Usor:Rafaelgarcia/Disputationes anni 2008

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disputatio Usoris:Rafaelgarcia

Sed aviditas est virtus fundamentalis[recensere | fontem recensere]

.. recte dicit, o tempora o mores! I believe that we could agree (believers and not believers) with this question: will in the future the nature ever be able to forgive our incredible grid?--Massimo Macconi 21:05, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I take it you mean "our incredible greed". I don't agree. I realize this is an unconventional opinion, but compare the record of capitalist versus non-capitalist countries, and you will discover that capitalism is good for nature (the environment). And to the extent that pollution immediately detrimental to the environment is still occuring today, it is only by explicit protection by the government through exceptions in their laws (an anti-capitalist policy), and not allowing lawsuits, which is done because it is judged to be for the common good (state altruism also anti-capitalist). Greedy, selfish citizens do not knowingly tolerate pollution by others in their back yards. They sue polluters putting them in the poor house. Thus, in the future, I wonder if nature will ever forgive our state-sanctioned selflessness.--Rafaelgarcia 00:33, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Bot translation[recensere | fontem recensere]

Done. Will appear in new pywikipedia files soon. For more translations you can visit Betawiki. Best regards, lt:User:Hugo.arg 21:05, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Lacus Titicaca[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vere nescio si Intikiarka est rectum. Numquam hoc nomen audivi, et invenio nullam informationem hoc sustinens. (I don't really know if Intikiarka is right. I've never heared that name, and I find no info supporting that.)--Le K-li 20:55, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Nomen mihi quoque mirabilis est. Fortasse est nomen alternativum incarum antiquorum? In Wikipaediae Hispanicae disputationis pagina iam rogavi ne quisquam de hoc audiat. Si nemo respodet, mea sententia hoc nomen sine fonte delendum est.(THe name is remarkable to me too. Perhaps it is an alternative name used by the ancient Incas? Already I asked at the Spanish Wikipedia if some has ever heard of it. If no one responds, in my opinion the name without a source should be deleted.--Rafaelgarcia 21:47, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Saludos![recensere | fontem recensere]

Caro Rafael,

Thank you for your warm welcome message! Vigo is truely a beautiful and wonderful city.

I write to thank you for your welcome and to ask you if you could please help to expand the translation of the Latina version of this English article.

I would really appreciate any addition you could do to expand it a little bit more. Thanks a million for any help you can provide with this.

I truly look forward to hear from you and see if you could help me with this. My best wishes to you, CARITAS, Lucretia 14:33, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lucretia, sure I can help out and would enjoy doing so very much. However, right now I'm in the midst of fixing up some physics pages, so I won't be able to devote so much time to it immediately. --Rafaelgarcia 14:39, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Salve![recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias ago tibi pro gratissima atque amabilissima receptione. Verum est, autem, quia linguam latinam non utor usque ab universitate, sed peritia crescet ex uso. Vale. --Gustavocarra 15:45, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Saltatio[recensere | fontem recensere]

Rafael, what shall we do with the outcommented section in Saltatio? Is it wrong or bad? It provides some sources ... --Rolandus 11:51, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Not all the references there are good and some of it is misleading. I was intending to return to it to clean up. Also I never got to filling in the American Style section.--Rafaelgarcia 13:18, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Is there a (single) categoria to accommodate each of the thousands of named dances in the world? or should such a category be broken down into several (sub)categories? Consider (1) generic (folk)dances, like the saltatio quadrata (square dance), the "Morris dance," and the polka; (2) specific (folk)dances, like the Krebspolka, the Kreuzpolka, and the Kuckuckspolka; (3) specific popular dances, like the Charleston, the Lindy hop, & the Bristol stomp; (4) generic "ethnic" dances, like the hula; (5) generic "ethnic"-popular dances, like the saltatio supplosionis (the [Cherokee] stomp dance); (6) court dances; (7) specific choreographed dances, like Apollo (choreographed by Balanchine, 1928) and Holo Mai Pele, an "epic hula myth" (choreographed by Pualani Kanakaʻole Kanahele & Nalani Kanakaʻole, 2001). IacobusAmor 13:59, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
You are right that the article deserves serious expansion. In its present state, it still does not do justice to the subject.--Rafaelgarcia 15:18, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

thanks[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks a lot for the welcome. --.snoopy. 22:35, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Rafaelgarcia 22:36, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Translatio[recensere | fontem recensere]

Could you help me with this? I don't know how to translate the spanish word criollo to Latin. Thx in advance!!--Le K-li 21:55, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has been translated before. The word in spanish has many contradictory meanings:
  • Pure-blood caucasian descendent of original spanish colonists, which one could translate as Hispani genus (of spanish origin)
  • Native, which can be translated: nativus
  • Peculiar to HispanoAmerica, which can be translated: Hispanoamericanus
  • Language arising from a mixture of cultures, which could be translated: lingua intermixta
Also the possiblity exists of coining a term like criollus; that's OK to do as long as you provide a reason, for example: "... hispani genus homines qui dicuntur criolli" or perhaps "hispani genus homines vulgo criolli"
Perhaps someone else can share their wisdom.--Rafaelgarcia 00:28, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Lexicon Universale has an article on CRIOLII, where they follow the "pure-blood caucasian descendent of original spanish colonists" definition (qui ex Hispanis quidem Parentibus, sed in ipsa America, nati sunt) that Le K-Li, linking to, probably intended. (Incidentally, the next class, mestizos, are rendered as MESTECII. —Mucius Tever 10:29, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Thx a lot 4 your aide!!!Le K-li 04:09, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Kelvin[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for Kelvin :-) --Rolandus 21:12, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

noster nuper vandal[recensere | fontem recensere]

Rafael, me paenitet, ut non possem celerius vandalem conspicere. Gratias autem tibi do ob reversiones tuas. Macte. --Ioscius (disp) 03:45, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Gratias, fuit sine molestia.--Rafaelgarcia 04:24, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Hoc verbum nuper est adverbium; ergo noster nuper vandal Anglice est 'our recently vandal'?! IacobusAmor 04:01, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Fortasse rectius dicitur Noster novissimus vandalus?
Novus hic habet fortasse sensum peiorativum, sicut res novae! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Et si possum succinere, Ioscius dixit "ut non possem". Verissime error puerilis! Harrissimo 10:59, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC).
"ut non possem..." significat "that I was unable..." possem = praet. imperfect. subiunct. nonne? Ergo non video istem "error puerilis".--Rafaelgarcia 13:21, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
The preferred construction with paenitet is a.c.i. (or, less frequently, quod). Thus, Me paenitet non prius vandalum conspexisse.--Ceylon 13:33, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ego "ne possem" putabam... Sed Ceylon melior Latinista est. Harrissimo 14:58, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC).
whatever. Thanks is my point.--Ioscius (disp) 14:39, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Vicipaedia, where a Gratias tibi can turn into an Occasio discendi! :)--Rafaelgarcia 14:49, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)

magistratus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve, Rafael, quaeso eas ad Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus#Usor:Rafaelgarcia, et proferas responsum.--Ioscius (disp) 14:44, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, me paenitet iterum te vexare, at necesse est nobis responsum tuum, non tantum suffragia in Harissimonem et Alexandrem.--Ioscius (disp) 15:13, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Gratias tibi, ob mihi monendum. Morem de accipendo ignorabam.--Rafaelgarcia 15:20, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Ecce nunc magistratus es! Adam Episcopus 15:12, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Tibi, Rafael, gratulamur!
Gratias tibi, omnibus. Munus bonum facere conabor!--Rafaelgarcia 17:33, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

formula[recensere | fontem recensere]

there's no problem. Ciao :-) --Massimo Macconi 21:32, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Picturam Collocare[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve! Gratias tibi ago pro salutatione tua. Necesse est mihi adiuvari. Potesne?

Picturam collocare rei de Tennesia addituram tempto. Res dicit ut ego permissum non habeam. Nescio quid neccesse sit ut permittar. Quid agam?--Antodav 02:39, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

In culpa sum pro errore grammatico. Modo usus verbum onerare sum quod in arca ferramentorum in latero sinistro paginae dicit "fasciculos onerare." Mihi etiam non oportere videbatur, sed vocabularium commune Vicipaediae Latinae uti volo. Fortassene illud neccesse est corrigi? Ignoro.
Pictura quam collocare desidero mappa geographica de Tennesia est. Eadem mappa est in rem Anglicae Vicipaediae de Tennesia in parte "Geography". Nonne haec pictura in Wikipedia Commons est? Sic, quomodo picturam rei Latinae addo?--Antodav 09:20, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Mea sententia fasciculos onerare sic est pravum. Mox spero corrigere. Imago iam est in Wikipedia Commons. Solum necesse est uti formula [[Imago:National-atlas-tennessee.PNG]]. Vide Vicipaedia:De recensendo#Imago.--Rafaelgarcia 13:04, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Capital letters[recensere | fontem recensere]

Sorry, my fellow namesake (I am Rafael as well!), I realised that a similar think had happened previously after I'd already made my change. I posted a proposal for debating the subject on the Taberna, and would like very much to hear your opinion. I assume, from your name, that you speak a Romance language (Spanish? Portuguese?) -- don't you agree with my point? Thanks and regards, RsAzevedo msg 21:33, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, this is a completely arbitrary issue in my opinion and Andrew Dalby made a decent case for keeping it as is. The only important thing is to be consistent and the proper thing to for a new user to do is to abide by the existing Vicipaedia tradition. This is especially the case since very many pages and effort have been expended to make things consistent already. Regards,--Rafaelgarcia 22:54, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

FYI[recensere | fontem recensere]

Rafael, Rolandus inquit: "Please do not update "The list" below directly, since this list is automatically generated by a script as explained above. Instead, add existing pages to Usor:Rolandus/Existing pages and put a note on my talk page, please. Then I will start this script and update "The list" (below)." IacobusAmor 13:25, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Woops!--Rafaelgarcia 13:32, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Oh well; you tried! :D IacobusAmor 13:50, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Raffael, but Iacobus is right and there are other problems:
Oh, I see they are too many. The idea is not only to find a translation for an English term but to have a page which is linked to this specific English page and where the Latin page has a link back to the given English term. This is sometimes rather tricky. You should also have a look at the "TALK" link ... and now I see you have added entries to Usor:Rolandus/Existing pages. This is good, I'll check them. --Rolandus 20:10, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
The link on our moneta to :en:Moneta page is wrong. Our moneta page isn't about the god but about currency. Although the latin term originates in the cognomen of Iuno, the god of the Roman mint.--Rafaelgarcia 20:21, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I copied this comment to Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Currency ... this is the "TALK" link. --Rolandus 20:40, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

New pages for the list[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello Rafael, thanks for

  1. en:RelativityRelativitas
  2. en:WeightPondus et Massa

however, they cannot be used directly. The list of pages which is checked by this foreign script checks the English Wikipedia. It will exactly check:

  1. en:Theory of relativity, not en:Relativity
  2. en:Weight which has no link to Pondus et Massa, and Pondus et Massa links to en:Mass, not to en:Weight

I fear this will confuse the robots. The English and Latin pages should correspond exactly. Not I am nitpicking, it is the foreign script ;-) --Rolandus 19:57, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Literae aut Litterae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Yes, it is spelt "Literae": [1], [2]. Oxford is to other universities as vicipaedia is to other wikipedias; quirky and eccentric ;-) We spell litterae with one t, do DPhils instead of PhDs, can read an undergraduate master's degree followed by a graduate bachelor's degree (well, only if one does an MMathPhil in maths and philosophy followed by a BPhil in philosophy). Vale! Leigh (disp) 15:27, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very interesting explanation.--Rafaelgarcia 15:30, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
They also punt from the wrong end. How they ever get anywhere in life is a mystery to me. [Andrew Dalby] 85.75.212.255 15:56, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the Oxford way is far more civilised and sophisticated; the Fens Polytechnic way is just a pale imitation of the real thing! Perhaps if a Cambridge punt had two different ends the poor Tabs would take all day to find the right one ;-) Anyway, given their rather dismal display in the boat race I don't think that they are in any position to question our nautical skills. Floreat Oxoniensis Oxonia. Leigh (disp) 16:26, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
How does one say "to punt" in latin?--Rafaelgarcia 16:46, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Kick is pede pulso/are.--Ioscius (disp) 17:00, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Here "punt" means "propel a punt (type of boat) with a pole".--Rafaelgarcia 17:02, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had no idea what the hell y'all were talking about, I admit it =] --Ioscius (disp) 04:19, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary cites "ponto, onis, m. [1. pons]", a "Gaulish flat-bottomed boat" whence came our noun. If anyone can make a denominative verb out of that (pontonare? I did poorly in philology) we could use it (perhaps with an adjective to make it more specific); failing that "pontonem impulso (cum conto)". Update: What Charon did was not entirely unlike punting; Virgil's Aeneid 6.302 has "ratem conto subigit". Leigh (disp) 23:13, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Litera was the more common spelling in mediaeval and early modern times, probably due to the etymology from lino, livi, litum, but inscriptions and older manuscripts show that littera is the more ancient variant (there seems to be an article on this by Fleckeisen in RhM 8, 229).¶ And it's good to see they finally seem to have connected St. Swithun's Tower to the internet - cum nesciam quis sit iste Oxoniensis et quare florere debeat, Magdalenam tamen profecto talia vota decent :D--Ceylon 19:25, 22 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for my latinitas. I do course II and have been concentrating on Greek for Mods. My Latin should start to improve from this term onwards, hopefully the number of mistakes will be reduced to only 10 per sentence.
I do remember reading something about litera being an especially mediaeval spelling in "Reading Medieval Latin".
St. Swithun's Tower has been connected to the internet for as long as I remember (admittedly that is only two years). Now, if they could just connect it to a lift and some more lights...or is groping one's way around a spiral staircase in the pitch black a part of the Magdalen experience? Vale Leigh (disp) 21:05, 22 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Boy, it hasn't changed a bit then! How comforting. :)¶ If it weren't for such mediaeval quirks, of course, we'd have to write litterature, litterary, litterate etc. (and the Americans would have to spell mediaeval correctly).--Ceylon 05:40, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it's you lot who seem to prefer archeology to archaeology! IacobusAmor 11:52, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Really? [3], [4], [5], [6]! Leigh (disp) 13:34, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Musica rockica[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola Rafael, why did you move this one back? I thought we had all agreed on Musica Rock? Did anybody really argue for rockica?--Ceylon 18:47, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I originally moved the page to Musica rock because I thought there was a consensus. But Iacobus pointed out that the trouble is that if I change the M. rockica page to M. rock, I should change also all the rest for consistency's sake. This however then brings two issues. First, now I am not so sure there was a consensus after the issue of what to do with Jazz/Iazium wasn't decided. Either we should translate all of them or leave all of them untranslated. Shouldn't that be decided before moving M. rockica to rock? Second, I just don't have time to make all those moves right now.
Ergo, by moving M. rock to M. rockica and changing the lemma to suit, I was just trying to leave the page in a reasonable state until we can figure out what to do.--Rafaelgarcia 20:49, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll do the changing then. Okay?--Ceylon 20:56, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Well, I join you in not liking musica rockica, but people who argue for musica rock (and musica jazz, etc.) are preferring their eyes to their ears, and this preference will naturally disappoint those of us who prefer our ears to our eyes, as the speakers of many languages do when they borrow terms from other languages.* You guess that Caesar sees rock and so writes rock; I guess that Caesar hears [rak] and so writes rac. Would someone like to sponsor a séance so we can find out what he really writes? ¶ *For example, in Samoan, company becomes kamupanī, and in Hawaiian, Christmas becomes Kalīkimaka—because that's how they hear those terms, and how their script requires them to write what they hear. Are there any Latin precedents for a syllable spelled ock? Perhaps in the Middle Ages, regarding some Germanic proper name? (Even if so, that would be the eye-thing again, not the ear-thing.) IacobusAmor 21:24, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
This is a much broader issue with quite a few ramifications which we shall hardly be able to discuss in full on here. The tradition which Vicipaedia tries to continue is not directly linked to Caesar, but includes 2000 years in which not only the world that is being expressed by language has changed a good deal, but also the use of that language. Arguably since the Middle Ages - even when Latin was still frequently spoken in certain contexts - it has primarily been a written language and thus an 'eye language'. In this respect, I assume it is a far cry from Samoan. This does not stop us reading Cicero's speeches or Horace's poems or our Vicipaedia contributions out aloud (or even amuse ourselves trying to chat in Latin at fetish meetings :)). But the ear is secondary to the eye there. Imagining how Caesar would have incorporated the concept of rock into Latin is hypothetical if only because we get it from a language which also uses the Latin alphabet, whereas he would hypothetically have received it by word of mouth from the barbarians. If we argue for phonetic spellings, would not that also preclude us from writing Georgius Bush instead of Georgius Bus or the like?--Ceylon 21:49, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I think we should decide whether changing M. rockica to M. rock, should be tied to changing M. Iazium to M. Jazz. I wouldn't be opposed to it. But I think we should decide.--Rafaelgarcia 22:21, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for moving them to Rock and Jazz (but if you prefer to include musica in the title, so be it). On the other hand, we can deal with rock now (which will involve a decent number changes in other pages) and move on to jazz later if we see fit. Every case should be decided on its own merits (e.g. for some analogous terms, we may have attested Latinizations we can use).--Ceylon 22:37, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll copy this discussion to the Disputatio:Musica rockica page. And if no one objects tonight, I'll move it back to Musica rock.--Rafaelgarcia 22:52, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Collegium Stocktonis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Rafael, might I ask as to why the 'Latinity' of my page has been rated a -5? Please clarify, and I will do my best to improve the page. I did notice I had Nova Caesaris as opposed to Nova Caesarea...still learning the proper names. Thanks!

--Aeneas88 04:21, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reviewing the page, I do notice that I had a few other minor mistakes, which have now been corrected. In my haste to publish a page, I did not edit well. If there are any other errors which you notice, kindly let me know.

--Aeneas88 05:06, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

studere[recensere | fontem recensere]

"studere" petit dativum (quod saepenumero eandem formam habet quam ablativum). --Alex1011 18:25, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Forsitan egomet erravi. Gratias.--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Aquinas on Math[recensere | fontem recensere]

Many thanks for the corrections on [7]. I do have a few quesitons. First, I changed it back to 'interminatis' from 'infinitas' because, although etymologically they should mean the same thingand infinitas is more attested, Aquinas uses interminas in this context and I am fairly sure he uses it to mean something distinct from infinitas. Second, I think (not sure) that this is redundant, "in materia insunt". I was under the impression that 'insunt' takes the accusative, and just means "to be in". I could look for the citation but again I think Aquinas uses it in this way (not to say that that makes it right). Third, "Quantitates, et eorum scientia, est ergo aliqua" doesn't seem to parse. Quantitates (pl) . . . est. Was something wrong with the original, quantitas, et sua scientia, est? I didn't change these last two back. I also corrected a few other of my mistakes and ambiguitites that I noticed. Thanks again. Sorry if I made your life harder. Wmdiem 00:31, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Aquians uses interminas in the citation I linked in, near the bottom of the paragraph, "individuantur quodammodo ex materia individuata per dimensiones interminatas praeintellectas in materia." I assume this is meant as in + terminas (restrict, conclude, mark the boundries of) not from in + terminor. I do not know how well attested this is in other (scholastic) sources, but I assume it was coined because infinitas had taken on a meaning stronger than what was needed. I realise you like to stick to classical latin, and I'm sorry that I am not good with it (as you've seen I have a hard enough time with scholastic), but I assume at least with a techincal term used in a technical way by a author writing in latin you would allow his own term, even if a neologism. Perhaps I should put it in quotation marks? Thanks again for your patience. Wmdiem 00:46, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. We all do what we can.
  1. As the dictionary entry for interminatis I put on your disputatio indicates, tHe second meaning is strictly ecclesiastical and contrary to the classical meaning so we should avoid it unless it is necessary (which it isn't in this case since this is a page about maths not about Aquinas nor Eccles. latin); see for example Vicipaedia Latina. Lets see what others say.
  2. Insum/Inesse definitely goes with dative or in+ablative, according to Traupman: it means: to be there, be in, be on, to be implied in, or belong to. Perhaps you are confusing this with Ineo/Inire to enter?
  3. I think you should use quotations only if you are quoting someone; if it is a foreign word it is put in italics usually; if it is a strange meaning I would avoid it but if the word cannot be done without provide a definition (possibly in a reference).
  4. Unfortunately I don't understand what you are talking about in your paragraph. I lose the thread after reference 13, because of the heavy jargon. IMHO, it would be better to simply the ideas so that a non-Aquinas scholar should be able to understand it.
--Rafaelgarcia 01:01, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I just did a fairly substantial rewrite to try to make the point clearer. I am trying very hard to stick more or less to what he says and not interject my own explanations. If you get a chance would you mind seeing if it is more intelligible? 1) I changed it to non terminatus. No confusion with infinite, and terminatus is not a neologism. 2) I stand down. I should have checked. 3) now moot, but i'll keep it in mind. 4) hopefully it is improved. I suppose the basic point of the second part is something like this: How can and why would there be a science of one accident that abstracts from all other forms including the substantial form? The answer is in short something to the effect that quantity is special insofar as matter has a very direct predisposition to it, to the point (I don't go into this in the article) that Aquinas appeals to the potency to quantity/nonterminate quantity as the principle of individuation for (and thus logically prior to) material substantial forms. I didn't want to go to far afield in the article, but I did think it was an important part of his thought that makes this somewhat odd division of sciences more comprehensible: Matter and quantity are very closely and uniquely linked in his philosophy. Again behind all of this is Aquians's contention that sciences are differentiated in one way by the kind (i.e., level and type of abstraction) of definition they use, and one of the main types of definition/abstraction leaves us with what on first glance appears to be a very arbitrary class--definitions that include what amounts to one of many accidents. Wmdiem 03:20, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I recast it. "Quantitas, quod est accidens, potest sciri sine omnias alias formas, quia quantitas est communis inter omnias substantias materiales, inquantum est in materia inaliquomodo ante primam formam, licet in modo potentiae propriae, non actu." Which is to say, "Quantity, which is an accident, can be known without all other forms, because quantity is common among material substances, insofar as it in in matter, somehow, before the first form, although in the way of a proper potency, not in act." Please don't go back and try to figure out how I thought the first version would say that, I'd rather you not notice the sort of mistakes. Thanks again for your patience. Wmdiem 05:16, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Quantitas is feminine so your quod would have to be quae to agree with it; because sine requires the ablative and the plural of omnis is omnes, sine omnias alias formas should be sine omnibus aliis formis; licet in the sense of "although" requires the use of a subjunctive verb, better to use quamquam. What do you mean by "forms"? Platonic forms? shapes? what do you mean by first form? you never mentioned a second did you? THe subsequent sentences in that paragraph were equally confusing/ungrammatical so that I could not figure them out. If you provide translations into english I and others can help you with them.--Rafaelgarcia 12:40, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Is accidens supposed to be 'an accident'? Latin for that is casus, and 'accidental' is fortuitus. IacobusAmor 12:48, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the grammatical corrections. I think IacobusAmor already made them. As to content: I am starting to fear that this passage may assume too much familarity with Thomistic thought to be useful in a handful of lines. Aquinas does not agree with the idea of platonic forms or ideas. He has a more Aristotelian tendency. For Aquians a form is correlative to some act broadly speaking; it makes a thing actually be a certain way, form actualizes the potency latent in matter. He differs from plato insofar as for Aquinas, there is no real seperate form. The form is the form of some individual although it is formally identical to similar forms. Thus the substantial forms of John and Paul are formally identical (i.e., the form of man) although numerically distinct (thus they are members of the same species, but different individuals within it). Any predicate that picks out a real positive attribute corresponds to a form. I distinguish "first form" because forms, for Aquians, have a logical progression, the first is the substantial form, which makes matter be a thing of a certian type (gives it species and nature). Prior to this form you have only pure potency/prime matter (this is a logical distinction, potency never really exists just as potency, but always under some form, much as in the article it is noted that curved never exists appart from some real substance, with real nature, that is curved). (Logically) after this first substantial form, there come secondary accidental forms which give the substance other accidental properties.

As to my use of 'accidens', this is the term Aquians, and the scholastic philosophers generally, used, and I would think it, if anything, would be considered a technical term (due to its wide and fomulaic use in technical writing of the period), that oughtn't be classicised. As a note, it is listed in WWWords, as an independent 3rd decl. noun meaning, among other things, a chance event, accident, circumstance, and it is not there listed as late, rare, or eccl., although I realise this is hardly a conclusive argument for its antiquity. The remainder of the passages is intended to read: This is more comprehensible since Thomas teaches that potency to quantity is foreknown in matter, from non-terminated dimensions which are in matter before every form. Since math investigates being insofar as it is material without nature, and therefore insofar as matter has quantity, but not insofar as it has subastantial forms or the following accidental ones, which render matter sensible, therefore quantity, and math, are things common to all material substances, and quantity can be known without other forms of the substance.

There's nothing wrong with using Aquinas's own technical terms, but it might help readers to define them in footnotes, or to add a link to an article about them, as we'd probably want to do with important nonclassical topics, like potentia and ens. How about creating a separate article, Thomismus, as a repository for these concepts? Vide en:Thomism. IacobusAmor 18:47, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these terms are so alien, that I don't even understand the descriptions on the english Thomism article. Certainly we should be able to do better than they did.--Rafaelgarcia 19:02, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and started Glossarium Thomisticum. It is very much a work in progress. Wmdiem 20:44, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Where[recensere | fontem recensere]

is the article Kaştanadam mahmut başar özer? I can't find it?144.122.7.12 07:44, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)

What the original language of this concept, thing, person? The best thing is to to look it up in its original language wiki and follow the interwiki links on the left pane for other languages.--Rafaelgarcia 09:29, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Gratias[recensere | fontem recensere]

Gratias tibi, Rafael, quod linearum permutationes (de Metaphysica Aristotelica ago) a me perditas correxisti. Minime intellego, quam ob rem subito omnes permutationes evanuerint, etsi incolumes praeviderentur. Rem inopinatam! Martinus Neander 19:25, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Nihil laboris est, sed de computatris semper dubitandum!--Rafaelgarcia 19:57, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)

images[recensere | fontem recensere]

At the moment I have downloaded the image this morning I have written (see 7:22) sorry i'm in a hurry I will move the image later). I was just leaving actually with the train for a few days of holiday in Florence. Sorry again, but I ask you please to be a little more kind with me, I believe I'm doing a lot of work for our wikipedia and of course I do sometimes some misstakes, thank you--Massimo Macconi 19:25, 10 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I was abrupt in deleting the image, being over-zealous in my carrying out the munus magistratus. I value all the work you do here enormously, as well all do. I did not mean to be inappreciative or rude. If you provide me the copyright information I'll transfer it for you. Sorry again, --Rafaelgarcia 19:52, 10 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to have already moved the photo , Raphael :-) and sorry if yesterday evening I was perhaps rude but I was very tired. I understand of course that we magistrati have to respect our rules but 1) I have a lot of problems with commons therefore I try (and I will try), when possible, to avoid to download new images and use the images which have already been downloaded 2) yesterday I had to download from my camera before leaving some old images, I saw I could use that one (for the copyright information I have done the potho, I give it to full free use)for la.wiki but I had little time--Massimo Macconi 05:28, 11 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Nexus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Quaeso, Sorry about the declination nexus and thanks very much for your improvements to the article. I was assuming nexus was being used as a form of necto.

Cheers.--Jondel 03:48, 16 Maii 2008 (UTC)

libertus[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello, thank you very much for looking for my article libertus. To speak quite frankly the first part is a work of my students, who are in their second year of Latin studies. I want to show them the possibilities of vikipaedia. So we started to write a little article using the vocabulary, they know and I didn't change much about the text, they proposed. Now you added a "maxdubium" note to the article. It would be nice, if you could tell them, what is wrong with the Latin, in your opinion.

Thank you very much again

--Schulz-Hameln 15:13, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Mao Zedong[recensere | fontem recensere]

Certus eram de tuo interventu, Rafaelgarcia, in meam primam paginam Vicipaedianam, pro quo tibi gratias ago. Puto me eam paginam aucturum esse et sequar Italicam Wikipedia: si tibi placebit, poteris me sequi et providere necessitatibus bonae paginae inserendae. Tu, qui primus me accepisti in Vicipaedia, cur non intervenis Tabernae de argumento circa paginas minimi ponderis, quod egoipse aperui paucis diebus antea? Vale et gratias ante tempus. Lio 15:58, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Semper mihi placet adiuvare te, Lio. De gravitatis re, meo corde consentio cum te de eo, sed multis usoribus sunt varia multimoda agenda. Forsitan de gustibus non est disputandum. Egomet, cum paginas minimi ponderis invenio, latinitatem eorum censeo et deinde eas postea ignoro. Id est, eas paginas ignoro nisi scriptor monstrat suam gravitatem aut monstrat se ipsum multum ad bonam latinitatem laborare.--Rafaelgarcia 17:30, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[recensere | fontem recensere]

Thanks for the link to Physica particularum elementariarum. Bestia de traal 03:40, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

Hominidae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Summissis cervicis saluto en wiki et "Hominidae" accipio libenter. Mihi non resonat "Hominidarum"!...Et non tantum asteroides, quantum pisces, aves, testudines et similes nexus Linnaei qui praeferebat tertiam declinationem. Omnino inetrventus tuus semper mihi gratus est. Vale. Lio 21:55, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, nescioquis hominida capite vaporato rem Haeresis vacuefecit nugisque implevit. Martinus Neander 03:07, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Neander, comicus est tu! Credo ille hominida, quamquam capite vaccuo sit, sine fine nafario paginam mutavit. Eius mutationes malas reverti et paginam aliquanto amelioravi addendo scripta de lege canonica pertinente, Gratias et Vale--Rafaelgarcia 03:40, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Optime fecisti. Gratias pro iustitia tua! --Neander 22:53, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Commentationes de aetatibus hominum[recensere | fontem recensere]

Tuas commentationes non malefice removi ex Categoria:Homines, sed ea ratione, quod illa est quaedam "super"categoria, cui insunt categoriae commentationum de singulis hominibus. Translatae sunt commentationes in Categoria:Anthropologiam, nescio an recte? --Iovis Fulmen 11:29, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Consentio cum te; recte mea sententia putas eas ad Anthropologiam pertinere.--Rafaelgarcia 14:08, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Questionnaire[recensere | fontem recensere]

I added a couple of afterthoughts to your response to the Meta questionnaire. I don't think there's anything you'd disagree with! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Martinus Weinek and Gaspar Capparoni[recensere | fontem recensere]

Good morning to you, I am an Italian consumer. I would need a courtesy regarding these two articles from me created. Please you could help these two creations of mine? As I have seen chet u you speak Latin a few more than I wondered me to me if you could do me this favor. I will reciprocate the favor not to fear! I thank you in advance--Lodewijk Vadacchino 12:00, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Buenos días a ti, yo soy un usuario italiano. Necesitaría una cortesía respecto a estos dos artículos de mí creado. ¿Por favor podrías ayudar este dos mis creaciones? Puesto que he visto chet u hablas latín algo más de yo un me pregunté si pudieras hacerme esta cortesía. ¡Corresponderé el favor no temer! Te agradezco en antelación--Lodewijk Vadacchino 12:00, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Vale, carissime[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Rafael, quomodo te habeas? Vidi recensiones quae fecisti in Helder Câmara Fortalaetiaque. Tibi gratias ago et, ego inexpertus Usor Latine, sempre quaero mihi adiutare.

Rex Momo 16:05, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago[recensere | fontem recensere]

Carissime Rafael, tibi gratias ago. Quomodo te dixi, inexpertus Usor Wiki.LA sum. Semper me corrige !!!

Rex Momo 00:36, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Gratus es!--Rafaelgarcia 12:20, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[recensere | fontem recensere]

I want to thank you for your help. --BBKurt 05:41, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Gratus es!--Rafaelgarcia 12:20, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

cern[recensere | fontem recensere]

Cum sis noster mathematicus/physicus, modo volui te rogare incipere commentationem de LHC et CERN ut celebremus non occisos esse hodie mane singularitate creata. =] --Ioscius (disp) 13:25, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Certe. incipio.:)--Rafaelgarcia 13:37, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Pagina Collisor Hadronalis Magnus iam existit, sed CERN nondum existit. Ad diem paginam de LHC mox ponam, et de CERN incipiam. Salve Iosci.--Rafaelgarcia 13:45, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Iam vivimus! IacobusAmor 13:50, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Ita. Vivi!--Rafaelgarcia 04:59, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Thalia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Non est problema. Sed cogito quod Graece /tháleia/ pronuntiatur, non /thaléia/. Vale ;) --El Mexicano 20:41, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Vide Thalia, quod dicit nomen Thalia deae Graecae Latine Thălīa pronuntiari. Forsitan Graeci ipsi aliter pronuntiaverunt /tháleia/.--Rafaelgarcia 20:48, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Puto Graecum sonum [ei] (sicut antiquissmum Latinum sonum [ei]) factum esse Latinum [ī], et secundum Latini regulas, nomen ergo esse /thalía/. IacobusAmor 21:50, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC) IacobusAmor 21:50, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Exacto, como dice Iacobus. En latín se pronunciaba [tha'li:a] simplemente porque era imposible de pronunciar ['thali:a] si la penúltima sílaba era larga. Pero en griego antiguo no había una regla así, por tanto se pronunciaba ['thale.ja]. --El Mexicano 05:58, 22 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Cérilly (Elaver)[recensere | fontem recensere]

Rafael, I don't see what's so bad about my Latin in this page that it deserves a -3. It's so short, it hardly seems possible to get so bad! Could you tell me gently what's the problem?

I noticed you also added a {{Fontes desiderati}}. I see what you were getting at there (I think) -- it's not just that we don't have a source, we don't have any Latin name for Cérilly at all. I believe Vicipaedia doesn't yet have a formula to cover that type of problem, but of course it often arises, especially with place names. So I have made a new formula {{Nomen desideratum}}; and, hoping that it covers the point you wanted to make, I have added it to this page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the only problem I was trying to address, that the name wasn't latin, but was French. I thought the user had not bothered to find the latin name and in fact I was hoping that you would look into it. The nomen desideratum template is a better solution.--Rafaelgarcia 13:03, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Great. I suspected that was it! In fact I made the page because Cérilly was a stage on the Tour de France (I always collaborate with Iacobus when Tour de France time comes around). In this case, I feel morally sure there will be a (medieval) Latin name, but until someone with access to printed sources comes along, we may not be able to discover it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Vox Latina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola Rafael. Muchas veces has mencionado ese libro, pues he decidido comprarlo. Ya lo he pedido por internet en una tienda que importa libros extranjeros en mi país. Espero que puedan conseguirlo y que sea útil. Tú lo tienes? Un cordial saludo. --El Mexicano 17:38, 21 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Hola El Mexicano. Yo no tengo ese libro, pero el libro "Vox Latina" que trata sobre la pronunciacion del latin tiene extensivos exceptos dados por Google books, que puedes ver por ti mismo aqui. Quizas tambien cuando habre mensionado Vox Latina, podria ser porque fue citada la revista Vox Latina en Morgan. Salve--Rafaelgarcia 18:22, 21 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Sí, era el libro, no la revista, porque hablábamos de la pronunciación latina. Gracias por el enlace. Vale, --El Mexicano 05:59, 22 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

counter[recensere | fontem recensere]

Dear Raphael, does the counter work? It seems to me that it is stopped at 22804 since more than one day. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 19:36, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes it has not changed on my computer too and I just verified that it is not working from Internet explorer and firefox on different machines. So there seems to be something wrong with the wikipedia counter.--Rafaelgarcia 20:03, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

GNOME in Latin[recensere | fontem recensere]

There has been some more discussion on this subject: http://live.gnome.org/Latin has links to the mailing list posts. I hope there will be a team set up within the week. Marnanel 04:59, 13 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm quite swamped right now, I look forward to helping out.--Rafaelgarcia 21:12, 13 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

De Pronuntiatione Latina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola! Acabo de terminar de leer Vox Latina que aparece como la única fuente para ese artículo, pero el problema es que en el artículo hay algunas declaraciones sobre las cuales no hay ninguna referencia en este libro. Son las siguientes:

  • "f: utrum [f] an [ɸ] pronuntiaretur, incertum est." --> En el libro expone claramente su pronunciación labiodental, sin ninguna duda.
  • (sobre la L):
    • "post consonantem initialem fortasse sonum palatalem:
      • flāvus = ['fljaːwʊs], plēnus = ['pljeːnʊs]." --> Tampoco hay ni una referencia que diga eso, la palatalización de la L posconsonántica debe ser ya una evolución romance por la influencia de otras lenguas que hablaron previamente en las regiones conquistadas por los romanos.
  • "s semper sine voce est, fortasse palatalizanda:" --> Lo que viene en el libro es solamente que tenía un sonido alveolar fricativo sordo. No habla de ninguna palatalización.

Entonces mi sugerencia es o quitarle esas explicaciones dudosas al artículo o agregar más fuentes que traen esas hipótesis. Muchas gracias, --El Mexicano 12:47, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Es bueno que lo investigaste. Yo mismo, como bien sabes, no fui auctor de esa pagina. Quizas estas dudas debes poner en la pagina de discusion alla, porque asi los auctores podrian commentar de eso. Vale.--Rafaelgarcia

Vale, lo agregué en su página de discusión. Gracias, --El Mexicano 16:38, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)


Pagina "EVOLUTIO HOMINIS"[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve Rafaelgarcia! Video te saepe adfuisse in huius paginae scripturam, ergo te consulo si quid facere possis propter discrepantiam quae notatur inter data quae leguntur in descriptione et data quae leguntur in tabula: sunt decies centena milia et ultra differentiae numeri annorum inter eas. Gratias et vale,Lio 23:21, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Salve Lio, verum dicis. Ante 3 000 000 annorum, H.sapiens nondum existebat, sed commentatio dicit eum tunc migrare ad Americam! Tabula mihi videtur rectam esse, et descriptionem corporis texti corrigendam. Vale,--Rafaelgarcia 13:42, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Pronuntiatio Hispanica[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola Rafael, podrías por favor corregir los casos también en las notas? Es que no estoy seguro de cuándo usar el ablativo y cuándo el acusativo después de las preposiciones. Gracias. --El Mexicano 11:32, 7 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Esta correcto como usaste los casos despues de las perposiciones en las notas. Trate de mejorar la traduccion del "Exemplum pronuntiatum". Quizas uno de los otros tratara tambien. Bien echa esa pagina, Mexicano!--Rafaelgarcia 14:32, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Gracias! Ceylon también me ayudó un poquito en la redacción. La frase de ejemplo es el primer artículo de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, lo saqué de esta página: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/latin2.htm. Sé que en español es esta la traducción oficial, pero no sé si tiene una en latín. Si tiene una traducción oficial en latín, quizás sería mejor dejar la original, no? Voy a investigar esto. Saludos, --El Mexicano 15:04, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Tiene incluso dos traducciones oficiales que salen en la página oficial de la ONU:
  1. http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/ltn.htm
  2. http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/ltn1.htm
La segunda versión es más complicada. --El Mexicano 15:10, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Pregunta sobre géneros en latín[recensere | fontem recensere]

En español al referirse a un grupo mixto de personas o cosas en cuanto al género (p. ej., hombres y mujeres) se usa el género masculino como género común (p. ej., "los chicos y las chicas son guapos"). Pero cuál es la regla en latín en este caso? Vale lo mismo? --El Mexicano 13:08, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Es igual como en el español, cuando se refiere a ellos collectivamente (pensando de ellos como un grupo unido). "Illi sunt speciosi." o "Pueri et puellae sunt speciosi." Pero tan frecuentemente o quizás más frecuentemente el ajectivo congrue solo con el género de la última palabra. "Pueri puellaeque sunt speciosae" o tambien "Puellae et pueri sunt speciosi"--Rafaelgarcia 13:58, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Maximas gratias. --El Mexicano 14:37, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

SEAT[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hola Rafael. He agregado un texto más largo al artículo Pronuntiatus Hispanicus en la parte "Exempla pronuntiata" sobre SEAT e intenté traducirlo al latín. Podrías revisármelo y corregirme los errores? Gracias de antemano. --El Mexicano 16:48, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Gratias!![recensere | fontem recensere]

Muchas gracias por las correcciones y tus ampliaciones en el artículo.

Pronuntiatus Hispanicus hodie aliquanto discrepat inter varias regiones orbi terraram ubi lingua Hispanica loquuntur. Verumtamen, ubique origo in linguae Latinae pronuntiatu patet, et non multo, exempli gratia, discrepat a pronuntiatu Italiano.

Si entiendo bien, eso significa:

La pronunciación del español hoy es algo distinto entre las varias regiones de la tierra donde se habla la lengua española. Aunque, el origen de todo está en la lengua latina, y no difiere mucho, por ejemplo, de la pronunciación italiana.

Un cordial saludo y gracias otra vez por estarme ayudando. --El Mexicano 19:01, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

La primera oración la entendiste bien. La segunda oración dice (or por lo menos yo quería decir): Como así sea, por todos los lados su origen en la lengua latina se muestra abiertamente, y no difiere mucho, por ejemplo, de la pronunciación italiana.--Rafaelgarcia 19:12, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

O sea, querías decir: "Siendo así, su origen desde todos los aspectos se muestra claramente en la lengua latina". --El Mexicano 19:21, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

"Siendo asi" traduce bien "verumtamen" en este instante, pero generalmente indica un contraste adema's. La palabra "ubique" significa "por todos los lados" en un sentido completamente físico. Aquí "ubique" la use' porque responde a la idea en la oración previa donde se dijo que "es algo distinto entre las varias regiones de la tierra". Para traducir "desde todos los aspectos", en vez de "ubique" se escribiera "undique".--Rafaelgarcia 19:44, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Tienes razón, se puede decir así. Aunque si quisieramos ser más precisos, la pronunciación de la LL e Y en Argentina y Uruguay ya no viene directamente del latín, sino se dice que es por la influencia del italiano (porque en Argentina viven muchos inmigrantes italianos). De todos modos, me gusta tu frase. Ya podemos decir que el artículo está completo. :) --El Mexicano 19:50, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

LOQUOR ANGLICE?[recensere | fontem recensere]

I am just beginning to learn LATINA, and I have a translator, but from now on, POSSEMUS LOQUERI ANGLICE? -BlueCaper (talk) 14:28, 28 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above and by reading out disputatio pages, its ok to communicate in any given language in the disputatio pages. So feel free. BTW it's "learn lingua latina" or "learn latin"; "learn latina" is wierd. --Rafaelgarcia 02:43, 1 Decembris 2008 (UTC)