campi historiae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Use of categories[recensere | fontem recensere]

Do keep in mind, Iacobe, that "categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles" (according to en:Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created). The 12 categories created by you this afternoon that don't include any articles, and the remaining one that leads to the single article Eteocles et Polynices, don't appear to meet this criterion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Conceptually they do. Over in :en:, for example, "Category:Seven against Thebes" has thirteen pages, equivalent to: Septem contra Thebas, Actor, Adrastus, Amphiaraus, Capaneus, Eteoclus, Hippomedon, Mecisteus, Melanippus, Parthenopeus, Polynices, Polyphontes, Tydeus—all of which seem essential for a Latin-based encyclopedia, though only one of them has been Latinized so far (but they all will be, someday). IacobusAmor 16:51, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)
No, you can't get away with "conceptually they do". They don't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:52, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we have different concepts of the wikis. I see them as parts of a whole, which will one day convey the same information in multiple ways: I see them converging to the point that, as soon as a change occurs in one, it'll occur in all. Bots are already connecting them ever more tightly by adding & subtracting links and doing minor housekeeping. Once they learn human languages, they'll be translating texts, and then they'll be rearranging layouts and doing everything else in the wikis that humans are now doing. (Barring a catastrophe that retards the world's progress, this should happen before the year 2035 or so.) At last, bots will start inventing new languages, and what we're doing here now won't have mattered much. Even so, I see no gain in not helping the future along. IacobusAmor 12:10, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
I shall interpose my opinion uninvited. First of all, I dismiss this science-fiction fueled theory of the future of Wikipedia. 14:40, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
"In what passes for the long run---a generation or two---the development of true artificial intelligence is likely to reduce human beings to managers. Rather than making new discoveries and creating new products, we will struggle to understand and guide the flow of novelties delivered by creations we cannot really keep up with."---Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, "Trends Shaping Tomorrow's World," The Futurist, July-August 2010, p. 46. Cetron is the futurist who in the mid-1990s predicted that terrorists would one day fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. IacobusAmor 21:54, 4 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
However, to take it on its own terms, computer programs with such magical abilities that they can translate human language will have no problem copying categories over from English wikipedia themselves. In the meantime, we should generally and flexibly apply the "three page" rule of thumb -- no category should exist unless it has three pages. 14:40, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of categories in Wikipedia (for example, en:Category:Fauna of Akrotiri and Dhekelia and en:Category:People from Tébessa) contain only two pages. IacobusAmor 22:00, 4 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
The Categoriae make a nice interface for navigating Vicipaedia, until you hit barren patches of the tree with no articles in them. We all want to make Vicipaedia better. Let's make it better for current readers, rather than for supposed future computer programs. 14:40, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
An alternate approach is to consider the color red an invitation to write articles. A couple of days ago, I wrote a short article on a bacterium (in which I have no particular interest) so as to turn a link in our pagina mensis blue. IacobusAmor 11:56, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
How is that relevant? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
It's an example of filling in's "barren patches," rather than pretending they don't exist. IacobusAmor 12:28, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. No, that doesn't work. Redlinks have to be in articles, and I suppose no one disputes that they are an invitation to write more articles -- an invitation that many of us accept. 174 is talking about finding barren patches among the categories -- parts of the category tree that contain no articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
And therefore print in red? Or is that just for categories that have no parents? If so, then that's an invitation to create the parents. IacobusAmor 12:51, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's the circle you're in.
Discussion is enjoyable, but I really want to be sure you grasp this point: by creating categories that lead to scarcely any pages, you could be wasting your time. Whereas, in creating and improving articles, you definitely aren't wasting your time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Some of them, however, could be made to fill the bill -- we already had articles to put in them --so I've spent some time doing this. In particular "Mythologia Thebana" definitely wanted a category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:31, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
One is not surprised. (Sometimes when I've created a category, several articles have instantly appeared in it.) Compared with :la:, the computing power of many thousands of times as many human brains has been applied to such issues in the major wikis—to which, accordingly, deference is almost always due. IacobusAmor 12:10, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
It's fortunate, since our beliefs on so many of those things are totally and fundamentally at odds, that our aims as regards articles on la:wiki (more and better) are identical! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Operatur dialectica! Hoc elatus erit Hegel! IacobusAmor 13:06, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)

hyperbaton[recensere | fontem recensere]

Is coming along very nicely. I'm a big fan of this article and I'm surprised it has gone so long uncreated. Macte! --Ioscius 10:44, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Gratias, Iosce. I worry that the lists of examples may be verging on the dreaded Original Research, but my justification is that learners of Latin can profit from studying them. Articles on the subject must exist in academic literature, so feel free to add them in if you find them. ¶ In general, the English wiki is quite poor on this and related topics. Elegy, for example, says almost nothing about the classical concept, and :en: doesn't even have articles on Asclepiadean meter(s) and Logaedic verse and Pherecratic meter, and its articles on Dimeter and Trimeter are extremely weak. IacobusAmor 11:56, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Woohoo! I finally found one in Lucretius. I'll add it in now. IacobusAmor 12:08, 1 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

It's that time again[recensere | fontem recensere]

fr:Tour de France 2010. I had to miss out last year, but I'm ready and willing to work on the geographical side this year if you want to work on the cycling side. How about it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

It's that time again? Already! Aiieeee!!! My desk is collapsing under the weight of undone projects—but OK, let's see what we can do. IacobusAmor 13:00, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Dulzaina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Do you think that en:Dulzaina/Dolçaina can be related to Hoffmann's Dulciana? --Xaverius 12:41, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea! The English text says the instrument came from "arabic people," but its name came from France, and that would be curious. Maybe an etymologist will jump in and tell us if French -aine can reflect Latin -iana. IacobusAmor 12:57, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
The English sentence about Arabic origin was clearly inserted by a none-too-literate contributor unfamiliar with wiki editing. It doesn't match the rest of the article. But that's not to say it isn't true, of course!
As to the word Dulzaina/Dolçaina, W. Meyer-Lübke, Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelbergiae: Winter, 1911) textus confirms that it comes from old French doussaine (and treats this as a noun derived from Latin dulcis). So it seems possible that the Carolingian Latin poet cited by Hoffmann was aiming to use the same word; but I don't really see how to check further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
A Jesuitic dictionary of 1781 gives fistula organica for dulzaina (why organica?), and this translation is more direct than dulciana. Would Fistula organica then be our best (and attested) option?.--Xaverius 13:57, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Maybe organica here means 'used in playing organum' (though presumably that idea would have faded by 1781)? IacobusAmor 14:03, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

To amuse you[recensere | fontem recensere]

... you will find your words at Psalmus idioticus quoted (intelligently or not, it's for you to judge) here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord. What won't they think of next?! IacobusAmor 16:54, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Francisco I mortuo[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello! Regarding the sentence Francisco I mortuo, Iosephus filius Mariae Theresiae novus imperator factus est, could you please tell me whether Francisco I mortuo is dative or ablative? Thanks, Amsal 10:51, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

It's an ablative absolute, "literally" meaning 'Francis I being dead', but more practically, 'When Francis I died', 'After Francis I had died', etc. IacobusAmor 11:31, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

If you have a moment[recensere | fontem recensere]

... please glance at the Latin sentences I suggested at Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch#Nice to see .... They are intended to replace the hidden text in English that lurks behind the asteroid pages at present (for example 1000 Piazzia: click "recensere" to see the hidden text). Such messages ought really to be in Latin, and they had better be exactly right before Robert spreads them across all those pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 17 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Done. IacobusAmor 16:36, 17 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism[recensere | fontem recensere]

This diff. shows you annotating and failing to remove vandalism. Because you did this, the vandalism wasn't removed for a week. It isn't the first time you've promoted vandalism in this way: see my note "Why not revert?" above. On both occasions, as if to make it more difficult for others to spot, you marked your edit as "minor". Minor edits by users such as you are trusted and rarely checked.

I'm aware this was not what you intended to do, but, on both occasions, the effect of what you did was to promote and prolong vandalism. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, then so did all the other six billion humans who didn't revert it. + Vide supra: "Only if you promise to notice the reversion and punish the miscreant!" IacobusAmor 00:22, 23 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Maybe somebody could invent a vandalism flag of some sort, akin to the delenda and vicificanda and Latinitas notices. The word vandalism, however, expresses a POV. Perhaps the Scots would prefer to call it Englishism. IacobusAmor 00:27, 23 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
For the IP address responsible, a flag was designed long ago, {{IP vandalica}}; editors use this to draw the attention of a magistratus to an IP address that needs blocking.
As to the page on which vandalism is seen, any editor who sees the vandalism reverts it immediately. Please do this in future. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 23 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Toxicarius[recensere | fontem recensere]

Do you want to comment at Disputatio Categoriae:Plantae toxicariae? Not sure where you got that word. Also I'm not sure yet whether I agree with venenosus for poisonous plants (I wish there were a better source than Augustine!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 16 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Nomen adiectivum toxicarius est botanicum Latinitatis hodiernae verbum. Vide Stearns, Botanical Latin, 1983, p. 531. Vide Google quoque, praecipue Aspergillus toxicarius et Haemanthus toxicarius, quae manifesto sunt plantae toxicariae! IacobusAmor 14:20, 16 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Help:English to Latin Translation[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello! I need help on English to Latin translation. Please visit the page User:Amit6/c-en2la13 and translate that following list of english words to Latin. If you do the translations, please do not write those here and prefer to write those on the latin section of User:Amit6/c-en2la13. --Amit6 18:29, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[recensere | fontem recensere]

for being so helpful in the disputationes and for your corrections on vulpes velox and energia hydroelectrica! I appreciate it lots :) Mattie 18:42, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Bergomensis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Iacobe, quomodo te habes? De hac pagina adiutum tuum peto, quia mea Lingua Latina non bona est.

If you can and want, can you put, please some ather news about this page, taking form other Languages? Thanks a lot for your precious help.

Rex Momo 07:53, 1 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago causa pretiosissimi adiuti tui! Rex Momo 11:26, 1 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

AYUDA PARA TRADUCIR LATIN A ESPAÑOL[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola compañero, ¿me puedes traducir el siguiente texto al español? NOTA: Aparecen muchos nombres de pueblos y lugares (para más info, el articulo está en GRACIAS!!!

Asigno et tribuo ecclesie Sancte Marie de Darocha, ecclesias de Barrachina, et de Navarret, et de Calamocha, et eas semper iuste et canonice possideant; clericis Sancti Petri, concedo ecclesia de Loçana, et eam semper canonice possideant: clericis Sanct Dominici, concedo ecclesias de Cosa et de Rubiolos, ut eas semper canonice possideant; clericis Sancti Michaelis, concedo ecclesias de Langua et de Cebollada, ut eas semper canonice possideant; clericis Sanct Jacobi, concedo ecclesiam de Castielpedres, ut eam semper canonice possideant; clericis Sancti Martini de la Parra, concedo ecclasia d'El Enderme, ut eam semper canonice possideant; clericis Sancti Laurencii, concedo ecclesiam de Retascon, ut eam semper canonice possideant; clericis Sancti Valerii, concedo ecclesiam de Valconchan, ut eam semper canonice possideant; Hoc autem est divisio Sancte Marie habet Signa, Torrillo, Covas, Corlas, Anento, Ferrerola, Tonda, Covas de Portelo Rubeo, Lechon, Montnegriellos, Villaalbiella, Forcallo, Tortolon, Baguena. Sciendum vero est quod istas supramemoratas aldeas habet ecclesia de Sancta Marie sorte datas sint, et alie habent alias. Sciendum quod decimacionem de Baguena prior Sancte Marie caro tribuit ut teneat eam in pace dum vixerit, et cum obierit fiat de illa sint de aliis. Clerici et ecclesia Sancti Petri habent Olalia, Pelarda, Fuentesclaras, Villargasconem, Lectago, Luco, Tramasaquas, Salze, Villalpardo, Torralva del Senyor, Badules, Tordenigris, Ferrera. Clerici et ecclesia Sancti Andree habent Cerbera, Sarçola, Michael, Romanos, Lançola, Baldeforna, Tampariellas. Clerici ecclesiea Sancti Johannes, habent Portelrubeo, Tuera, Las Casas, Collados, Manchones, Salze, Murero, Baselga, Aldea Dominico Ferrero, Ceyda. Clerici et ecclesia Sancti Dominici habent Allueva, Fuentfrida, Losella, Bea, Noros, Pardellos, Corberola, Vello, Castelpedrés, Losella, Gallocanta, Ollosnigros, Pozuel. Clerici et ecclesia Sancti Michaelis habent Poyo, Santet, Mezquita, Valdesantmartin, San Martin, Ambosportos, Odon, Blancas, Torreziella. Clerici Sancti Jacobi et ecclesia habent Alpenyes, Corvacon, Langosto, Villalba, Torralba, Fuset, Villarguerrero, Rubiolos, Dacos, ambas Nominevillas, Baldariento, Laguerola, Godos. Clerici et ecclesia Sancti Martini et Sancti Laurencii et Sancti Valerii, habent Castellon, Sarcola, Banyon, Villardecosa, Villanova. Decimacionem vero de Pancrudo. ¶ GRACIAS!!!!!!!!!!

A la iglesia de Sta. Maria de Darocha le concedo las iglesias de Barrachina, de Navarret, y de Calamocha, y las posean siempre justamente y conforme al derecho canónico, ¿verdad?
Varlaam 07:09, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
A los sacerdotes de San Pedro les concedo la iglesia de Loçana, y la posean siempre conforme al derecho canónico. &c &c

Lingua Italica/Italiana[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobe! In hac pagina iudicium meum scripsi. Cura ut legas, quaeso. Ave atque vale. Ariel 11:50, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Hellow?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hellow? ¶ What is mean to this? (Libnertas<!--?-->) ¶ If so, I do help you. Thank you. --Idh0854 03:31, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Libnertas non est verbum Latinum. IacobusAmor 12:41, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Right, I think he's asking why you wrote "libnertas" in that edit that he linked. I fixed it. -- Ioscius 21:46, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Well, it was just a typo then. Thanks for fixing it. IacobusAmor 00:45, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Umm, I asked to mean of this word..;; Thank you. --Idh0854 13:07, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Nothing. He meant to type "libertas" but accidentally type "libnertas". "libnertas" is not a word. -- Ioscius 18:29, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Year categories for music[recensere | fontem recensere]

Whenever you write a page about a musical work, add a category in the form [[Categoria:Musica 9999]] substituting the year of completion or publishing or first performance for "9999". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you add a category for an opera, remember that lyric opera is a subgenre of opera. Dafne is not a lyric opera. IacobusAmor 15:05, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Also, as in at least forty-two other wikis, there should most definitely be a category for operas (operae), instead of merely works (opera). IacobusAmor 15:05, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Also, the listings under "Categoria:Compositores theatri lyrici" need to be moved, since the name of the genre is suspect, there being no lyres in most operas, and the name lyric theater referring only to a particular subset of operas. See the Index generum operarum. The only pertinent name that can cover all these constituents without giving any of them pride of place is almost certainly opera. IacobusAmor 15:17, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
I've just reviewed a slew of references to opera in Vicipaedia, and the terminology & definitions (stated or implied) are a mess. No time to clean it up today; maybe later in the week. IacobusAmor 15:31, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
This isn't really my field -- I was just reminding you about the year categories. If you want to sort out the other music categories, more strength to you. But, you're right, it takes time. If one starts a category task, one wants to see it well under way and the new categories populated before leaving it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

De quinquertio[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iam ad tuas respondi quaestiones. Optime valeas, Martinus (Neander 21:14, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC))

Latin and Indonesian[recensere | fontem recensere]

Dear wikicolleague,

It seems that we share a common interest in Latin and Indonesian languages but that our views fully disagree on the best way to name the Indonesian language in Latin. Feeling unconfortable with the use of the same word "Indonesia" for the country and the language, I happened to change it into Indonesica (to make it consistent with the adverb indonesice already used in the same paragraph). Of course, as everyone who amend an article, I hoped that change to last, but was ready, of course too, to see it eventually recorrected, for example replaced by something else such as Indonesica, Indonesiaca, Indonesiana, Indonesa, etc. As you went back to the former word, and as I failed to be convinced, I quickly checked how Indonesian usually translates into Latin. As a matter of fact, I found two of them:

Besides, the article Indonesia shows a (red) link to a "Lingua Indonesica" page.

Sincerely yours

Acsacal 15:32, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Unlike stated above, Wiktionary says Indonesia (instead of Indonesica).Acsacal 08:28, 13 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

"-icus" is the usual construction of a Latin adjective — but words like 'Indonesia' are Greek (the parallel classical form is Peloponnesius from Peloponnesus). Several names of languages east of Europe, I've found, have adjectives in '-ius' because of this (another example is Armenia; Varro speaks of a vocabulum e lingua Armenia). In most of these cases there are also alternative adjectives in -iacus—indeed our own article on that language is at lingua Armeniaca at the moment, for some reason—but the question isn't so much whether the adjective exists as to whether it's the best-supported name for the language. I do find it curious, however, that you are uncomfortable with using "Indonesia" for both the name and the language—isn't it, in fact, exactly how they do it in Indonesian itself? I'm pretty sure it's Indonesia = Indonesia and Bahasa Indonesia = lingua Indonesia. —Mucius Tever 10:55, 13 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Actually our article about Armenian is at lingua Armenica, and footnoted citations are given from early modern Latin for this form. But Varro ought to have greater weight, and no doubt he would have had if any of us had previously noticed his name for the language! Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 13 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Armenica, eh? Darn those crazy redirects! I followed the link from Armenia and must not have looked too closely... —Mucius Tever 21:57, 13 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
[Written before the preceding had been read:] If memory serves, according to Iustinus (in a disputatio somewhere), the Latin adjective regularly formed from Greek nesos is -nesius, -nesia, -nesium. The terms Austronesian, Indonesian, Melanesian, Micronesian, Polynesian were coined—within the past two centuries—on the basis of Greek nesos. Therefore, all those terms should have the same suffixes in Latin; it would be unacceptably inconsistent to feature, say, Austronesianus, Indonesicus, and Polynesius. If we follow Iustinus's suggestion, their preferred forms will end in -nesius, -nesia, -nesium ; attested alternate forms could of course be used, or given in footnotes. ¶ Despite Justinus's suggestion (or maybe memory has overly simplified it), the Latin noun Peloponnesus (from a Greek compound) has classically attested adjectives Peloponnesius, Peloponnesiacus, and Peloponnensis. That would give you Indonesius, Indonesiacus, and Indonesiensis. (The last of these is further attested in several species-epithets, easily found on the internet.) On the basis of adjectives made from Peloponnesus, the form of Indones- with the least historical support (of the four attested suffixes) appears to be Indonesicus. Since linguists tend to use the -icus suffix for protolanguages, it should probably be our last choice for the modern concept of "Indonesia." IacobusAmor 11:06, 13 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to obliterate! I should mention that the parallel to Peloponnensis is not Indonesiensis but Indonensis (which also appears in species epithets... and af.wikt, for whatever reason). Melanensis and Polynensis also appear, but Micronensis and Austronensis seem to be missing from Google. —Mucius Tever 21:16, 13 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

As WP should not be normative, I suppose most of us agree to an article that should not be oriented towards enforcing any vocabulary solution but emphasising that a definitive solution has not been found yet.

Moreover, after reading all your reactions, I lack arguments to defend my "feelings".

Therefore, I have corrected the beginning of the article accordingly.

Acsacal 09:48, 17 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

Categories[recensere | fontem recensere]

I was taken aback by your comment on my work at Disputatio Categoriae:Actores Civitatum Foederatarum origine ethnica digesti‎‎. In category work I always aim to leave pages better-grouped and easier to find than they were when I came to them. If there are places where I've failed to do that, please point them out. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:25, 29 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

(Verbum) Graecum[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve. Grates, Varlaam 06:23, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Tim Maia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Iacobe, quomodo te habes? Please, I need your help: I just made this new page, but I write in horrible Latin! Can you help me ti put the page in good Latin? If you don't understad, you can watch something from English page, ok? Gratias causa adiuti tui!!! Rex Momo 15:18, 22 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

De Taequondo, defendum >accusative?Cur nefas est? Amabo te in Taequondum respondeas[recensere | fontem recensere]

(Licet me loquar latine :) )CuravisteCuravistis probe et probe pereo de alia. Rogo in bona fide redeas res Taequondum, The LionW&Wque et me ducas postmodo. Nunc emendo et postmodo cogitationes meos ponem. Gratias ago.--Jondel 03:30, 23 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

De " defendum >accusative?"—In commentario de taequondone, scripsisti denfendum. Vide: den-fen-dum vs. de-fen-den-dum. Etiam pro "artem inermis corpus denfendum," fortasse melius est artem inermis corporis defendendi. IacobusAmor 14:53, 23 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Concurro, fas es. In proximum vicem, valde curabo. Mihi "defendendum" potius est ut propositum est defendere. In eodem modo, "inermem" ex "inermis" mutare potius est? De quodam, erravisse tuum putavi ego sed nunc fas esse scio. De alia, Iacobe velim te(et alios) ut in futurum latinam duceas cum verbis.(Non in anticuum utendum posse sciamus) An abominatio eveniet an ducas. Cur esse nefas possit cum "ostentu"( in Taequondo)? In absoluto ablativo uti volo. Patientiam tuam gratias ago.--Jondel 03:23, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Please ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

Please glance at The Siege of Rhodes‎ and boldly correct it. I am straying into territory of which I know practically nothing! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Gratitude[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thankyou so much IacobusAmor for your Outstanding translation effort!
I very very Grateful.
May God Bless you!
(If you want your favorite article(s) to be translated into the Chinese language, then I would be glad help you.)
Yours Sincerely, --Jose77 01:49, 8 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

"Categoria:Americae"[recensere | fontem recensere]

I deleted it because, according to the interwiki links, it duplicates our existing Categoria:America.

You might want to comment at Disputatio Categoriae:Primae Nationes. Do you have a Latin source for that name? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

'First' = primus, -a, -um. 'Nation' ('tribe, race, people') = natio, -onis. 'First Nation' is a term for certain indigenous Canadian peoples (but not others). All First Nations are aboriginal Canadian peoples, but not all aboriginal Canadian peoples are First Nations. IacobusAmor 15:06, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but it doesn't address the issue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
The name is well-established, and its Latinization is obvious: ca:Primeres Nacions, de:First Nations, fr:Premières nations, gl:Primeiras Nacións, it:Prime nazioni, no:First Nations, pt:Primeiras Nações, ro:First Nations, simple:First Nations. IacobusAmor 16:40, 17 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
I've also deleted "Categoria:Culturae regione digestae" because (so far as I can see) it duplicates Categoria:Cultura regione digesta. May I suggest you decide whether "Cultura" is going to be singular or plural in these category names, and, having done so, make a note so that you don't forget! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
I got interested and traced the line through. You created all those new categories, including two or three that duplicated categories we already had under slightly different names, starting from "Culturae loco digestae", and all leading to just one article: Fiber. Which has nothing whatever to do with "Culturae loco digestae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
That's the way "trees of knowledge" work. Fiber—which, incidentally, was & remains incorrectly titled, since the classical term denotes only the European beaver, but the definition (to which the lemma has now been made to apply) included the American beaver—is directly cued to the category "Commercium pellis," which, IIRC, eventually rises to "Cultura loco digestae" and beyond: beaver(s) are part of the fur trade, and so on, up the tree, until we reach "Omnia." ¶ Btw, commercium pellis may not be the best Latin term for the thing, but bearers of greater Latinity can address that issue. IacobusAmor 16:40, 17 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Not only is this a waste of your time (you're entitled to waste your time) but it's a waste of anyone's time who has to clear up the mess you leave, and it's a waste of our readers' time, because they might reasonably expect a category name to lead them to something that belongs under that category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Please stop playing this game. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 16 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Sic edicit catalogiarum rex. IacobusAmor 16:40, 17 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
I phrased it as a polite request :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 17 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

Cockroaches[recensere | fontem recensere]

Some like 'em, some don't. If you fancied sorting 'em out, the result might repay the effort. Looking at pages, categories, interwiki links and infoboxes on Blattidae, Blattodea and relatives, I think there's a problem and I don't know how to solve it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)