Vicipaedia:Taberna

E Vicipaedia
(Redirectum de VP:T)
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Compendium:
VP:T
Hic colloqui possumus.


Nuntius acerbus ex Finnia adlatus[fontem recensere]

Decretum est de emittendis Nuntiis Latinis desistere (https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2017/11/23/yles-nuntii-latini-to-be-broadcast-for-the-last-time-in-late-december). Quod probrum claudis debilibusque argumentis fultum Radiophoniae Finnicae Generali dedecori et flagitio est. Quid facere poterimus hoc in loco confragoso? Equidem suaserim quam plurimos nostrum ad productorem exsecutivum (cuius inscriptionem in nuntio citato invenies) litteras electronicas mittere, ne funera silentiosa fiant. Nam constat Finnorum permagni interesse, quo animo ab alienigenis iudicentur. Etiam petitio continuandorum Nuntiorum Latinorum facta est (sed Finnice) (https://www.adressit.com/ylen_latinankielisen_viikkokatsauksen_nuntii_latini_on_jatkuttava), quae vesperascente die iam 801 subscriptores ex omni orbe terrarum habet. Neander (disputatio) 22:24, 27 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Plus 3300 petitionibus, ne deleantur Nuntii Latini, undique ex orbe terrarum factis Radiophonia Generalis Finnica prorogationem unius saltem anni concessit. Neander (disputatio) 05:56, 30 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Nexus ad Radiophoniae Finnicae situm cum nuntio permissūs: Finis transmissioni Latinae imminebat. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 13:02, 30 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

"Dinosaurium exstinctiones": forma?[fontem recensere]

Nonne forma "dinosauriorum" (potius quam dinosaurium") usurpari debet? Pernimius (disputatio) 19:56, 1 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Bona quaestio! De declinatione huius nominis (aliorumque nominum superordinum Linnaeanorum) incertus sum. Apud Dinosauria genetivum -iorum proponimus, sed quo fonte? Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 2 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
A vocabulo graeco σαῦρος (lizard) tractum est latinum saurus: hapax legomenon ut videtur in fragmento quodam Laevii poetae, ubi forma sauri legitur. Ergo declinandum esse puto sicut substantiva classis -us,-i (e. g. equus): dinosaurus, i. Sed zoologicae terminologiae ego quidem ignarus sum. --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:58, 4 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Recte dicis, mi Bavarese, sed hic non de nomine seu generico seu communi "dinosaurus" quaeritur, sed de nomine a biologis rite constituto superordinis "Dinosauria". Verbum neutrum plurale est aut declinationis secundae (-iorum) aut tertiae (-ium)! Fontes paucos ambiguosque apud Google reperio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:31, 4 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Si zoologia exemplar botanicum sequitur, nomina nonnullorum ordinum et subordinum et cladorum erunt adiectiva declinationis tertiae ad nomen animalia (contra plantas) adhibita. Ergo, Reptilia = animalia reptilia (Anglice 'crawling animals') et fortasse Dinosauria = animalia dinosauria ('fearful-lizardlike animals'). Ergo, genetivus pluralis erit [animalium] dinosaurium. Sed res anceps est, manifeste enormis et inaequalis, formamque singularem nescio: unum dinosaure? Absurdum videtur, ut unum dinosaurum sit, et verum quidem nomen unus dinosaurus ubique fit. Male accidit quod explicationem nostrae quaestionis hic ut videtur non invenimus: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:31, 4 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Bene et recte! In arva philosophiae linguarum advenimus. Nam nomine generali (ut dinosauria), excogitato vel, ut supra ab Andrea nostro dictum est, 'a biologis rite constituto' semper omnia talia, numquam autem unum et singulum exprimere possumus; nam ad nihil aliud inventum est. Itaque, si nomen uniuscuiusque singuli investigamus, id non de nomine generali deduci poterit. Num quisnam est, qui alio nomine ac - e. g. - tyrannosaurus rex utatur? --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:55, 4 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Latinitas dubia (Ovum Columbinum)[fontem recensere]

Salvete, o sodales! Gratiam vobis dicam, si certiorem me feceritis de hac re: In pagina Ovum Columbinum scripsi fieri non potuisse, quin quis Americam demum inventurus esset. Post dubitans mutavi in fieri non potuisse, quin quisquam Americam demum inventurus esset. Agitur de pronominibus: Quid hoc loco aptius vel vere Latinum est: quin (ali)quis aut quin quisquam? --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:50, 2 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Iurium? Iurum?[fontem recensere]

Vicipaediae sunt 463 exempla genetivi pluralis iurum et 18 iurium, sed apud L&S legimus verbum ius in pluralibus genetivi, dativi, ablativi formis non inventum esse. Ambae autem formae in interrete inveniuntur, exempli gratia iurium et iurum. Quid facere debemus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:28, 10 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Gen pl. iurum apud Plautum (Epidicus 523) lego: prae illo, qui omnium / legum atque iurum fictor. --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:39, 10 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
"Iuribus" saepe in fontibus Latinis recentioribus reperimus. Tempore nostro multi systematibus iuridicis binis vel pluribus student (canonico + civili, Anglico + Romano, etc.). An propter hanc rationem opus est apud recentiores declinationum pluralium, Romanis antiquis (Plauto excepto) inutilium? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 11 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

capitulatio[fontem recensere]

Spero me vobis non molestum esse iterum atque iterum de pura latinitate aliquid rogans. (Responsis doctior factus respondentibus gaudens gratias ago.) In nonnullis paginis lego vocabulum capitulatio eo sensu adhibitum ut in lingua latina cassica deditio. Sed nullum vocabulum latinum tractum de caput vel capitulum ullam praebet similitudinem cum ea re, quae nomine deditionis significatur. Estne capitulatio (sc. deditionem significans) vox vere latina? --Bavarese (disputatio) 20:36, 18 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Probe dicis, amice! Traupman Americanis dicit Anglicum capitulation esse Latinum deditio. Cassell's verbo capitulation caret, sed Britannos (et quidem omnes angloloquentes!) monet capitulate significare surrender, quod vicissim dicit esse dedere, tradere, (con)cedere. Ainsworth (saeculo 18) dicit a capitulation (quod nisi fallor significat 'instrumentum deditionis') esse pactio de urbe, vel arce, dedendâ. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:53, 19 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Medio aevo apud latine scribentes capitulatio fuit compositio praescriptorum divisa in singula capitula. (Cf. Capitulatio de partibus Saxonum MGH Capit. 1 (1883) pagg. 68-70). --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:11, 19 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Ergo si "capitulare, capitulatio" sensu "dedere, deditio" apud nos legis, Anglicismum esse videtur et emendare oportet. Hic sensus Anglice apud scriptores saeculi fere XVII ortus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 19 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
An obsequium fortasse idoneum esset? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:10, 19 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

instrumenta translationis[fontem recensere]

Did you know we do not have an article corresponding to en:North yet? Si vis, lege Seven translation tools you can use to work in multiple languages across Wikimedia projects. --UV (disputatio) 23:22, 20 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention (ut videtur) en:Albert, Prince Consort. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:05, 14 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

To want[fontem recensere]

Hello folks. As you know already, there are still a lot of Latin words left that we don't understand well, as modern humans have lost the touch of Latin. Translating Latin to you own mother tongue can also sometimes be confusing or lacking. However, I would like to know how you say "to want" in Latin. My mother tongue Swedish uses unfortunately 2 verbs together for this understanding; vilja ha (lit. to will to have), or in present tense vill ha (lit. will to have), or with e.g. I jag vill ha (lit. I will to have). "To want" is after all one single understanding, though it can be tricky to see that in other languages, such as Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, etc. As advanced and detailed as Latin is, shouldn't there be "to want"? Please help. Donatello (disputatio) 00:21, 23 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

The usual equivalent of English "to want" is volo, velle, volui. In other cases opto, cupio, or desidero might work. Is there a specific context you're thinking of? Lesgles (disputatio) 02:09, 23 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget egere, and even carere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:06, 23 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Please check out glosbe.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:07, 23 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Donatello, I'm not sure that I understand your problem. A couple of sentences (Swedish or English) that you're uncertain how to translate might help. Neander (disputatio) 14:52, 23 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, I wonder if the verb siderare, which I can't find anything about, means "to want". This verb can also be found in e.g. de-siderare and con-siderare, which you know already. So, in a sentence: if you say e.g. "I want bread", wouldn't it become exactly panis sidero? Donatello (disputatio) 23:14, 25 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
In the supposed panis sidero, even if siderare is a verb (and it's not found in Ainsworth's and L&S and White's and Cassell's and Traupman), panis is in the wrong case. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:16, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
I agree with others that the verb "sidero" doesn't really exist, which would be why you can't find out anything about it! "Desidero" and "considero" derive from the noun "sidus" (constellation or star). But I also agree with others that we need to know the context of your question, otherwise we can't do much more than quote dictionaries, which you can consult anyway.
It's very nice to know you're still in contact, Donatello! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Yes, I did suspect that siderare might not exist. Donatello (disputatio) 13:50, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Iam existit, ut exemplum vel alio modo. Semper dicere possumus: ...verbum 'siderare', quod Donatello anno 2018 quaerebat... etc. Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 15:59, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Well, siderari and sideratio refer to a disease (ἀστροβολία) produced by a sidus 'constellation', but from this, it's not too easy to understand the meanings of desiderare or considerare. A modest proposal for the etymology of these verbs was made by the present author long ago in Historische Sprachforschung 103 [1990] 51-68. The basic idea was to compare the -sid(er)- element with Greek ἰθύ- and Sanskrit sidh(yati), connecting considerare with 'hit(ting the target)' and desiderare wih 'miss(ing the mark)', respectively. Thus, desiderare would have signified 'to miss something' and then 'to desire sthing'. Neander (disputatio) 19:26, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Nexum addo: Hits and Misses: Lat. considerare and desiderare Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 20:43, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago, Neander. Verbum siderari non repperi; de etymologia a te proposita verborum con- et desiderare nihil scivi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 27 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

De rebus physicis asteroidum[fontem recensere]

In capsis asteroidum in Vicipaedia Latina saepe modi physici desunt (cf. e.g. 34 Circe). In Wikipedia Anglica autem hi modi inveniri possunt. Secundum sententiam in fonte: "Please don't try to edit them directly." non oportet haec data inserire. Cur? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:16, 25 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, fortasse error fuit? Exempli gratia, modo diametrum in 34 Circe secundum res iam datas inserui. Puto automaton haec corrigere posse. Solutio mundior, quae autem aliquantum laboris postulat, est formulam in capsam Formula:Capsa civitatis Vicidata similem convertere. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:38, 25 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

Stipula artis athletica?[fontem recensere]

Artium athleticarum creationem stipulae propriae, per exemplum {athletica-stipula}, propono. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 14:15, 3 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Formulam {{ludus-stipula}} in aliquibus paginis de artibus athleticis video; visne ludos athleticos ab aliis ludis separare? Hoc facile est factu. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:15, 3 Martii 2018 (UTC)
Gratias, A. Mahoney! Non animadverti. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:36, 3 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Galicia 15 - 15 Challenge[fontem recensere]

Mapa de Galiza con bandeira.svg

Wikipedia:Galicia 15 - 15 Challenge is a public writing competition which will improve improve and translate this list of 15 really important articles into as many languages as possible. Everybody can help in any language to collaborate on writing and/or translating articles related to Galicia. To participate you just need to sign up here. Thank you very much.--Breogan2008 (disputatio) 14:17, 12 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Roman graffiti[fontem recensere]

Salvete! I've tripped in a pretty big hole in the EN Wikipedia, and I'm sure some of you could help fill it. That is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti the page on Roman graffiti. There's really not much there. You can read plenty about the extant roman literature and all that on WP, but the graf--one of the few sources we have for ordinary Romans who weren't wearing purple etc--it's pretty light.

I'd happily add more if I knew more, and I'll this moment try to do some research, but meanwhile I thought this'd be a good place to bring it up.

Et salvete allem, es gibt kein Artikel "Roemische Graffiti" in DE! Ihre Hilfe, bitte, wir brauchen's...

2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 03:50, 24 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Apostles of Ireland[fontem recensere]

Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge.png

Salvete, amici! The Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge is an edition competition seeking to create and improve articles on the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. Anyone in any language can subscribe and collaborate on building or translating articles relating to the Twelve Apostles. Medals and real icons will be rewarded to the winners. To participate, one just needs to subscribe here and start collaborating. Dia Duit! Leefeni de Karik (disputatio) 19:32, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Details of translation in EN wikipedia: Historia Augusta & Ars Amatoria[fontem recensere]

Hello, I'm wondering about a bit in the English Wikipedia entry for Augustan History. Quote:

"In fact... the History itself accuses Marius Maximus of being a producer of 'mythical history:' 'homo omnium verbosissimus, qui et mythistoricis se voluminibis implicavit (the most long-winded of men, who furthermore wrapped himself up in volumes of historical fiction'). The term mythistoricis occurs nowhere else in Latin {67}."

I'm sure I read here on the Taberna a discussion on the meaning of mythistoria that contradicted all this. But my Latin wasn't and isn't good enough to benefit from that discussion.

And another entry for Ars Amatoria: there's an entertainingly unencyclopedic 'content' section, and the 'reception' bit I found very helpful, but again a question of translation:

"Somewhat atypically for a Roman, the poet confesses, 'Odi concubitus, qui non utrumque resolvunt. Hoc est, cur pueri tangar amore minus' ('I abhor intercourse that does not relieve both. This is why I am not aroused by the love of young boys.')

I wonder if you'd agree this translation could use a little work.

Gratias 2601:1C1:8100:900:214B:B199:AB55:4832 16:36, 8 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

I'll offer a reply. I'm sure you'll hear from others too.
"Mythistoria" and the adjective "mythistoricus" appear once each in imperial Latin literature, but both occurrences are in this same text Historia Augusta (Macrinus 1; Firmus Saturninus 1). We use it here at Vicipaedia simply to mean fiction (fictional narrative, novel), and certainly we did discuss this, but a long time ago. Someone else may be able to find the discussion. It's richly ironic for the writer of Historia Augusta to attribute verbosity and the blending of fiction with history to another author.
As to verbosity, the author's contrast of Suetonius with Marius Maximus could be fair, for all I know: Suetonius is very concise. As to "mythistoricis se voluminibis implicavit", the words are verbose and unclear (to me): did Marius Maximus read these volumes or write them? Was the history in them mixed with pure invention, or with popular legend, or with myth? Is the contrast with Suetonius being carried on, or not? If it is, well, Suetonius wrapped himself up in books if any man ever did, but not in any kind of fiction. I wouldn't blame the translator you cite for falling back on a literal translation in quotes: it's hard to do better. "Romanticized/fictionalized history" is the best I could suggest to get the meaning of this passage. The other passage (Macrinus 1) is a similar attack on a predecessor, but this time, it is generally said, one who didn't really exist. I have Anthony Birley's translation of this passage (Penguin, 1976), and he again has 'mythical history' in quotes.
For the Ovid passage Peter Green's translation (Penguin, 1982) is "I hate it unless both lovers reach a climax. That's why I don't go much for boys." He in this translation aims at concision: he doesn't translate "concubitus" or "amore" but still gets the meaning across. The difference that stands out is "relieve" in the Wikipedia translation you quote versus "climax" in Green: "relieve" is very close to what Ovid says but might not be understood by all readers; whereas "climax" is clear, and is exactly what Ovid implies, but not exactly what he says. Translation's hard, isn't it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:27, 8 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
For comparison, here are some more translations from the Loeb Classical Library. For the Historia Augusta, Jeffrey Henderson (1932): "But what of Marius Maximus, the wordiest man of all, who involved himself in pseudo-historical works?" and David Magie (1924): "By searching out all this sort of thing and recording it, he filled his books with gossip" (the emphases are mine). For Ovid, J. H. Mosley (1929): "I hate embraces which leave not each outworn; that is why a boy’s love appeals to me but little." This last translation seems overly obscure. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:01, 9 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
(1) In the lines from Ars amatoria, why is the English wiki using German commas to the left of qui and cur? (2) In the Latin words glossed as 'This is why I am not aroused by the love of young boys', Ovid does not say he's not thus aroused (he speaks of being less affected by it), and the boys are not young, and there's only one of them. A "literal" gloss of that line might be useful: 'This is why I'd be less touched by a boy's love'. (This tangar is either future indicative or present subjunctive, so it may be conveying something other than a simple fact, and the conditionality of 'I'd' may accommodate that effect.) This 'touched' may not be all that bad as it stands ('to touch', after all, is the basic sense of tangere), but if you want to venture out to the semantic suburbs, you can get to 'taken, carried off, struck, hit, affected, moved, impressed, aroused'. (3) Do any of the cited translations match Ovid's style? The plain speaking of 'climax' and 'aroused' might be smudging the cleverness of the Latin, but let's leave that question for those familiar with the context to judge. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:10, 9 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)